I've thought it over. Red Tory is entirely justified in demanding that Lib4evr be dumped from Liblogs. The only thing remotely liberal in that blog is the first three letters of its title. This character has gone well over the line in comments about RT he allowed to be posted to his blog.
So, if Red's out, I'm out too. And I would urge others to take a stand against this sort of nonsense too.
This is my last post until Lib4evr is gone. Bye.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Dick Sighting
It never pays to get complacent when you've heard nothing about Dick Cheney for a while. The man, who is perhaps the least popular politician to Americans since the Nuremberg trials, still draws breath - sort of.
While Bush spends the last weekend before the US election cloistered away at Camp David, Cheney is planning to attend a "get out the vote" rally in Wyoming where McCain holds a 20-point lead. On election day itself, Cheney will be out shooting something - or someone - to death.
No word yet on whether the Dickster has agreed to hand over his book of spells to the Sorcerer's Apprentice should McCain carry her to veepdom on Tuesday.
While Bush spends the last weekend before the US election cloistered away at Camp David, Cheney is planning to attend a "get out the vote" rally in Wyoming where McCain holds a 20-point lead. On election day itself, Cheney will be out shooting something - or someone - to death.
No word yet on whether the Dickster has agreed to hand over his book of spells to the Sorcerer's Apprentice should McCain carry her to veepdom on Tuesday.
Don't Tell Sarah - Man Is Melting the Arctic
This should hardly come as a surprise to anyone but the fundamentalism-blinded governor of America's only Arctic state. A new study by climate scientists has concluded that man-made production of greenhouse gases is definitively linked to warming in the Arctic and Antartic regions. From the Toronto Star:
"Nathan Gillett, who co-wrote the study appearing Thursday in the online journal Nature Geoscience, said they compared four different models using man-made versus naturally occurring factors on temperatures.
"Their stark discovery was that only with the influence of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, could they simulate the warming trend in parts of the remote regions.
"It makes clear that the warming that we're seeing definitely can be linked to human influence in the Arctic and the Antarctic," said Nathan Gillett of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at Environment Canada in Victoria.
"We could only explain the warming when we included greenhouse gases and human climate influences."
The carbon lobby immediately countered with - nothing, just as they have for year after year. With supporters as wilfully naive as theirs, the denialists' persistent lack of any credible, peer reviewed research to counter the almost-daily, entirely legitimate research proving global warming isn't embarrassing in the slightest. If should be, but it's not.
"Nathan Gillett, who co-wrote the study appearing Thursday in the online journal Nature Geoscience, said they compared four different models using man-made versus naturally occurring factors on temperatures.
"Their stark discovery was that only with the influence of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, could they simulate the warming trend in parts of the remote regions.
"It makes clear that the warming that we're seeing definitely can be linked to human influence in the Arctic and the Antarctic," said Nathan Gillett of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at Environment Canada in Victoria.
"We could only explain the warming when we included greenhouse gases and human climate influences."
The carbon lobby immediately countered with - nothing, just as they have for year after year. With supporters as wilfully naive as theirs, the denialists' persistent lack of any credible, peer reviewed research to counter the almost-daily, entirely legitimate research proving global warming isn't embarrassing in the slightest. If should be, but it's not.
"A Vile Smear" - Senator J.S. McCain - the Angry Nut In the Shell
It's too bad it only reaches people who read, but the Washington Post has roundly denounced John "Lowball" McCain's latest attempt to smear Barack Obama over his acquaintance with Rashid Khalidi.
Although Khalidi is a native born American, graduate of Yale and long time professor at the University of Chicago, McCain and his wretched sidekick, are using the incredible power of the bigotry of their supporters to allege that, once again, Obama has been caught palling around with terrorists. Of course it's a lie, of course they know it, and, of course, it works with the two-legged malignancies who crave this garbage.
"We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.
"Perhaps unsurprising for a member of academia, Mr. Khalidi holds complex views. In an article published this year in the Nation magazine, he scathingly denounced Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and U.S. Middle East policy but also condemned Palestinians for failing to embrace a nonviolent strategy. He said that the two-state solution favored by the Bush administration (and Mr. Obama) was "deeply flawed" but conceded there were also "flaws in the alternatives." Listening to Mr. Khalidi can be challenging -- as Mr. Obama put it in the dinner toast recorded on the 2003 tape and reported by the Times in a detailed account of the event last April, he "offers constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable -- especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults.
"...We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks."
It's sad really. John McCain, a man whose stock in trade for decades has been his supposed nobility, chucking it all away to wallow in slime.
Although Khalidi is a native born American, graduate of Yale and long time professor at the University of Chicago, McCain and his wretched sidekick, are using the incredible power of the bigotry of their supporters to allege that, once again, Obama has been caught palling around with terrorists. Of course it's a lie, of course they know it, and, of course, it works with the two-legged malignancies who crave this garbage.
"We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.
"Perhaps unsurprising for a member of academia, Mr. Khalidi holds complex views. In an article published this year in the Nation magazine, he scathingly denounced Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and U.S. Middle East policy but also condemned Palestinians for failing to embrace a nonviolent strategy. He said that the two-state solution favored by the Bush administration (and Mr. Obama) was "deeply flawed" but conceded there were also "flaws in the alternatives." Listening to Mr. Khalidi can be challenging -- as Mr. Obama put it in the dinner toast recorded on the 2003 tape and reported by the Times in a detailed account of the event last April, he "offers constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."
"Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable -- especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults.
"...We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks."
It's sad really. John McCain, a man whose stock in trade for decades has been his supposed nobility, chucking it all away to wallow in slime.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Could You Really Vote For a Black Man?
Do you want to find out?
Here's a link to some tests that may show just how likely or unlikely you would be to vote for a guy who looks like Barack Obama.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo
Here's a link to some tests that may show just how likely or unlikely you would be to vote for a guy who looks like Barack Obama.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo
The Alaskan Anchor Around McCain's Neck
John McCain's blunder, also known as his veep running mate, Sarah Palin, is dragging the Old Geezer down, quite possibly permanently. The Alaska governor hasn't travelled well (as the wine folk say) and the more Americans have come to know her the less they see to like.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found 59% of respondents now consider Sarah Palin unfit to serve as vice-president. That's not good news with the election just six days away.
"In a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said that they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people to serve in his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.
"The survey suggested that the historic candidacy of Mr. Obama, who would be the first African-American president if elected, has changed some perceptions of race in America. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said that white and black people have an equal chance of getting ahead in today’s society, up from the half who said that they thought so in July. And while 14 percent still said that most people they know would not vote for a black presidential candidate, a question pollsters often ask to try to gauge bias, the number has dropped considerably since the campaign began. "
You know, he might just smash his way through the racist vote and actually win this thing.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found 59% of respondents now consider Sarah Palin unfit to serve as vice-president. That's not good news with the election just six days away.
"In a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said that they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people to serve in his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.
"The survey suggested that the historic candidacy of Mr. Obama, who would be the first African-American president if elected, has changed some perceptions of race in America. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said that white and black people have an equal chance of getting ahead in today’s society, up from the half who said that they thought so in July. And while 14 percent still said that most people they know would not vote for a black presidential candidate, a question pollsters often ask to try to gauge bias, the number has dropped considerably since the campaign began. "
You know, he might just smash his way through the racist vote and actually win this thing.
And Thank You for That, Paul Martin
A survey by TD Securities claims to have found that Canada is considered the most solvent country in the world. Pretty cool, eh? From The Globe & Mail:
Chief strategist Eric Lascelles examined credit default swap data for 25 countries, and found markets believe there is only the slimmest of chances that Canada would ever default on its obligations.
“Canada is now regarded as quite possibly the world's safest sovereign country in terms of the solvency of the country's government,” Mr. Lascelles said in a research note.
“Since it is the government that is generally called upon to fix major problems that crop up, this suggests that the market does not expect major problems out of the broader Canadian economy and financial sector.”
Sovereign credit default swaps are the market's way of putting a number on the chances of a government defaulting on its debt. Canada's five-year CDS levels are at 13 basis points, which is less than half the rating given to second-place Germany, at 33 points. The United States is at 38 points, while Spain is at 93 and Korea is at 561.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081030.wswaps1030/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
And to think all of us, even Stephen Harper, owe it all to Mr. Dithers, Paul Martin.
Chief strategist Eric Lascelles examined credit default swap data for 25 countries, and found markets believe there is only the slimmest of chances that Canada would ever default on its obligations.
“Canada is now regarded as quite possibly the world's safest sovereign country in terms of the solvency of the country's government,” Mr. Lascelles said in a research note.
“Since it is the government that is generally called upon to fix major problems that crop up, this suggests that the market does not expect major problems out of the broader Canadian economy and financial sector.”
Sovereign credit default swaps are the market's way of putting a number on the chances of a government defaulting on its debt. Canada's five-year CDS levels are at 13 basis points, which is less than half the rating given to second-place Germany, at 33 points. The United States is at 38 points, while Spain is at 93 and Korea is at 561.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081030.wswaps1030/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
And to think all of us, even Stephen Harper, owe it all to Mr. Dithers, Paul Martin.
What Are They Smoking at the Toronto Star?
That was my initial reaction when I read Murray Brewster's piece on Afghanistan, "Taliban Jack" No Longer Alone.
After effusively praising Jack Layton for introducing the entire planet to the idea of negotiating with the Taliban even though both the Brits and Karzai were parlaying with the insurgency before Jack ever breathed a word of it, Brewster went on to make some remarkable claims about the mission.
He talked about a "battlefield strategy" that is "part of an evolving counter-insurgency doctrine" by Western military leaders in Afghanistan. Strategy? That's rich. And it's heartwarming to realize that we actually have a "counter-insurgency doctrine" where none has been evident before. Is everyone rushing off for talks with the Taliban a counter-insurgency doctrine? Well, there's nothing else so I guess, to Mr. Brewster, that must be it.
The scary thing is what if Brewster's right? What if this is our battlefield strategy, our counter-insurgency doctrine? Oh dear.
After effusively praising Jack Layton for introducing the entire planet to the idea of negotiating with the Taliban even though both the Brits and Karzai were parlaying with the insurgency before Jack ever breathed a word of it, Brewster went on to make some remarkable claims about the mission.
He talked about a "battlefield strategy" that is "part of an evolving counter-insurgency doctrine" by Western military leaders in Afghanistan. Strategy? That's rich. And it's heartwarming to realize that we actually have a "counter-insurgency doctrine" where none has been evident before. Is everyone rushing off for talks with the Taliban a counter-insurgency doctrine? Well, there's nothing else so I guess, to Mr. Brewster, that must be it.
The scary thing is what if Brewster's right? What if this is our battlefield strategy, our counter-insurgency doctrine? Oh dear.
George Will Drops a Stinker in McCain's Lap
Conservative columnist George Will doesn't think much of John McCain but the contempt in which he holds his fellow Republican may have hit a new peak:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html
And If He Doesn't Win?
If Barack Obama doesn't win next Tuesday, I'll be okay with that. I'll take it for what it is and, to me, that's at least another eight to twelve years in darkness. America and the world will have a president who's lost his marbles and a veep who was never very heavy on that score to begin with.
We, as in all of us, haven't got an awful lot of time left to see some traction on the really pressing issues of the day and you can be damned sure that the "drill, baby, drill" camp isn't going to make anything happen. Whatever cojones McCain had going into this campaign are now neatly preserved in the same jar as the cojones of the pre-Palin mayor of Wassila and the pre-Palin governor of Alaska, both of whom learned the hard way the lesson about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
We, as in all of us, haven't got an awful lot of time left to see some traction on the really pressing issues of the day and you can be damned sure that the "drill, baby, drill" camp isn't going to make anything happen. Whatever cojones McCain had going into this campaign are now neatly preserved in the same jar as the cojones of the pre-Palin mayor of Wassila and the pre-Palin governor of Alaska, both of whom learned the hard way the lesson about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
I believe that our planet absolutely needs progressive leadership in Washington of a very high order. We, the world, need America fully engaged in the pressing issues of the day, all of them, not one here and one there. We face critical security issues. We face critical environmental issues, a lot of them and not limited to just global warming. We face critical energy issues. We face critical population issues and critical food supply issues. We face critical economic and social issues.
We face such an array of issues, all of them critical, all demanding effective response, that it would make any leader's head spin if they were tackled individually. But they're all to some degree, often to a remarkably large degree, interrelated and in that may just lie the answer.
Precisely because there's so much overlap, such a degree of commonality and interrelation in these problems, it may be possible to define a set of core principles to guide the resolution of each in a manner that is coherent, complimentary and even synergistic to all the others. In other words, if we have a solution to problem "A", the answer to problem "B" may be sufficiently similar in principle as to be mutually reinforcing with the "A" answer. The operative word there is, of course, "principle."
One of the main reasons we've landed ourselves in this mess is our reluctance during the "greed is good" era to accept principles of broad, even mass application to guide us not just for a year or two but for decades, generations even. That's precisely how we now find ourselves beset on all sides by generational problems, challenges for which effective responses will have to be generational in scope.
Let me explain. In much of the world we've fished out the oceans. We have so overfished as to bring stocks to exhaustion, in some cases to the verge of extinction. It's a problem of enormous proportions that impacts adversely on other problems we're facing and it admits of just two responses. One option is to do nothing which will pretty much complete the devastation now so far advanced. The other option is to enact policies to sharply limit our predation of endangered stocks and permit their recovery. That just doesn't happen in a few years or even in a decade. It's a generational challenge that's chock full of problems and pitfalls that will have to be overcome.
We need policies that acknowledge the problem and identify the resolution, the objective to be achieved. From that can flow a series of principles that will, for generations, shape policy and the inevitable changes in policy that occur over time. Principles that encompass both adaptive and remedial measures.
We might prefer a steak or chicken, but large swathes of the world are utterly dependent on fish as their source of protein. Unless you want them camping in your backyard, you have to recognize their needs, their reality and make it part of your own. We have to find ways to get more fish to these people and there's a lot we can do right now. We can stop enormously destructive bottom trawls. We can begin to tackle the by-catch problem. It's no longer acceptable to rely on fishery techniques that waste a ton of fish in order to catch a hundred pounds of an allowable species.
Look at the arms races underway right now - in China, in India, Russia and America. Do we really think that China and India can't find a better use for the resources they're pouring into new submarines, aircraft carriers, combat aircraft, nuclear weaponry and missiles? Do we really think that advancing our interests by setting countries up as strategic, military rivals is somehow going to enhance our ability to get the essential cooperation we need from them on challenges such as overpopulation and global warming? Are we mad? Did we learn nothing from the past half century about the risks, dangers and profligate waste of resources inevitable in arms races and cold wars?
What about Islamist extremism? Is it better to just keep swatting away at something we're not going to defeat or, instead, to find out what's driving moderate Muslims to give the extremists the support without which they cannot function? Why do we support oppressive, undemocratic regimes like Mubarak's in Egypt that drive moderates in frustration into the arms of their only alternative, the Islamists? Are we stupid? Do we not want to solve this problem or at least shrink it where we can? What do we get out of it by not yanking the rug out from beneath the feet of terrorists? Believe it or not, there is an answer to that.
It's pretty clear to me that we have to resuscitate some of the values our great grandparents understood, values that somehow got discarded as quaint and ridiculous. Foremost among them is posterity, shaping the world today for the benefit of generations to follow. We've done an astonishing job at making the future worse, wouldn't it be grand (my long-departed granny's favourite word) if we focused instead on making the future better, of at least undoing some of the damage we've bequeathed to those generations to come?
I sure hope Obama wins on Tuesday and I sure hope that he is the leader that America, and the world, so badly need right now.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama Live on Daily Show Tonight
For those of you who might not have heard, Barack Obama is making a live appearance on The Daily Show tonight. It's going to be a video-link interview.
Good for the Soul - Another Republican Falls to Hate-Based Blowback
The Republicans have been in power in too many places for far too long. It's made them say the most stupid, hateful things and they're starting to pay the price for it.
In keeping with the theme underlying the McCain-Palin campaign, North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes sought to warm up the crowd for a McCain campaign rally with this zinger:
"Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God."
Hayes later denied he'd said any such thing - until the tapes came out. When he shot himself in the foot, the incumbent Republican was five points ahead of his Democratic rival. Oopsie! Hayes Democratic opponent now leads 51-46.
In keeping with the theme underlying the McCain-Palin campaign, North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes sought to warm up the crowd for a McCain campaign rally with this zinger:
"Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God."
Hayes later denied he'd said any such thing - until the tapes came out. When he shot himself in the foot, the incumbent Republican was five points ahead of his Democratic rival. Oopsie! Hayes Democratic opponent now leads 51-46.
The Best Way to Fight Terrorism
Terrorism is a crime. It's not an act of war, it's a crime.
When terrorism is treated as a crime, something to be dealt with by law enforcement working with security services, results happen. The key is sleuthing, not bombing.
Ask Momin Khawaja, the Canadian foreign affairs department computer tech, who's now facing life behind bars after being convicted, in Ottawa, of five terrorism charges. Evidence adduced at his trial showed that Khawaja was an Islamist extremist who joined forces with likeminded villains in England. He agreed to produce 30-bomb detonators for his chums.
It was police work that brought Khawaja down and a criminal justice system that's put him behind bars for what may well be the remainder of his natural life.
It's not often mentioned, but when it comes to thwarting al-Qaeda, the FBI and the CIA have been vastly more successful than the Pentagon.
When terrorism is treated as a crime, something to be dealt with by law enforcement working with security services, results happen. The key is sleuthing, not bombing.
Ask Momin Khawaja, the Canadian foreign affairs department computer tech, who's now facing life behind bars after being convicted, in Ottawa, of five terrorism charges. Evidence adduced at his trial showed that Khawaja was an Islamist extremist who joined forces with likeminded villains in England. He agreed to produce 30-bomb detonators for his chums.
It was police work that brought Khawaja down and a criminal justice system that's put him behind bars for what may well be the remainder of his natural life.
It's not often mentioned, but when it comes to thwarting al-Qaeda, the FBI and the CIA have been vastly more successful than the Pentagon.
Have Your Say
Half a million people can't be wrong. Go here to have your say on next Tuesday's election.
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/
Cannibalizing Earth
Another report today on the state of man's ecological deficit. What's that? It's the rate at which we're depleting our planet's renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. That doesn't sound possible, does it? Well it is.
We have an ecological deficit. It's everywhere. You can see it from space. It comes in the form of deforestation, the rapid loss of our planet's forests. It comes in the form of desertification, the transformation of once arable (farmable) land into desert wasteland. It comes in our rapidly emptying seas where we've exhausted fish stocks. It even comes underground in the ancient freshwater aquifers we've been voraciously draining.
If you've got a cow you rely upon for milk, you're not doing yourself any favours if you begin chewing the flesh off its bones. You're going to kill the cow, aren't you? Once it's dead and you've finished off the meat, you're not going to have meat or milk, are you?
A new report out today, the Living Planet study of just how well we're doing with earth's renewables. Full points if you guessed "not good." The report is the joint effort of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) based in Geneva, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network based in Oakland, Calif. From CBC News:
Demands on natural resources overreach what the Earth can sustain by almost a third, the report says, adding that people are drawing — and often overdrawing — on the agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them, it adds.
"If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles," said James Leape, international director general of the WWF.
Now here's a little something to chew on. It was only a few years ago that we figured we had until 2050 to reach the point of consuming two planets-worth of resources. That's just been moved up by about 15-years.
The report claims that three-quarters of mankind live in countries where consumption is outstripping environmental renewal. Let's see, that'd be just shy of five billion people. And it's not just the poor countries that make the list.
Even the United States is facing a looming freshwater crisis. Normally arid parts of the U.S. have been transformed into agricultural powerhouses thanks to acquifer irrigation - that is pumping groundwater to the surface. Think about places that used to be arid, prairie grassland like Kansas. The problem is they've been pumping ground water at rates up to ten times their acquifers' recharge rates. That means pumping out ten barrels of water for every barrel of rainwater that makes its way back in. Do the math, it's a suckers' bet. And yet they're still filling artificial lakes around Las Vegas casinos. Mind-boggling.
There's the great Colorado River that supplies water to much of the southwest. So important is the Colorado that decades ago the neighbours signed a treaty defining which state got how much. Something like 20% was supposed to be left for the Mexicans. Guess what? The Colorado no longer flows into Mexico and the US states are at each others' throats over what remains.
Madness? Of course it is. Sheer madness and it's a mental infirmity that's rapidly becoming the norm around the world.
We have an ecological deficit. It's everywhere. You can see it from space. It comes in the form of deforestation, the rapid loss of our planet's forests. It comes in the form of desertification, the transformation of once arable (farmable) land into desert wasteland. It comes in our rapidly emptying seas where we've exhausted fish stocks. It even comes underground in the ancient freshwater aquifers we've been voraciously draining.
If you've got a cow you rely upon for milk, you're not doing yourself any favours if you begin chewing the flesh off its bones. You're going to kill the cow, aren't you? Once it's dead and you've finished off the meat, you're not going to have meat or milk, are you?
A new report out today, the Living Planet study of just how well we're doing with earth's renewables. Full points if you guessed "not good." The report is the joint effort of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) based in Geneva, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network based in Oakland, Calif. From CBC News:
Demands on natural resources overreach what the Earth can sustain by almost a third, the report says, adding that people are drawing — and often overdrawing — on the agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them, it adds.
"If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles," said James Leape, international director general of the WWF.
Now here's a little something to chew on. It was only a few years ago that we figured we had until 2050 to reach the point of consuming two planets-worth of resources. That's just been moved up by about 15-years.
The report claims that three-quarters of mankind live in countries where consumption is outstripping environmental renewal. Let's see, that'd be just shy of five billion people. And it's not just the poor countries that make the list.
Even the United States is facing a looming freshwater crisis. Normally arid parts of the U.S. have been transformed into agricultural powerhouses thanks to acquifer irrigation - that is pumping groundwater to the surface. Think about places that used to be arid, prairie grassland like Kansas. The problem is they've been pumping ground water at rates up to ten times their acquifers' recharge rates. That means pumping out ten barrels of water for every barrel of rainwater that makes its way back in. Do the math, it's a suckers' bet. And yet they're still filling artificial lakes around Las Vegas casinos. Mind-boggling.
There's the great Colorado River that supplies water to much of the southwest. So important is the Colorado that decades ago the neighbours signed a treaty defining which state got how much. Something like 20% was supposed to be left for the Mexicans. Guess what? The Colorado no longer flows into Mexico and the US states are at each others' throats over what remains.
Madness? Of course it is. Sheer madness and it's a mental infirmity that's rapidly becoming the norm around the world.
An Idea Whose Time has Come?
Trust the French. They've come up with an idea to vent frustrations over their country's rightwing demagogue, Nick Sarkozy. It's a voodoo doll. From The Guardian:
A Nicolas Sarkozy voodoo doll that became a bestselling cult classic when the president tried to have it banned is to remain on sale after a French court threw out the case today.
A judge ruled that Nicolas Sarkozy: The Voodoo Manual, which features a doll, a set of pins and a book explaining how to put the evil eye on the president, fell within the boundaries of "free expression" and the "right to humour".
With recession staring Canadians in the face there might soon be a lot more of us looking to fill some time. Wouldn't a Stevie doll be just the thing?
A Nicolas Sarkozy voodoo doll that became a bestselling cult classic when the president tried to have it banned is to remain on sale after a French court threw out the case today.
A judge ruled that Nicolas Sarkozy: The Voodoo Manual, which features a doll, a set of pins and a book explaining how to put the evil eye on the president, fell within the boundaries of "free expression" and the "right to humour".
With recession staring Canadians in the face there might soon be a lot more of us looking to fill some time. Wouldn't a Stevie doll be just the thing?
May I Have Your Autograph, Please, Mr. Taliban?
The next thing you know they'll be on The View or maybe even Oprah.
Pakistan is talking to them, so is Afghanistan. The Saudis are always up for a chat with them. The Brits have exchanged pleasantries. Canada thinks it's not a bad idea that someone talks with them and now even the Americans are toying with the idea of having them over for tea.
The Terrors of the Khyber Pass are the most popular bunch in town these days. Everybody wants to make nice. But wait, these are the insurgents, the bad guys, the widowmakers of Kandahar. Aren't we supposed to be talking to them across open sights?
Welcome to the era of "if you can't beat'em, try something, anything else." Everybody is trying to find some deal sweet enough that even an Islamist fundamentalist can't refuse.
Imagine what it must be like to be a Taliban leader these days. You have to decide which invitations you're going to accept (presumably the ones with the best swag), what to wear, what hat goes with which shoes - these are tough things for a jihadi mountain man.
Now the trick is to always negotiate from a position of strength. Oh, that might be a problem for our side. You can't find an American or NATO general these days willing to say we can beat them. They used to say that - a lot - they said it for years - and years - but no more, sigh. Now that they've decided it's better for their careers to change course, it's no longer just a military problem, no, no, no. Now it's a political problem. In fact you just might notice that, when it comes to sitting down with these guys, there's not a general to be seen from our side. No, that would be rude.
So, if you're going to sell a deal, you have to have a deal to sell. We know they're not bringing any deals to us. We're the offeror, they're the offeree. What have we got that they want? What do they want? What do they have that we want?
It's obvious that we'd be happy if they stopped blowing up our convoys and shooting at people. We want them to "stop." To make sure they don't start again, we'd like them to integrate into the political structure of Afghanistan and of Pakistan. It would help no end if there was a viable political structure in either Afghanistan or Pakistan but you have to play the cards you're dealt. I mean, let's be realistic. What would you pay for a piece of the action at Hamid Karzai's table? Probably even less than it's worth and that's hard to do when it's worthless.
Reality sets in. We know we're not going to land any sweetheart deals with the Taliban so we'll leave that futile chinwag up to the Afghan, Pakistani and Saudi governments. What we want is to focus on the supposedly less-extreme parts of the Taliban, persuade them to defect. We'll set them up on Easy Street and that will lure even more to come over. This way we'll hollow out the insurgency.
It sounds like a plan - a very, very bad plan. To begin with, you never, ever let the other side know they've got the upper hand. You don't let on that they're winning. Well, that horse is already out of the barn. If we can't control the insurgency - and we can't - we can't protect defectors, or their families, from retribution. The Taliban doesn't get its support from playing nice, we know that. Given that the insurgents have already infiltrated the government and the police and the army, where's a defector to hide?
"Too many cooks." The Saudis and Afghans and Pakistanis are talking with the Taliban Head Office boys. If we Infidels start messing about with the Branch Office types, how well do you think that's going to go down with the Taliban board of directors?
The Talibs have always said they would negotiate but only after US and NATO forces leave. Do we have some reason to believe they're bluffing, that they'll settle for less? If we don't, we're in an "A" or "B" situation and if we can't break that, we'll eventually have to accept it. We've pretty much known that all along. That's the whole idea about establishing a strong, central government supported by a well-trained, well-equipped army. Now, if we were succeeding on the government thing and the army thing, we wouldn't be talking about negotiations, would we? Of course not. We'd have them sew on their brigade patches, hand them the keys to the armoury and di di mau right out of there. Oops, sorry for the Vietnam reference.
No, my take on all these negotiations is that they're a tacit admission of defeat, even fear. We haven't done what we said we'd do when we went in there seven years ago. We haven't even held the line. We haven't succeeded on a single front over there, not one. Now we're in a dilemma. The Taliban are not only resurgent in Afghanistan, able to operate pretty much as they chose wherever they chose, but they're also destabilizing our key ally next door, Pakistan. And we don't have anything in our fabulous, state-of-the-art bag of tricks to make it go away.
What would success from these negotiations look like? I figure if we could somehow get the Taliban to sever ties with al-Qaeda, that would be victory beyond what we deserve. We've spent the last seven years driving them into the arms of al-Qaeda so undoing what we've wrought would be a Herculean task. Still, al-Qaeda is an Arab outfit. It's not Pashtun or Hazara or Uzbek or Tajik or Turkmen or Kurd or any of the other ethnic players in the region. They're foreigners in a land that doesn't particularly like foreigners. That may be enough to tip the scales.
Getting out of Afghanistan isn't going to be pretty, no matter how these talks turn out.
Pakistan is talking to them, so is Afghanistan. The Saudis are always up for a chat with them. The Brits have exchanged pleasantries. Canada thinks it's not a bad idea that someone talks with them and now even the Americans are toying with the idea of having them over for tea.
The Terrors of the Khyber Pass are the most popular bunch in town these days. Everybody wants to make nice. But wait, these are the insurgents, the bad guys, the widowmakers of Kandahar. Aren't we supposed to be talking to them across open sights?
Welcome to the era of "if you can't beat'em, try something, anything else." Everybody is trying to find some deal sweet enough that even an Islamist fundamentalist can't refuse.
Imagine what it must be like to be a Taliban leader these days. You have to decide which invitations you're going to accept (presumably the ones with the best swag), what to wear, what hat goes with which shoes - these are tough things for a jihadi mountain man.
Now the trick is to always negotiate from a position of strength. Oh, that might be a problem for our side. You can't find an American or NATO general these days willing to say we can beat them. They used to say that - a lot - they said it for years - and years - but no more, sigh. Now that they've decided it's better for their careers to change course, it's no longer just a military problem, no, no, no. Now it's a political problem. In fact you just might notice that, when it comes to sitting down with these guys, there's not a general to be seen from our side. No, that would be rude.
So, if you're going to sell a deal, you have to have a deal to sell. We know they're not bringing any deals to us. We're the offeror, they're the offeree. What have we got that they want? What do they want? What do they have that we want?
It's obvious that we'd be happy if they stopped blowing up our convoys and shooting at people. We want them to "stop." To make sure they don't start again, we'd like them to integrate into the political structure of Afghanistan and of Pakistan. It would help no end if there was a viable political structure in either Afghanistan or Pakistan but you have to play the cards you're dealt. I mean, let's be realistic. What would you pay for a piece of the action at Hamid Karzai's table? Probably even less than it's worth and that's hard to do when it's worthless.
Reality sets in. We know we're not going to land any sweetheart deals with the Taliban so we'll leave that futile chinwag up to the Afghan, Pakistani and Saudi governments. What we want is to focus on the supposedly less-extreme parts of the Taliban, persuade them to defect. We'll set them up on Easy Street and that will lure even more to come over. This way we'll hollow out the insurgency.
It sounds like a plan - a very, very bad plan. To begin with, you never, ever let the other side know they've got the upper hand. You don't let on that they're winning. Well, that horse is already out of the barn. If we can't control the insurgency - and we can't - we can't protect defectors, or their families, from retribution. The Taliban doesn't get its support from playing nice, we know that. Given that the insurgents have already infiltrated the government and the police and the army, where's a defector to hide?
"Too many cooks." The Saudis and Afghans and Pakistanis are talking with the Taliban Head Office boys. If we Infidels start messing about with the Branch Office types, how well do you think that's going to go down with the Taliban board of directors?
The Talibs have always said they would negotiate but only after US and NATO forces leave. Do we have some reason to believe they're bluffing, that they'll settle for less? If we don't, we're in an "A" or "B" situation and if we can't break that, we'll eventually have to accept it. We've pretty much known that all along. That's the whole idea about establishing a strong, central government supported by a well-trained, well-equipped army. Now, if we were succeeding on the government thing and the army thing, we wouldn't be talking about negotiations, would we? Of course not. We'd have them sew on their brigade patches, hand them the keys to the armoury and di di mau right out of there. Oops, sorry for the Vietnam reference.
No, my take on all these negotiations is that they're a tacit admission of defeat, even fear. We haven't done what we said we'd do when we went in there seven years ago. We haven't even held the line. We haven't succeeded on a single front over there, not one. Now we're in a dilemma. The Taliban are not only resurgent in Afghanistan, able to operate pretty much as they chose wherever they chose, but they're also destabilizing our key ally next door, Pakistan. And we don't have anything in our fabulous, state-of-the-art bag of tricks to make it go away.
What would success from these negotiations look like? I figure if we could somehow get the Taliban to sever ties with al-Qaeda, that would be victory beyond what we deserve. We've spent the last seven years driving them into the arms of al-Qaeda so undoing what we've wrought would be a Herculean task. Still, al-Qaeda is an Arab outfit. It's not Pashtun or Hazara or Uzbek or Tajik or Turkmen or Kurd or any of the other ethnic players in the region. They're foreigners in a land that doesn't particularly like foreigners. That may be enough to tip the scales.
Getting out of Afghanistan isn't going to be pretty, no matter how these talks turn out.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Harper's Dilemma
Inheriting a government with a balanced budget, a solid economy and big surpluses is a pretty sweet deal. Ideology doesn't matter much when the good times are rolling.
Facing the prospect of having to govern in a recession with a big unemployment problem and government deficits is something else altogether. That's where ideology comes into play and where it can truly make or break a minority government.
Dealing with a nation in trouble doesn't come naturally to Stephen Harper. In hard times, Canadians expect you to govern from the left. They begin to worry about themselves and their kids and their neighbours and how everyone is going to get by.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study released yesterday couldn't be clearer. 96% of the 2,000 surveyed want the government to move, now, to protect their jobs. Four in ten believe they're just one to two paycheques away from poverty. 90% want government action to reduce poverty.
There's the dilemma for Stephen Harper. Social spending goes against his grain. He's defunded the government so that he'll have to go into deficit if he has to introduce recession relief programmes. And yet the Canadian public won't be thinking of that 2-cent GST cut when they're feeling vulnerable and a right-wing, doctrinaire government doesn't meet their expectations.
Right now no one knows what's in store for Canada, how bad the fallout from the American meltdown is going to get. Steve has already committed billions to bail out Canadian banks and the insurance industry is looking for a bailout too. If Steve "spreads the wealth" around the financial sector but doesn't come through for the populace, he may be writing his own pink slip.
Facing the prospect of having to govern in a recession with a big unemployment problem and government deficits is something else altogether. That's where ideology comes into play and where it can truly make or break a minority government.
Dealing with a nation in trouble doesn't come naturally to Stephen Harper. In hard times, Canadians expect you to govern from the left. They begin to worry about themselves and their kids and their neighbours and how everyone is going to get by.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study released yesterday couldn't be clearer. 96% of the 2,000 surveyed want the government to move, now, to protect their jobs. Four in ten believe they're just one to two paycheques away from poverty. 90% want government action to reduce poverty.
There's the dilemma for Stephen Harper. Social spending goes against his grain. He's defunded the government so that he'll have to go into deficit if he has to introduce recession relief programmes. And yet the Canadian public won't be thinking of that 2-cent GST cut when they're feeling vulnerable and a right-wing, doctrinaire government doesn't meet their expectations.
Right now no one knows what's in store for Canada, how bad the fallout from the American meltdown is going to get. Steve has already committed billions to bail out Canadian banks and the insurance industry is looking for a bailout too. If Steve "spreads the wealth" around the financial sector but doesn't come through for the populace, he may be writing his own pink slip.
China's One PerCent Solution
Beijing has named China's price for getting serious about greenhouse gas emissions. It wants the "developed nations" to allocate 1% of their GDP to a fund to help poor nations fight global warming. China is also demanding that the industrialized nations commit to a transfer of green technology to less advanced states, presumably including China.
China's "you first" gambit doesn't come as a huge surprise. They've been arguing all along it was up to the industrialized nations to commit to cutting carbon emissions before expecting the developing nations (i.e. China and India) to follow suit.
The Chinese announcement is pretty specific on what it wants from the Western world but it's also extremely vague on what China will commit to do in exchange and how it will deliver on any promises it may make.
From the lead toy scandal to the melamine-tainted food scandal, the world has seen that Beijing doesn't have its own house in order. How does the central government think it can enforce its promises to cut carbon emissions?
When it comes to China, there's a huge and well-deserved confidence issue. It'll be interesting to see how the Chinese attempt to overcome that hurdle.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/38506
China's "you first" gambit doesn't come as a huge surprise. They've been arguing all along it was up to the industrialized nations to commit to cutting carbon emissions before expecting the developing nations (i.e. China and India) to follow suit.
The Chinese announcement is pretty specific on what it wants from the Western world but it's also extremely vague on what China will commit to do in exchange and how it will deliver on any promises it may make.
From the lead toy scandal to the melamine-tainted food scandal, the world has seen that Beijing doesn't have its own house in order. How does the central government think it can enforce its promises to cut carbon emissions?
When it comes to China, there's a huge and well-deserved confidence issue. It'll be interesting to see how the Chinese attempt to overcome that hurdle.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/38506
McCain Scores New Endorsement - al Qaeda's
McCain may not "pal around" with them but he's the president of choice for al-Qaeda.
The story surfaced a couple of days ago that a password-protected web site known as a vehicle for the Islamist terrorists has openly endorsed John McCain as their choice for the next president of the USA.
Why McCain? Because George w. Bush has been the best thing that every happened to al-Qaeda and McCain is the candidate most likely to repeat every Bush blunder. They need each other, it's as simple as that.
Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times notes that the al-Qaeda endorsement of McCain comes as no surprise to the experts:
"...the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Josephy Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.
“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,” said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.
An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?em
The story surfaced a couple of days ago that a password-protected web site known as a vehicle for the Islamist terrorists has openly endorsed John McCain as their choice for the next president of the USA.
Why McCain? Because George w. Bush has been the best thing that every happened to al-Qaeda and McCain is the candidate most likely to repeat every Bush blunder. They need each other, it's as simple as that.
Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times notes that the al-Qaeda endorsement of McCain comes as no surprise to the experts:
"...the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Josephy Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.
“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,” said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.
An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?em
The Only Way Out of Afghanistan
Is a national army viable in a country that is riven with tribalism?
Rivalries are endemic in tribalism. Afghanistan has five main tribes - the Pashtun (including Balochs), Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen and Hazara along with a smattering of Kurds and a few others. They represent a diverse patchwork of ethnicities - Persian, Oriental, South Asian - vestiges of centuries of war and conquest. The tribes, in turn, are organized around the authority of warlords who, during the Soviet and Taliban eras, operated some pretty powerful militias. These are people and leaders steeped in civil strife and armed conflict.
How can a national army be any more viable than the national government it serves? History shows it can't and history also shows that, in the absence of a viable national government, some militaries have stepped into that power vacuum to take control themselves. South Vietnam, Pakistan, Central and South America, the list goes on.
In Afghanistan, we're counting on the creation of a sufficiently large, adequately trained, effective Afghan National Army as our way out of that place. That is our only exit strategy.
So just how is the ANA doing seven years after the Taliban was sent packing? NATO commanders say when they get the Afghan army in the field, they're not bad at all. Beyond that, we don't hear much about the ANA.
In the early years, the Afghan National Army was plagued with high desertion rates. No one knows what the desertion situation is now because that information is no longer given out. A story in yesterday's Toronto Star pointed out that the Taliban are now using bribery to fuel desertion and undermine the Afghan army. "...U.S. and Canadian mentors complain privately about the slovenly appearance and lack of discipline among soldiers in the Afghan army. There are also complaints about petty theft, mistreatment and infiltration of the army by Taliban spies."
An immediate concern is the state of the central government in Kabul. Despite the assistance provided by NATO and the US military, Hamid Karzai has been a dismal failure at extending the government's control much beyond the capital. That creates power vacuums throughout the countryside that, as expected, are being filled by various ne'er-do-wells. Forget the Taliban, how is the central government going to dislodge these other rivals?
Even the wardrum-beating National Post has finally caught on to the state of affairs in Kandahar. Yesterday the paper reported that the Taliban have established a parallel government that operates pretty much throughout Kandahar as they please.
It's always been my view that nothing we did in Afghanistan could make any real difference unless and until there was a viable central government in Kabul. A country needs a backbone and, in this case, it's struggling without one. Training an army is a great idea - if it has an effective government to serve. What if it doesn't? With the insurgency growing and new groups joining in with the Taliban, I don't think we're going to have to wait too long to see how long the Afghan army can function in a political vacuum.
Rivalries are endemic in tribalism. Afghanistan has five main tribes - the Pashtun (including Balochs), Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen and Hazara along with a smattering of Kurds and a few others. They represent a diverse patchwork of ethnicities - Persian, Oriental, South Asian - vestiges of centuries of war and conquest. The tribes, in turn, are organized around the authority of warlords who, during the Soviet and Taliban eras, operated some pretty powerful militias. These are people and leaders steeped in civil strife and armed conflict.
How can a national army be any more viable than the national government it serves? History shows it can't and history also shows that, in the absence of a viable national government, some militaries have stepped into that power vacuum to take control themselves. South Vietnam, Pakistan, Central and South America, the list goes on.
In Afghanistan, we're counting on the creation of a sufficiently large, adequately trained, effective Afghan National Army as our way out of that place. That is our only exit strategy.
So just how is the ANA doing seven years after the Taliban was sent packing? NATO commanders say when they get the Afghan army in the field, they're not bad at all. Beyond that, we don't hear much about the ANA.
In the early years, the Afghan National Army was plagued with high desertion rates. No one knows what the desertion situation is now because that information is no longer given out. A story in yesterday's Toronto Star pointed out that the Taliban are now using bribery to fuel desertion and undermine the Afghan army. "...U.S. and Canadian mentors complain privately about the slovenly appearance and lack of discipline among soldiers in the Afghan army. There are also complaints about petty theft, mistreatment and infiltration of the army by Taliban spies."
An immediate concern is the state of the central government in Kabul. Despite the assistance provided by NATO and the US military, Hamid Karzai has been a dismal failure at extending the government's control much beyond the capital. That creates power vacuums throughout the countryside that, as expected, are being filled by various ne'er-do-wells. Forget the Taliban, how is the central government going to dislodge these other rivals?
Even the wardrum-beating National Post has finally caught on to the state of affairs in Kandahar. Yesterday the paper reported that the Taliban have established a parallel government that operates pretty much throughout Kandahar as they please.
It's always been my view that nothing we did in Afghanistan could make any real difference unless and until there was a viable central government in Kabul. A country needs a backbone and, in this case, it's struggling without one. Training an army is a great idea - if it has an effective government to serve. What if it doesn't? With the insurgency growing and new groups joining in with the Taliban, I don't think we're going to have to wait too long to see how long the Afghan army can function in a political vacuum.
Another War in Iraq?
The world is abuzz with rumours of impending war between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs. The International Crisis Group has come forward with a suggested settlement that would see the Kurds suspend their claims on Kirkuk for a decade in exchange for exclusive rights to the oil reserves in their region.
The New York Times reports that American commanders fear that a mission now underway in Mosul, "could degenerate into a larger battleground over the fragile Iraqi state itself."
"The problems are old but risk spilling out violently here and now. The central government in Baghdad has sent troops to quell the insurgency here, while also aiming at what it sees as a central obstacle to both nationhood and its own power: the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north and the Kurds’ larger ambitions to expand areas under their control.
"The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massound Barzani."
...the American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as the United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle their own problems. If the Kurds and Iraqi government forces fight, the American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, rather than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”
It's hard to imagine how the US military would react if it had to get involved. It's notionally obliged to support the government, that would be Maliki's Arabs, but Washington's closest allies in Iraq are the Kurds.
The real thorn in Maliki's side is the city of Kirkuk and the oil-riches in its vicinity. The Kurds are claiming Kirkuk as part of their territory. Referenda to settle the issue have been scheduled and postponed at least twice.
The seeds of Arab/Kurd unrest were sown in the constitution of the Kurdish Autonomous Region written with the assistance of American foreign service expert, Peter Galbraith, back when Saddam was in charge. In the wake of Saddam's removal, the Kurds threw their constitution in the face of the provisional administration of Bremer as a "done deal." Eventually the Kurds succeeded in forcing Baghdad to incorporate the Kurdish constitution into the Iraqi constitution. There it's been sitting, a ticking time bomb, ever since.
The International Crisis Group warns, "The most likely alternative to an agreement is a new outbreak of violent strife over unsettled claims in a fragmented polity governed by chaos and fear."
For those either so ill-informed, unaware or completely gullible - your surge really didn't bring peace to Iraq. No, it didn't settle anything, nothing. There was just a temporary lull in the mayhem as the parties went on about their business and prepared for what they saw coming. That goes for Maliki and his Badr Organization, Sadr and his Mahdi Army, the Sunni and their insurgent militias, the Kurds and their Peshmerga. It took a pretty infantile outlook on Iraq to believe that the Bush surge had accomplished anything.
I think it was Joe Biden who endorsed a "3-state" solution for Iraq and was mocked for it by John "Victory" McCain. In fact, if you understand the issue of the Kurdish constitution and its major, unresolved inconsistencies with the Iraqi constitution, the 3-state solution is actually the default option. Just don't tell the Old Geezer, it would break his heart.
The New York Times reports that American commanders fear that a mission now underway in Mosul, "could degenerate into a larger battleground over the fragile Iraqi state itself."
"The problems are old but risk spilling out violently here and now. The central government in Baghdad has sent troops to quell the insurgency here, while also aiming at what it sees as a central obstacle to both nationhood and its own power: the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north and the Kurds’ larger ambitions to expand areas under their control.
"The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massound Barzani."
...the American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as the United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle their own problems. If the Kurds and Iraqi government forces fight, the American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, rather than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”
It's hard to imagine how the US military would react if it had to get involved. It's notionally obliged to support the government, that would be Maliki's Arabs, but Washington's closest allies in Iraq are the Kurds.
The real thorn in Maliki's side is the city of Kirkuk and the oil-riches in its vicinity. The Kurds are claiming Kirkuk as part of their territory. Referenda to settle the issue have been scheduled and postponed at least twice.
The seeds of Arab/Kurd unrest were sown in the constitution of the Kurdish Autonomous Region written with the assistance of American foreign service expert, Peter Galbraith, back when Saddam was in charge. In the wake of Saddam's removal, the Kurds threw their constitution in the face of the provisional administration of Bremer as a "done deal." Eventually the Kurds succeeded in forcing Baghdad to incorporate the Kurdish constitution into the Iraqi constitution. There it's been sitting, a ticking time bomb, ever since.
The International Crisis Group warns, "The most likely alternative to an agreement is a new outbreak of violent strife over unsettled claims in a fragmented polity governed by chaos and fear."
For those either so ill-informed, unaware or completely gullible - your surge really didn't bring peace to Iraq. No, it didn't settle anything, nothing. There was just a temporary lull in the mayhem as the parties went on about their business and prepared for what they saw coming. That goes for Maliki and his Badr Organization, Sadr and his Mahdi Army, the Sunni and their insurgent militias, the Kurds and their Peshmerga. It took a pretty infantile outlook on Iraq to believe that the Bush surge had accomplished anything.
I think it was Joe Biden who endorsed a "3-state" solution for Iraq and was mocked for it by John "Victory" McCain. In fact, if you understand the issue of the Kurdish constitution and its major, unresolved inconsistencies with the Iraqi constitution, the 3-state solution is actually the default option. Just don't tell the Old Geezer, it would break his heart.
Monday, October 27, 2008
I Oughta Be Rich, Insanely Rich
I oughta be rich right now, a multimillionaire at least, maybe even a billionaire. I oughta be basking in comfort and luxury, having to worry about whether I would spend next week at my beachfront villa on Maui or my suite in Rio. Hmmm, decisions, decisions.
If only someone had told me a few years back that, for just pennies on the dollar, I could buy a bet, at 20 to one odds no less, that the US housing bubble would burst. Imagine, a "bubble" bursting? Just like every bubble before it has burst? What are the chances?
So I buy the ultimate no-lose bet for just pennies on the dollar and reap an insane windfall when one morning I get up and discover that, golly gee, the housing bubble has burst.
But no one ever came to my door asking if I'd be interested in picking up a few Credit Default Swaps. I didn't receive any flyers offering to let me win big by betting that the American housing bubble would burst. Not even any telephone solicitations.
Hell, I'd never even heard of Credit Default Swaps until I saw Steve Croft explain how the damned things are at the heart of the American financial meltdown that's bringing recession to every industrialized nation on the planet.
Now these Credit Default Swaps are just a decriminalized form of grand larceny. In fact, until McCain cronie and sometime economic advisor Phil Gramm used his position as then Chairman of the senate banking committee to introduce and push through a law that literally pulled America's pants down around its knees and pushed it right over a barrel, these bogus insurance side bets were very much illegal. Why they were big time, felony illegal.
Maybe that's why we didn't hear of Credit Default Swaps until the meltdown. I figure they were just for "insiders." I mean they were too good to be real and, if the public had known that someone was fool enough to take bets against a bubble bursting, the demand for them would have been so great and widespread that the whole house of cards would have collapsed as fast as it went up.
No, there's no doubt about it. Credit Default Swaps, even though they had been decriminalized, still had to be treated as though they were criminal. They still had to be done under the table, very much on the Q.T. Lowlife like you and me would have killed this Golden Goose.
I visited a pretty credible site today that listed several categories of these CDSs that came to a grand total of - wait for it - just under SIX HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. 60 Minutes only had them pegged at sixty trillion greenbacks but I'm now told that real estate assets were sometimes leveraged up to thirty times their value. Say what? Well that's how America's housing stock, which in 2006 was valued at just over $20-trillion all in, could be parlayed into $600-trillion of securitized side bets.
You see, you didn't have to actually hold the dodgy securitized mortgage to bet against it, to get a Credit Default Swap/Insurance contract. Anybody could bet on it, the more the merrier. That's how this monster grew. Thirty, fifty, hundreds of people who realized that the wiring was faulty could take out fire insurance on the same house. When it predictably burned to the ground, there were thirty, fifty, hundreds of policies to pay. Weird, ain't it?
It's much too late to get in on this scam. That came to an end with the subprime mortgage crisis/housing bubble crisis/Wall Street liquidity crisis-driven US meltdown turned global meltdown.
But wouldn't you love to know just who was in on it? Wouldn't it be great to get the names of everyone in the Bush administration, immediate relatives included, and every member of Congress, immediate relatives included, and every major political contributor, immediate relatives included, who did dabble in the Dark Arts of Credit Default Swaps?
You see, you can't have larceny without thieves. And I suspect that the more we know about who got in on this gravy train and how, the more obvious it is going to be that this was a hell of a lot more than just greed-driven Wall Street adventurism. This reeks of culpability. It screams of an organized effort to fleece the financial sector worldwide.
Remember, these people are still standing in line, awaiting their windfall, wage-earner taxpayer-funded handouts. If the taxpayers are going to fund it, they should at least get a look at who's raking in the loot. That, I think, will put this villainy in a brand new light and I'm guessing that will make my proposition that these Credit Default Swaps simply be wiped off the books, declared null and void, seem pretty reasonable.
It's time to name names.
If only someone had told me a few years back that, for just pennies on the dollar, I could buy a bet, at 20 to one odds no less, that the US housing bubble would burst. Imagine, a "bubble" bursting? Just like every bubble before it has burst? What are the chances?
So I buy the ultimate no-lose bet for just pennies on the dollar and reap an insane windfall when one morning I get up and discover that, golly gee, the housing bubble has burst.
But no one ever came to my door asking if I'd be interested in picking up a few Credit Default Swaps. I didn't receive any flyers offering to let me win big by betting that the American housing bubble would burst. Not even any telephone solicitations.
Hell, I'd never even heard of Credit Default Swaps until I saw Steve Croft explain how the damned things are at the heart of the American financial meltdown that's bringing recession to every industrialized nation on the planet.
Now these Credit Default Swaps are just a decriminalized form of grand larceny. In fact, until McCain cronie and sometime economic advisor Phil Gramm used his position as then Chairman of the senate banking committee to introduce and push through a law that literally pulled America's pants down around its knees and pushed it right over a barrel, these bogus insurance side bets were very much illegal. Why they were big time, felony illegal.
Maybe that's why we didn't hear of Credit Default Swaps until the meltdown. I figure they were just for "insiders." I mean they were too good to be real and, if the public had known that someone was fool enough to take bets against a bubble bursting, the demand for them would have been so great and widespread that the whole house of cards would have collapsed as fast as it went up.
No, there's no doubt about it. Credit Default Swaps, even though they had been decriminalized, still had to be treated as though they were criminal. They still had to be done under the table, very much on the Q.T. Lowlife like you and me would have killed this Golden Goose.
I visited a pretty credible site today that listed several categories of these CDSs that came to a grand total of - wait for it - just under SIX HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. 60 Minutes only had them pegged at sixty trillion greenbacks but I'm now told that real estate assets were sometimes leveraged up to thirty times their value. Say what? Well that's how America's housing stock, which in 2006 was valued at just over $20-trillion all in, could be parlayed into $600-trillion of securitized side bets.
You see, you didn't have to actually hold the dodgy securitized mortgage to bet against it, to get a Credit Default Swap/Insurance contract. Anybody could bet on it, the more the merrier. That's how this monster grew. Thirty, fifty, hundreds of people who realized that the wiring was faulty could take out fire insurance on the same house. When it predictably burned to the ground, there were thirty, fifty, hundreds of policies to pay. Weird, ain't it?
It's much too late to get in on this scam. That came to an end with the subprime mortgage crisis/housing bubble crisis/Wall Street liquidity crisis-driven US meltdown turned global meltdown.
But wouldn't you love to know just who was in on it? Wouldn't it be great to get the names of everyone in the Bush administration, immediate relatives included, and every member of Congress, immediate relatives included, and every major political contributor, immediate relatives included, who did dabble in the Dark Arts of Credit Default Swaps?
You see, you can't have larceny without thieves. And I suspect that the more we know about who got in on this gravy train and how, the more obvious it is going to be that this was a hell of a lot more than just greed-driven Wall Street adventurism. This reeks of culpability. It screams of an organized effort to fleece the financial sector worldwide.
Remember, these people are still standing in line, awaiting their windfall, wage-earner taxpayer-funded handouts. If the taxpayers are going to fund it, they should at least get a look at who's raking in the loot. That, I think, will put this villainy in a brand new light and I'm guessing that will make my proposition that these Credit Default Swaps simply be wiped off the books, declared null and void, seem pretty reasonable.
It's time to name names.
Obama Would-Be Assassins Nabbed
I guess it's begun.
Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have arrested two Tennessee men alleged to be plotting to assassinate Barack Obama. From Reuters:
Law enforcement arrested two men in Tennessee who had plans to rob a gun dealer to shoot Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and "as many non-Caucasians" as possible, an official said on Monday.
An official from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said police found the men in the Jackson, Tennessee area with a number of guns, including a sawed-off shotgun, in their car.
"They wanted to go to a place where they could shoot as many non-Caucasian as they could," the official said, noting that the men first planned to rob a gun dealer. "They also had a plot to assassinate Sen. Obama."
Four in Ten Canadians Fear Imminent Poverty
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has released a poll showing that 39% of Canadians believe they're but one or two paycheques away from poverty.
From CTV News:
Pollster Environics surveyed 2,023 Canadians for the left-of-centre think tank. It found that Canadians are almost unanimous in their call for governments to protect their jobs.
"A shocking 96 per cent are saying 'Do something about investing in jobs and skills (and) training right now. Don't wait until there are better balanced budgets,'" CCPA senior economist Armine Yalnizyan told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.
The CCPA poll found that:
39 per cent of Canadians think they're just one or two paycheques from poverty
47 per cent struggle with personal debt regardless of income
44 per cent worry about having enough to retire comfortably
26 per cent say they are worse off than a decade ago
"The interesting thing about the poll is that Canadians looked beyond their own pocketbook issues and said ... that governments need to step up to the plate, too," Yalnizyan said.
She said Canadians look at Scandinavian and European countries' focus on poverty reduction and say, "Why can't we do that here?"
According to the survey:
90 per cent want the government to take leadership to reduce poverty
86 per cent believe concrete government action can greatly reduce poverty
81 per cent support reducing poverty by at least 25 per cent over the next five years.
Well, if our Furious Leader, Stevo, is looking for a mandate, there's one for him. 96% is one helluva mandate, Steve.
Curious that so many Canadians are looking to those awful "Northern European welfare states" isn't it Steve?
From CTV News:
Pollster Environics surveyed 2,023 Canadians for the left-of-centre think tank. It found that Canadians are almost unanimous in their call for governments to protect their jobs.
"A shocking 96 per cent are saying 'Do something about investing in jobs and skills (and) training right now. Don't wait until there are better balanced budgets,'" CCPA senior economist Armine Yalnizyan told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.
The CCPA poll found that:
39 per cent of Canadians think they're just one or two paycheques from poverty
47 per cent struggle with personal debt regardless of income
44 per cent worry about having enough to retire comfortably
26 per cent say they are worse off than a decade ago
"The interesting thing about the poll is that Canadians looked beyond their own pocketbook issues and said ... that governments need to step up to the plate, too," Yalnizyan said.
She said Canadians look at Scandinavian and European countries' focus on poverty reduction and say, "Why can't we do that here?"
According to the survey:
90 per cent want the government to take leadership to reduce poverty
86 per cent believe concrete government action can greatly reduce poverty
81 per cent support reducing poverty by at least 25 per cent over the next five years.
Well, if our Furious Leader, Stevo, is looking for a mandate, there's one for him. 96% is one helluva mandate, Steve.
Curious that so many Canadians are looking to those awful "Northern European welfare states" isn't it Steve?
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens - Guilty as Charged
The New York Times reports that Alaska senator Ted Stevens has been found guilty of lying about gifts he received, including major house renovations, from an Alaskan oil contractor.
According to the paper, Stevens was convicted on all seven counts of making false statements on senate financial disclosure documents.
According to the paper, Stevens was convicted on all seven counts of making false statements on senate financial disclosure documents.
Nick Stern - Global Warming Worse than US Meltdown
Former top British treasury economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, has issued a blunt warning that the consequences of ignoring climate change far outweigh the global financial meltdown now entrancing our governments.
"The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system. ...That's a very important lesson, tackle risk early," Stern told a climate and carbon conference in Hong Kong.
Most governments badly affected by the meltdown are looking to the tried and tested solution of major capital programme spending to kickstart their flagging economies (my take on this is in an earlier post, "Spending like there IS a Tomorrow"). Stern is adding his voice to the growing choir of those advocating that government use this as an opportunity to advance clean technology:
"The lesson that we can draw out from this recession, is that you can boost demand in the best way possible by focusing on low carbon growth in future," Stern said, including greater public spending on mass public transport, energy and green technologies."
http://www.enn.com/business/article/38498
"The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system. ...That's a very important lesson, tackle risk early," Stern told a climate and carbon conference in Hong Kong.
Most governments badly affected by the meltdown are looking to the tried and tested solution of major capital programme spending to kickstart their flagging economies (my take on this is in an earlier post, "Spending like there IS a Tomorrow"). Stern is adding his voice to the growing choir of those advocating that government use this as an opportunity to advance clean technology:
"The lesson that we can draw out from this recession, is that you can boost demand in the best way possible by focusing on low carbon growth in future," Stern said, including greater public spending on mass public transport, energy and green technologies."
http://www.enn.com/business/article/38498
A Message to the Grand Old Party
My dear Republicans.
When this is over it would be a good time to clean house. Time for the grownups to take back the Grand Old Party. It's supposed to be a conservative party in what may just be the most conservative country in the industrialized world. Conservative, as in conserve, as in preserve.
First things first. From now on, "political freak of nature" won't be an acceptable credential for high office. You've had Bush II, you've had Sarah Palin, you've had it. What have you got, 60, maybe 80-million citizens who consider themselves Republican? They're not all bozos, they're not all incurious, they're not all rabid ideologues.
You really have to stop pissing in the gene pool. Your anti-intellectualism, this absolute phobia about "elites," is transforming Republican leadership into a carnival sideshow. You don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find genuine, patriotic Americans.
Being well-educated, well-informed and highly accomplished shouldn't blacklist a person from the top spots. Understand that your party needs a leader who doesn't bite when some swindler tells him that deficits don't matter or who isn't gullible enough to believe that you can topple a dictator and be in and out in under 90-days at a cost of less than $60-billion. You need a leader who understands that the only thing worse than 'tax and spend' politics is 'spend and borrow' politics.
Speaking of taxes, try to find a leader who understands what taxes mean to effective government. Maybe you can find one who grasps what Oliver Wendell Holmes meant when he said, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." There must be someone on the GOP shortlist who recognizes that governments need to spend on some things but shouldn't spend on others like endless wars of whim, especially when they're spending borrowed money.
Above all else, find someone who doesn't absolutely cleave to the mysticism of the American myth. Being the first at something is great but it doesn't permanently endow you with exceptionalism. Go for reality, it won't bite. And for Christ's sake get religion out of government.
So run along now, you've got some cleaning to do and some trash to take out. Actually, you've got a lot of trash to take out.
When this is over it would be a good time to clean house. Time for the grownups to take back the Grand Old Party. It's supposed to be a conservative party in what may just be the most conservative country in the industrialized world. Conservative, as in conserve, as in preserve.
First things first. From now on, "political freak of nature" won't be an acceptable credential for high office. You've had Bush II, you've had Sarah Palin, you've had it. What have you got, 60, maybe 80-million citizens who consider themselves Republican? They're not all bozos, they're not all incurious, they're not all rabid ideologues.
You really have to stop pissing in the gene pool. Your anti-intellectualism, this absolute phobia about "elites," is transforming Republican leadership into a carnival sideshow. You don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find genuine, patriotic Americans.
Being well-educated, well-informed and highly accomplished shouldn't blacklist a person from the top spots. Understand that your party needs a leader who doesn't bite when some swindler tells him that deficits don't matter or who isn't gullible enough to believe that you can topple a dictator and be in and out in under 90-days at a cost of less than $60-billion. You need a leader who understands that the only thing worse than 'tax and spend' politics is 'spend and borrow' politics.
Speaking of taxes, try to find a leader who understands what taxes mean to effective government. Maybe you can find one who grasps what Oliver Wendell Holmes meant when he said, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." There must be someone on the GOP shortlist who recognizes that governments need to spend on some things but shouldn't spend on others like endless wars of whim, especially when they're spending borrowed money.
Above all else, find someone who doesn't absolutely cleave to the mysticism of the American myth. Being the first at something is great but it doesn't permanently endow you with exceptionalism. Go for reality, it won't bite. And for Christ's sake get religion out of government.
So run along now, you've got some cleaning to do and some trash to take out. Actually, you've got a lot of trash to take out.
The NRA Sends Its Condolences
Who in his right f..@king mind would let an 8-year old blast away with an Uzi? Well how about a "certified firearms instructor" in attendance at yesterday's Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club in Westfield, Mass.
The 8-year old - as in eight years old - kid was handed a loaded, submachine gun to blaze away downrange. Blame Sir Isaac Newton and his damned Third Law, the one about "equal and opposite reaction." When you fire a handgun, it kicks back and up. When you fire a handheld submachine gun, it wants to keep kicking back and further up and up.
That's what happened. The youngster didn't or couldn't let go of the trigger and the weapon kept recoiling upward until a bullet found the child's head.
The 8-year old - as in eight years old - kid was handed a loaded, submachine gun to blaze away downrange. Blame Sir Isaac Newton and his damned Third Law, the one about "equal and opposite reaction." When you fire a handgun, it kicks back and up. When you fire a handheld submachine gun, it wants to keep kicking back and further up and up.
That's what happened. The youngster didn't or couldn't let go of the trigger and the weapon kept recoiling upward until a bullet found the child's head.
Whatever Happened to the "Shawinigan Handshake"?
So, it's cost the taxpayer $30-million dollars to protect Stephen Harper since he took office in 2006. Sounds like a lot but without figures for previous prime ministers who can tell?
Still, what about the days, not that long ago, when you could count on a prime minister to handle at least some of his own security? Maybe Jean Chretien could give Steve a few lessons in the manly arts. Lord knows he could use them.
Still, what about the days, not that long ago, when you could count on a prime minister to handle at least some of his own security? Maybe Jean Chretien could give Steve a few lessons in the manly arts. Lord knows he could use them.
Wipe Credit Default Swaps Off the Books
I learned something new on 60 Minutes last night about Credit Default Swaps, those nasty, unregulated mortgage default insurance contracts that are the disease behind the global financial meltdown.
At first I had the impression that these were insurance contracts that Wall Street used to convince prospective customers to buy its toxic securities - securitized mortgages, derivatives, bundled bad debt. Okay, I'm not really sure what it is I'm buying so I want insurance. That makes sense and it's Wall Street's fault for selling insurance when they had no means, no assets to honour those committments when the bottom fell out.
But there's more, a lot more. These Credit Derivative Swaps were available to anyone. They weren't limited to buyers of derivatives. Anyone could buy a CDS for a few pennies on the dollar without having to buy or hold the dubious mortgage bundles. In this way you were betting against the housing bubble, betting against the securitized mortgages, betting that this madness would collapse.
These unregulated bets earned some people billions in profits, and it's their billions in profits from gaming CDSs that are a big chunk of the problems that have rocked markets around the world.
What really is outrageous is that governments around the world are using wage-earners' tax dollars to bail out banks that need to make good on these gamed Credit Default Swaps and, right now, nobody even knows the total value of them or even who is liable for what. It's estimated that there are 60-trillion dollars of Credit Default Swaps in circulation.
Here's an idea. Rather than soaking taxpayers why don't our governments use their sovereign powers to declare those Credit Default Swaps to be redeemable for exactly what was paid for them. If you paid pennies on the dollar, you get pennies on the dollar and thank you for your patriotism in a time of troubles.
The Western world has been raped by these gamblers and swindlers. Why should working stiffs be saddled with making good their bad debts, especially on these gamey Credit Default Swaps? You want to clean up the financial markets, restore confidence and liquidity, get credit moving again? A good way to start is to wipe the CDS garbage off the books. Write them down to what was actually paid for them, pennies on the dollar.
Yes, some people will lose out on their windfall bets but, so what? After all, they not only bet the housing bubble would burst, they also bet that the outfit selling them the CDS would be good for it. That's a two part bet and they lost. Why should taxpayers be expected to make winners out of losers?
At first I had the impression that these were insurance contracts that Wall Street used to convince prospective customers to buy its toxic securities - securitized mortgages, derivatives, bundled bad debt. Okay, I'm not really sure what it is I'm buying so I want insurance. That makes sense and it's Wall Street's fault for selling insurance when they had no means, no assets to honour those committments when the bottom fell out.
But there's more, a lot more. These Credit Derivative Swaps were available to anyone. They weren't limited to buyers of derivatives. Anyone could buy a CDS for a few pennies on the dollar without having to buy or hold the dubious mortgage bundles. In this way you were betting against the housing bubble, betting against the securitized mortgages, betting that this madness would collapse.
These unregulated bets earned some people billions in profits, and it's their billions in profits from gaming CDSs that are a big chunk of the problems that have rocked markets around the world.
What really is outrageous is that governments around the world are using wage-earners' tax dollars to bail out banks that need to make good on these gamed Credit Default Swaps and, right now, nobody even knows the total value of them or even who is liable for what. It's estimated that there are 60-trillion dollars of Credit Default Swaps in circulation.
Here's an idea. Rather than soaking taxpayers why don't our governments use their sovereign powers to declare those Credit Default Swaps to be redeemable for exactly what was paid for them. If you paid pennies on the dollar, you get pennies on the dollar and thank you for your patriotism in a time of troubles.
The Western world has been raped by these gamblers and swindlers. Why should working stiffs be saddled with making good their bad debts, especially on these gamey Credit Default Swaps? You want to clean up the financial markets, restore confidence and liquidity, get credit moving again? A good way to start is to wipe the CDS garbage off the books. Write them down to what was actually paid for them, pennies on the dollar.
Yes, some people will lose out on their windfall bets but, so what? After all, they not only bet the housing bubble would burst, they also bet that the outfit selling them the CDS would be good for it. That's a two part bet and they lost. Why should taxpayers be expected to make winners out of losers?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
David Frum Urges Republicans to Throw In the Towel on McCain
Republican pundit David Frum is urging fellow Repugs to shift their efforts, and their money, from what he considers an already lost presidential campaign and use them instead to fight a rearguard Congressional defence.
David, son of Barbara, wrote in the Washington Post, that McCain, "is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him."
"The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.
"I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP.
McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."
Frum argues that Republicans should shift "every available dollar" to the senatorial campaign. For some reason he can't bring himself to say those dollars ought to be shifted from the presidential campaign. He also argues that Republicans should hammer home the message that the Dems are probably going to take the White House and voters can't take the risk of also handing congress to a bunch of liberals.
David, son of Barbara, wrote in the Washington Post, that McCain, "is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him."
"The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.
"I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP.
McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."
Frum argues that Republicans should shift "every available dollar" to the senatorial campaign. For some reason he can't bring himself to say those dollars ought to be shifted from the presidential campaign. He also argues that Republicans should hammer home the message that the Dems are probably going to take the White House and voters can't take the risk of also handing congress to a bunch of liberals.
McCain and Palin Go For the Throat - Each Other's
The giveaway was the morning after the vice-presidential debate when Sarah Palin let slip that she had learned of the McCain campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan when she read it that morning in a newspaper. To quell any doubts, she then proceeded to criticize McCain's decision and said she and Todd could have worked the state if McCain wasn't up to it.
It was obvious that McCain hadn't consulted Palin about the Michigan decision. He hadn't even informed her. She had to find out about it from a newspaper well after his campaign had announced it to the press. Her response put McCain's wisdom, even courage into question. Ouch, ouch, ouch and ouch.
Since then, Palin hasn't minced any words about what she sees as McCain's weakness in going after Obama. She has repeatedly criticized McCain's refusal to go after the Reverend Wright issue.
Now, as reported by Canadian Press, it's come to open warfare among McCain's and Palin's insiders:
"The tattered remains of their ticket were everywhere Sunday, with both McCain and Palin insiders publicly on the attack to hold the other side responsible for their candidate's woes on the campaign trail.
"She is a diva - she takes no advice from anyone," an unnamed McCain adviser told CNN over the weekend.
"She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else ... also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
It was their decision to limit Palin's media contact to interviews with ABC's Charlie Gibson and a series of chats with CBS's Katie Couric parcelled out over several cringe-worthy days. They proved to be disastrous for both the Alaska governor personally and McCain's campaign.Wallace sent an emailed response to several news organizations over the weekend: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honourable thing to do is to lie there," she wrote.
In recent weeks, Palin has publicly parted ways with the McCain campaign on various fronts, leading many to speculate she is attempting to distinguish herself from the flailing Arizona senator and forge her own identity in preparation for a run for the White House in 2012."
Alaska's Main Newspaper Endorses Obama
The Anchorage Daily News has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Coming from a solid "red" state that's something. Coming from a red state which the Republican vice presidential candidate calls home and sits as governor, that's something again. From the Associated Press:
The Daily News said since the economic crisis has emerged, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with it.
"Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it," the paper said.
The Daily News said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has shown the country why she is a success as governor. But the paper said few would argue that Palin is truly ready to step into the job of being president despite her passion, charisma and strong work ethic.
The Daily News said since the economic crisis has emerged, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with it.
"Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it," the paper said.
The Daily News said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has shown the country why she is a success as governor. But the paper said few would argue that Palin is truly ready to step into the job of being president despite her passion, charisma and strong work ethic.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Mr. Dithers Strikes Back
In my opinion.
In my opinion, Jean Chretien was never as great a leader as many now perceive him. In my opinion, Paul Martin was a far better leader than many considered him then or now.
In my opinion, Paul Martin was handed a poison pill by the Chretien administration in the form of the sponsorship scandal. That skulduggery happened on Chretien's watch while Paul Martin sat purged in backbench exile.
A lot of folks claim that Martin must've known about it. He didn't. How do I know? Because if he had known about it he'd have been all over Chretien with it like a Newfie on a Harp seal, beating the living bejeebus out of him over it.
Curiously enough, Paul Martin seems to think the same as I do. In his new book Hell and High Water, Martin takes aim squarely at Chretien. From the Toronto Star:
In a chapter devoted to the sponsorship scandal, he takes angry aim at Chrétien, his political nemesis, for leaving him saddled with a damning auditor's report into questionable government funding in Quebec.
"I was mad at Jean Chrétien for having left me this time bomb," Martin writes. "It drove me crazy that I had to deal with this leftover mess when there were so many more important issues I had come into government to confront."
Martin repeats his assertion that he was in the dark about the sponsorship program [an often overlooked conclusion of the Gomery Commission as well]. But he conceded that the revelations of kickbacks to party backers in Quebec fuelled a political firestorm.
"We did not win the communications battle over sponsorship in the end. I don't know whether it was winnable," he said.
He said the resulting controversy revived the separatist parties in Quebec, boosted the sagging fortunes of the NDP and "lubricated the unity of the right."
Martin also critiques Harper for his "pinched vision" of Canada.
Maybe it's a function of Canadian politics. Trudeau begat Mulroney. Mulroney begat Chretien. Chretien begat Harper.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
In my opinion, Jean Chretien was never as great a leader as many now perceive him. In my opinion, Paul Martin was a far better leader than many considered him then or now.
In my opinion, Paul Martin was handed a poison pill by the Chretien administration in the form of the sponsorship scandal. That skulduggery happened on Chretien's watch while Paul Martin sat purged in backbench exile.
A lot of folks claim that Martin must've known about it. He didn't. How do I know? Because if he had known about it he'd have been all over Chretien with it like a Newfie on a Harp seal, beating the living bejeebus out of him over it.
Curiously enough, Paul Martin seems to think the same as I do. In his new book Hell and High Water, Martin takes aim squarely at Chretien. From the Toronto Star:
In a chapter devoted to the sponsorship scandal, he takes angry aim at Chrétien, his political nemesis, for leaving him saddled with a damning auditor's report into questionable government funding in Quebec.
"I was mad at Jean Chrétien for having left me this time bomb," Martin writes. "It drove me crazy that I had to deal with this leftover mess when there were so many more important issues I had come into government to confront."
Martin repeats his assertion that he was in the dark about the sponsorship program [an often overlooked conclusion of the Gomery Commission as well]. But he conceded that the revelations of kickbacks to party backers in Quebec fuelled a political firestorm.
"We did not win the communications battle over sponsorship in the end. I don't know whether it was winnable," he said.
He said the resulting controversy revived the separatist parties in Quebec, boosted the sagging fortunes of the NDP and "lubricated the unity of the right."
Martin also critiques Harper for his "pinched vision" of Canada.
Maybe it's a function of Canadian politics. Trudeau begat Mulroney. Mulroney begat Chretien. Chretien begat Harper.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Carpetbagging On The Public Dime
I just spotted this in The New York Times and decided it needed to be posted. It concerns the hundreds of billions of dollars the US government has chosen to inject into the nation's banks to improve their liquidity in order to get credit flowing again to American business.
Guess what? The banks are happy to take it but they have a different idea of what to do with their Washington windfall. One executive at one of the surviving megabanks was careless enough to let a Times reporter eavesdrop on an internal discussion:
"In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.
(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
So, to summarize, those hundreds of billions of dollars of wage-earning taxpayers' money the banks are getting to free up America's credit markets are to be used, instead, as a mergers and acquisition windfall.
That kids is fraud, plain and simple, old-fashioned fraud. And it's fraud on the very taxpayers whose own financial future already has been put in jeopardy by the greed of these same banksters.
I think it's time that Washington simply seized these banks and threw their scheming managers out on the street.
This is truly mind-boggling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25nocera.html?em
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Blue State Democrat to His Red State Cousins
Dear Red States:
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're
taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that
includes California , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin, Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty . You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama . We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines(you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford , Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand,you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University , Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite , thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace,
Blue States
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're
taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that
includes California , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin, Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty . You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama . We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines(you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford , Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand,you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University , Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite , thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace,
Blue States
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Blog Block
Time for a bit of R&R. I find myself starting posts that I never finish. About halfway through it's hit the "save" button. The doldrums have set in.
I'll be back before the American elections. In the meantime I think my beagle just left some lawn chocolates in the backyard.
Stay well.
I'll be back before the American elections. In the meantime I think my beagle just left some lawn chocolates in the backyard.
Stay well.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama Suspends Campaign
It's not the self-serving, faux suspension McCain tried last month.
The Obama campaign has told reporters that he'll be taking Thursday and Friday off. He'll be going to Hawaii to be with his failing grandmother who, it appears, is not doing at all well.
Few realized it but Obama left his campaign for a week in August, again to spend time with his grandmother.
On Saturday the Illinois senator is scheduled to resume his campaign events. At this point so close to the November 4th election there's no way to tell whether the suspension will have a substantial impact on this close race.
The Obama campaign has told reporters that he'll be taking Thursday and Friday off. He'll be going to Hawaii to be with his failing grandmother who, it appears, is not doing at all well.
Few realized it but Obama left his campaign for a week in August, again to spend time with his grandmother.
On Saturday the Illinois senator is scheduled to resume his campaign events. At this point so close to the November 4th election there's no way to tell whether the suspension will have a substantial impact on this close race.
Condelusional Rice
If there's been one trait that has distinguished Condoleeza Rice's eight years of service with the Bush administration, it's her ability to completely ignore reality and spin whatever fantasy best suits the boss - and do it with a straight face.
Her latest, according to BBC News, is to proclaim that the policies of George w. Bush have left the Middle East a better place.
Asked to assess the outgoing US administration's legacy, she said she was especially proud of the situation in the Palestinian territories.
She insisted that what she called a US-inspired "freedom agenda" had taken hold in the Middle East.
Ms Rice also said Iraq had become a "good Arab friend" of America.
"The Middle East is a different place and a better place," Ms Rice told BBC Arabic TV.
Iraq, far from being destroyed, was fully integrated into the Arab world, she said.
There you have it. Iraq is now fully integrated into the Arab world. When did Tehran turn Arab?
Her latest, according to BBC News, is to proclaim that the policies of George w. Bush have left the Middle East a better place.
Asked to assess the outgoing US administration's legacy, she said she was especially proud of the situation in the Palestinian territories.
She insisted that what she called a US-inspired "freedom agenda" had taken hold in the Middle East.
Ms Rice also said Iraq had become a "good Arab friend" of America.
"The Middle East is a different place and a better place," Ms Rice told BBC Arabic TV.
Iraq, far from being destroyed, was fully integrated into the Arab world, she said.
There you have it. Iraq is now fully integrated into the Arab world. When did Tehran turn Arab?
Get Over It - He Was No Messiah!
I carry no brief for any Liberal insider, no preference for who ought to become the next leader of the LPC. None, I'm neutral.
I wanted Dion to step down solely on performance reasons. I read a post the other day that described Mr. Dion as a person best suited to serve as Prime Minister but ill-suited to becoming elected Prime Minister.
The fury and outrage of Dion loyalists is profound. I realize that, in any party, there are people who are more closely attached to an individual than to the party. I confess to a bit of that myself when I was young and Pierre Trudeau was our leader. Maybe it's something one grows out of, who knows?
Not all of our party's leaders have been iconic. Some, such as Mr. Chretien, caught an awful lot of breaks. Brian Mulroney, after all, left the PCPC in a shambles when Mr. Chretien stepped in and the right remained terminally divided during the Chretien years. I liked Mr. Chretien and happily supported him but I never overlooked the role that circumstances not of his or our party's making had in his success.
So, now we must seek a new leader. Good, I hope we can focus on finding someone who will unite and motivate the party as Mr. Dion never managed to do. We have to ensure that the next leader has the aptitude for the job, an ability to connect with voters outside today's narrow Liberal realm. That will be a leader with vision, political acumen, solid communication skills and the charisma essential to motivate voters who stayed away from the polls last week or who voted for Mr. Harper because they saw no viable alternative.
We need a leader, now more than ever.
I wanted Dion to step down solely on performance reasons. I read a post the other day that described Mr. Dion as a person best suited to serve as Prime Minister but ill-suited to becoming elected Prime Minister.
The fury and outrage of Dion loyalists is profound. I realize that, in any party, there are people who are more closely attached to an individual than to the party. I confess to a bit of that myself when I was young and Pierre Trudeau was our leader. Maybe it's something one grows out of, who knows?
Not all of our party's leaders have been iconic. Some, such as Mr. Chretien, caught an awful lot of breaks. Brian Mulroney, after all, left the PCPC in a shambles when Mr. Chretien stepped in and the right remained terminally divided during the Chretien years. I liked Mr. Chretien and happily supported him but I never overlooked the role that circumstances not of his or our party's making had in his success.
So, now we must seek a new leader. Good, I hope we can focus on finding someone who will unite and motivate the party as Mr. Dion never managed to do. We have to ensure that the next leader has the aptitude for the job, an ability to connect with voters outside today's narrow Liberal realm. That will be a leader with vision, political acumen, solid communication skills and the charisma essential to motivate voters who stayed away from the polls last week or who voted for Mr. Harper because they saw no viable alternative.
We need a leader, now more than ever.
Kim-Jong Il - or Dead?
Japanese newspapers are reporting that diplomats in North Korea have been ordered to be on standby for some sort of major announcement and that there are plans to temporarily ban foreigners from entering the country.
Something's up, just what isn't clear. Speculation ranges from an announcement of Kim's death to proclamation of a coup d'etat. So far nobody knows nothin'.
Kim hasn't been seen in public since August. The government recently released a video showing Kim inspecting some facility but the trees in the background were in full leaf which Gwynne Dyer notes means the video wasn't taken anytime recently.
Something's up, just what isn't clear. Speculation ranges from an announcement of Kim's death to proclamation of a coup d'etat. So far nobody knows nothin'.
Kim hasn't been seen in public since August. The government recently released a video showing Kim inspecting some facility but the trees in the background were in full leaf which Gwynne Dyer notes means the video wasn't taken anytime recently.
Spending Like There IS A Tomorrow
There's a growing consensus in the United States that this is no time to be waging war on deficits, just the opposite. The idea, proposed by Krugman and others, is that the US government needs to stimulate the economy by a variety of means, a key one being infrastructure projects. In essence they're talking about a new New Deal.
Unlike government giveaways, infrastructure projects are an investment, the sort of thing designed to reap big dividends in years to come. They're also a means to introduce major technology shifts.
Why restore obsolete or unproductive infrastructure? Maybe in the future the rising cost of fuel will mean you won't need three highways in some places but only one. Restoring all three, therefore, would plainly be little more than a glorified, make work project.
However, past experience shows this sort of depression-era infrastructure spending can, by its very size, allow governments to introduce new technologies and major changes that would otherwise have been impossible.
Look at Germany in the 30's. Monster that he was, Hitler's Nazi government brought that country back to life through some key pre-war infrastructure projects ranging from public housing to autobahns. Similar benefits came to Americans from Roosevelt's interventions which are neatly summarized in this from Newgeography.com:
"Together with a plethora of well-built public schools, libraries, post offices, parks, water systems, bridges, airports, hospitals, harbors, city halls, county courthouses, zoos, art works and more, New Deal initiatives spread the wealth and enriched the lives of uncounted Americans."
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00170-excavating-the-buried-civilization-roosevelt%E2%80%99s-new-deal
Most of North America is well overdue for a serious makeover. There's the essential infrastructure decay that needs fixing - water and sewer systems in many Canadian cities, for example. But there are also opportunities to get our nations aligned for the 21st century realities. I'll give you an example.
Rail transport. We know that rail is up to five times more fuel efficient for transporting freight over great distances than long-haul truck transport. Unfortunately the rail system we have today isn't up to the job. What if the government was to commit to a mega-project to construct a new, high capacity railway system for the 21st century? Use rail in lieu of trucks. Not only would it reduce fossil fuel consumption but it would make the transport of goods far more affordable. Trucks would be used for short and medium-haul delivery, not inefficient cross-Canada transport.
I'm sure there are several other equally sound ideas for overhauling and modernizing Canada's infrastructure to meet the changes we'll face this century. Let's identify them, see what can be done and what rewards we'll reap from them in the future.
If you see this as just standard, socialist babble, take a look at the 401 highway from Windsor to Montreal. Read about the old, pioneer path 2-lane routes it replaced and then learn about the role this one superhighway played in Ontario's economic rise in the postwar decades. Once you've digested that, you can come back and rail on about socialism. Look at the expansion and development of secondary airports and microwave communications and the role they played in opening up Canada's north and then you can bleat anti-socialist mantras.
We all pretty much realize that a real future lies in so-called green industries, everything from carbon capture technology to alternative, clean power projects. Those are industries that will create jobs and wealth. What better time to kickstart things like that?
Of course it will take a government with real vision to recognize the opportunities and exploit them for the benefit of the country. I doubt very much that's within the scope of the one-dimensional administration we have today.
Unlike government giveaways, infrastructure projects are an investment, the sort of thing designed to reap big dividends in years to come. They're also a means to introduce major technology shifts.
Why restore obsolete or unproductive infrastructure? Maybe in the future the rising cost of fuel will mean you won't need three highways in some places but only one. Restoring all three, therefore, would plainly be little more than a glorified, make work project.
However, past experience shows this sort of depression-era infrastructure spending can, by its very size, allow governments to introduce new technologies and major changes that would otherwise have been impossible.
Look at Germany in the 30's. Monster that he was, Hitler's Nazi government brought that country back to life through some key pre-war infrastructure projects ranging from public housing to autobahns. Similar benefits came to Americans from Roosevelt's interventions which are neatly summarized in this from Newgeography.com:
"Together with a plethora of well-built public schools, libraries, post offices, parks, water systems, bridges, airports, hospitals, harbors, city halls, county courthouses, zoos, art works and more, New Deal initiatives spread the wealth and enriched the lives of uncounted Americans."
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00170-excavating-the-buried-civilization-roosevelt%E2%80%99s-new-deal
Most of North America is well overdue for a serious makeover. There's the essential infrastructure decay that needs fixing - water and sewer systems in many Canadian cities, for example. But there are also opportunities to get our nations aligned for the 21st century realities. I'll give you an example.
Rail transport. We know that rail is up to five times more fuel efficient for transporting freight over great distances than long-haul truck transport. Unfortunately the rail system we have today isn't up to the job. What if the government was to commit to a mega-project to construct a new, high capacity railway system for the 21st century? Use rail in lieu of trucks. Not only would it reduce fossil fuel consumption but it would make the transport of goods far more affordable. Trucks would be used for short and medium-haul delivery, not inefficient cross-Canada transport.
I'm sure there are several other equally sound ideas for overhauling and modernizing Canada's infrastructure to meet the changes we'll face this century. Let's identify them, see what can be done and what rewards we'll reap from them in the future.
If you see this as just standard, socialist babble, take a look at the 401 highway from Windsor to Montreal. Read about the old, pioneer path 2-lane routes it replaced and then learn about the role this one superhighway played in Ontario's economic rise in the postwar decades. Once you've digested that, you can come back and rail on about socialism. Look at the expansion and development of secondary airports and microwave communications and the role they played in opening up Canada's north and then you can bleat anti-socialist mantras.
We all pretty much realize that a real future lies in so-called green industries, everything from carbon capture technology to alternative, clean power projects. Those are industries that will create jobs and wealth. What better time to kickstart things like that?
Of course it will take a government with real vision to recognize the opportunities and exploit them for the benefit of the country. I doubt very much that's within the scope of the one-dimensional administration we have today.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
McCain Goes All In - Even His Integrity Is On The Line
John McCain will do anything, say anything to defeat Barack Obama and win the White House and he's willing to sacrifice everything, including what remains of his dignity and integrity.
It's sad really to see a guy who's built this legendary image based on an ordeal in a North Vietnamese POW camp four decades ago show just how little that truly matters - to himself. Here's a hint - if it doesn't matter to John McCain, it shouldn't matter to anyone else either.
And it doesn't matter to John McCain. Heroes don't dive into the gutter. I've had the privilege of meeting and knowing a few real heroes. They're all dead now. One was a true "Knight of the Air," two others were ground pounders. They all had one thing in common. They didn't try to wear their heroism on their sleeve - they were extremely private - and they always stood tall.
John McCain has traded on his heroism. He's exhausted it, reminding all who'll listen of it with an implied suggestion that someone owes him the presidency because of an event largely beyond his control forty years ago.
Heroism doesn't wear well for very long when it's flown like a flag in public. Maybe that's something real heroes instinctively understand. There's something disingenuous in tossing it up in the air for people to watch again and again.
But when you couple the political marketing of heroism with slimeball, gutter politics, the aura combusts like white phosphorous exposed to oxygen. All you're left with is ashy residue. And I guess that's an apt metaphor for John McCain, 2008.
This campaign will cost John McCain more than his last shot at the US presidency. He will have also forfeited his dignity and his integrity. He won't be the first hero to turn bum and he won't be the last. At least he won't have to spend time in the Crowbar Hotel like his fellow Vietnam hero and Republican compatriot, the former senator Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
It's sad really to see a guy who's built this legendary image based on an ordeal in a North Vietnamese POW camp four decades ago show just how little that truly matters - to himself. Here's a hint - if it doesn't matter to John McCain, it shouldn't matter to anyone else either.
And it doesn't matter to John McCain. Heroes don't dive into the gutter. I've had the privilege of meeting and knowing a few real heroes. They're all dead now. One was a true "Knight of the Air," two others were ground pounders. They all had one thing in common. They didn't try to wear their heroism on their sleeve - they were extremely private - and they always stood tall.
John McCain has traded on his heroism. He's exhausted it, reminding all who'll listen of it with an implied suggestion that someone owes him the presidency because of an event largely beyond his control forty years ago.
Heroism doesn't wear well for very long when it's flown like a flag in public. Maybe that's something real heroes instinctively understand. There's something disingenuous in tossing it up in the air for people to watch again and again.
But when you couple the political marketing of heroism with slimeball, gutter politics, the aura combusts like white phosphorous exposed to oxygen. All you're left with is ashy residue. And I guess that's an apt metaphor for John McCain, 2008.
This campaign will cost John McCain more than his last shot at the US presidency. He will have also forfeited his dignity and his integrity. He won't be the first hero to turn bum and he won't be the last. At least he won't have to spend time in the Crowbar Hotel like his fellow Vietnam hero and Republican compatriot, the former senator Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
Obama Had Better Get Ready to Kick Back Hard
Just a couple of weeks left before the American elections and John McCain is running hard to narrow his Democratic opponent's considerable lead.
The McCain campaign seems to be out of ideas, nothing appears to be getting traction, and so their last-ditch effort may be to fall back on smear, the deliberate exploitation of outright lies and treacherous distortions, to make gullible American voters fearful and distrusting of Obama.
There's a pretty good analysis of this in Talking Points Memo:
"...McCain's final strategy relies on two pillars. The first is aggressively playing to voters' fears of electing a black president. Make no mistake: not just his campaign in a general sense, but McCain himself and his top handful of advisers, are banking on the residual racism in a changing America to get them over the finish line. The second is an aggressive use of innuendo to convince casual voters that Obama is in league with Islamic terrorists bent on killing Americans.
Many people have asked whether enough Americans really care any more about the cultural convulsions of the 1960s. The answer? It doesn't matter. For the McCain campaign, Bill Ayers has nothing to do with 60s radicalism. Ayers is nothing more than a tool that permits McCain, Palin and all their surrogates to use the noun "terrorist" in polite company in the same sentence as "Obama," over and over and over again. It allows them to cobble together a 'respectable' version of those Obama smear emails they can push in commercials and robocalls and surrogate talking points every hour of every day.
Stripped down to its components McCain's message to voters is this: "Don't forget. He's definitely black. And he may be a terrorist." That's the message. The nuts and bolts is a concerted effort to keep Democrats from voting -- through intimidation, by striking new voters from the rolls, which is going to happen to lots of them, clogging polling stations to create delays that keep late day (predominantly) Obama voters from voting altogether. Smears in the air and voter suppression on the ground.
Many people say, well ... all this stuff just hasn't worked. But the truth is that the really corrupt and vicious part of McCain's effort only comes now because it's only in the last couple weeks that you can pull stuff that the press won't get to call you on before election day -- after which it doesn't matter. Will it take Obama down? So far McCain's gutter campaign has hurt him more than helped. But there's no reason to be sure it will continue that way."
Obama has one advantage that will let him fight back - money and lots of it. He'll need it to wage a last-ditch media campaign of his own that just might bury McCain in his own trash.
The McCain campaign seems to be out of ideas, nothing appears to be getting traction, and so their last-ditch effort may be to fall back on smear, the deliberate exploitation of outright lies and treacherous distortions, to make gullible American voters fearful and distrusting of Obama.
There's a pretty good analysis of this in Talking Points Memo:
"...McCain's final strategy relies on two pillars. The first is aggressively playing to voters' fears of electing a black president. Make no mistake: not just his campaign in a general sense, but McCain himself and his top handful of advisers, are banking on the residual racism in a changing America to get them over the finish line. The second is an aggressive use of innuendo to convince casual voters that Obama is in league with Islamic terrorists bent on killing Americans.
Many people have asked whether enough Americans really care any more about the cultural convulsions of the 1960s. The answer? It doesn't matter. For the McCain campaign, Bill Ayers has nothing to do with 60s radicalism. Ayers is nothing more than a tool that permits McCain, Palin and all their surrogates to use the noun "terrorist" in polite company in the same sentence as "Obama," over and over and over again. It allows them to cobble together a 'respectable' version of those Obama smear emails they can push in commercials and robocalls and surrogate talking points every hour of every day.
Stripped down to its components McCain's message to voters is this: "Don't forget. He's definitely black. And he may be a terrorist." That's the message. The nuts and bolts is a concerted effort to keep Democrats from voting -- through intimidation, by striking new voters from the rolls, which is going to happen to lots of them, clogging polling stations to create delays that keep late day (predominantly) Obama voters from voting altogether. Smears in the air and voter suppression on the ground.
Many people say, well ... all this stuff just hasn't worked. But the truth is that the really corrupt and vicious part of McCain's effort only comes now because it's only in the last couple weeks that you can pull stuff that the press won't get to call you on before election day -- after which it doesn't matter. Will it take Obama down? So far McCain's gutter campaign has hurt him more than helped. But there's no reason to be sure it will continue that way."
Obama has one advantage that will let him fight back - money and lots of it. He'll need it to wage a last-ditch media campaign of his own that just might bury McCain in his own trash.
Pakistan Takes Refuge Under Chinese Wing
Pakistan continues to drift further away from the West and closer to China. When Pakistan plays such an integral role in the war which we're supposed to be fighting next door in Afghanistan, that's hardly welcome news.
The Pakistan news agency, Dawn, gives a pretty good indication of where this is going:
..Islamabad is looking forward to bolstering ties with Beijing in a big way.
The president’s decision to visit Beijing after every three months and agreements for the setting up of two nuclear energy plants, launch of a satellite and heavy investments by Chinese corporations in several other projects are some of the signs.
According to the foreign minister, the president would visit China every three months for “promoting economic integration between the two countries, enhancing their connectivity, optimally utilising the economic complementarities; and promoting trans-regional economic cooperation”.
“President Zardari wants to give a new dimension to China-Pakistan relations, basing them on enhanced economic cooperation,” the foreign minister said.
In the energy sector, Mr Qureshi also saw a role for China in the gas pipeline project between Iran and Pakistan. “I see a role for China whether China joins the projects at some later stage or invests in it.”
Another Pakistani news service, PakTribune, has this from Zardari:
The President pointed out that Pakistan has been following China’s progress and “we take pride in their success, because we are like a family.”
“Chinese and Pakistani people are like a family”, he said. “We see their progress with pride and are happy to see our friends strong. If China is strong, we are strong.”
There has been a groundswell of anti-Americanism building in Pakistan since before the ouster of Pervez Musharraf. The Zardari government seems to be riding that wave with real success. There are real economic, military and security questions that will come out of the closer bonds being forged between Islamabad and Beijing.
The Pakistan news agency, Dawn, gives a pretty good indication of where this is going:
..Islamabad is looking forward to bolstering ties with Beijing in a big way.
The president’s decision to visit Beijing after every three months and agreements for the setting up of two nuclear energy plants, launch of a satellite and heavy investments by Chinese corporations in several other projects are some of the signs.
According to the foreign minister, the president would visit China every three months for “promoting economic integration between the two countries, enhancing their connectivity, optimally utilising the economic complementarities; and promoting trans-regional economic cooperation”.
“President Zardari wants to give a new dimension to China-Pakistan relations, basing them on enhanced economic cooperation,” the foreign minister said.
In the energy sector, Mr Qureshi also saw a role for China in the gas pipeline project between Iran and Pakistan. “I see a role for China whether China joins the projects at some later stage or invests in it.”
Another Pakistani news service, PakTribune, has this from Zardari:
The President pointed out that Pakistan has been following China’s progress and “we take pride in their success, because we are like a family.”
“Chinese and Pakistani people are like a family”, he said. “We see their progress with pride and are happy to see our friends strong. If China is strong, we are strong.”
There has been a groundswell of anti-Americanism building in Pakistan since before the ouster of Pervez Musharraf. The Zardari government seems to be riding that wave with real success. There are real economic, military and security questions that will come out of the closer bonds being forged between Islamabad and Beijing.
Open Season on Little Boys' Bums in Kandahar
For Gung-Ho Steve, the Afghanistan mission was all show, no go and now that it's lost its lustre and partisan, political advantage, it's "out of sight, out of mind" for the Cons. To help that along they've conveniently gagged the Armed Forces. Harper's PMO will let you know everything they want you to believe about Afghanistan. Why? Because our media sheep let them get away with it and there's nobody within their party willing to stand up for Canadians and our soldiers. But I digress.
There's an awful scandal going on in Afghanistan. It concerns complaints of Canadian soldiers that they've had to watch, helpless, as Afghan soldiers and interpreters rape young boys. In June, the Toronto Star reported that several soldiers said they had complained but were ignored by higher ups.
Now the uproar is that the Canadian military's National Investigation Service has said it could take up to two years to investigate the soldiers' claims. Two years for them to come back and tell us that - oh my gosh, our side, the good guys, the folks we're fighting to prop up, really do have a thing for little boys' bums. Who could've known, quelle surprise!
Their dirty little secret is that we've known about this and quietly gone along with it literally since we got there.
This is from The New York Times, February 21, 2002: "Though the puritanical Taliban tried hard to erase pedophilia from male-dominated Pashtun culture, now that the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is gone, some people here are indulging in it once again. "During the Taliban, being with a friend was difficult, but now it is easy again," said Ahmed Fareed, a 19-year-old man with a white shawl covering his face except for a dark shock of hair and piercing kohl-lined eyes. Mr. Fareed should know. A shopkeeper took him as a lover when he was just 12, he said.
An interest in relationships with young boys among warlords and their militia commanders played a part in the Taliban's rise in Afghanistan. In 1994, the Taliban, then a small army of idealistic students of the Koran, were called to rescue a boy over whom two commanders had fought. They freed the boy and the people responded with gratitude and support. "At that time boys couldn't come to the market because the commanders would come and take away any that they liked," said Amin Ullah, a money changer, gesturing to his two teenage sons hunched over wads of afghani bank notes at Kandahar's currency bazaar.
Yeah, that's right kids. We ran the Taliban out of town in 2001 and since then it's been open season on little boys' bums. But don't worry, little Afghan girls get their share too. Fathers selling pre-pubescent teen daughters to other old guys is relatively common. They're not being bought for their culinary skills either. If they don't go along with sexual slavery their fathers can sling them into prison, indefinitely. Two years ago there were detailed news reports of one such prison where girls as young as 12 were being held, indefinitely, just down the road from the main gate of our base in Kandahar.
You can't blame the foot soldiers for this. They have to follow orders and procedures. But you can damn well blame those who are giving those orders, dictating those procedures. And you can damn well blame those who are covering this up, because they're silently condoning pedophilia and, right now, that chain of command goes right to the top. Steve, are you getting this? These animals are ass-raping kids, Steve, on your watch, Steve. So, what are you going to do about it Steve or are you just going to cover it up, pretend not to notice? At this point, Steve, isn't that condoning pedophilia by omission? You can gag the Armed Forces all you want Steve but this one is on your books and it isn't going away.
There's an awful scandal going on in Afghanistan. It concerns complaints of Canadian soldiers that they've had to watch, helpless, as Afghan soldiers and interpreters rape young boys. In June, the Toronto Star reported that several soldiers said they had complained but were ignored by higher ups.
Now the uproar is that the Canadian military's National Investigation Service has said it could take up to two years to investigate the soldiers' claims. Two years for them to come back and tell us that - oh my gosh, our side, the good guys, the folks we're fighting to prop up, really do have a thing for little boys' bums. Who could've known, quelle surprise!
Their dirty little secret is that we've known about this and quietly gone along with it literally since we got there.
This is from The New York Times, February 21, 2002: "Though the puritanical Taliban tried hard to erase pedophilia from male-dominated Pashtun culture, now that the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is gone, some people here are indulging in it once again. "During the Taliban, being with a friend was difficult, but now it is easy again," said Ahmed Fareed, a 19-year-old man with a white shawl covering his face except for a dark shock of hair and piercing kohl-lined eyes. Mr. Fareed should know. A shopkeeper took him as a lover when he was just 12, he said.
An interest in relationships with young boys among warlords and their militia commanders played a part in the Taliban's rise in Afghanistan. In 1994, the Taliban, then a small army of idealistic students of the Koran, were called to rescue a boy over whom two commanders had fought. They freed the boy and the people responded with gratitude and support. "At that time boys couldn't come to the market because the commanders would come and take away any that they liked," said Amin Ullah, a money changer, gesturing to his two teenage sons hunched over wads of afghani bank notes at Kandahar's currency bazaar.
Yeah, that's right kids. We ran the Taliban out of town in 2001 and since then it's been open season on little boys' bums. But don't worry, little Afghan girls get their share too. Fathers selling pre-pubescent teen daughters to other old guys is relatively common. They're not being bought for their culinary skills either. If they don't go along with sexual slavery their fathers can sling them into prison, indefinitely. Two years ago there were detailed news reports of one such prison where girls as young as 12 were being held, indefinitely, just down the road from the main gate of our base in Kandahar.
You can't blame the foot soldiers for this. They have to follow orders and procedures. But you can damn well blame those who are giving those orders, dictating those procedures. And you can damn well blame those who are covering this up, because they're silently condoning pedophilia and, right now, that chain of command goes right to the top. Steve, are you getting this? These animals are ass-raping kids, Steve, on your watch, Steve. So, what are you going to do about it Steve or are you just going to cover it up, pretend not to notice? At this point, Steve, isn't that condoning pedophilia by omission? You can gag the Armed Forces all you want Steve but this one is on your books and it isn't going away.
By the way, if you found the language of this post coarse and offensive - good - that's precisely what I wanted. This is a subject that deserves no less.
The Latest Thing for Hypochondriacs - Mortality Maps
Coming to Britain tomorrow, can we be far behind? The Guardian reports that tomorrow will be the unveiling of a mortality atlas of Britain.
Worried Brits will be able to pore over maps of various maladies and mishaps that reveal where you're most likely to be murdered or in which region you stand the greatest chance of cervical cancer. The possibilities are - endless?
The working title is The Grim Reaper's Road Map, An Atlas of Mortality in Britain.
The maps, to be published tomorrow by Policy Press, show patterns that are very different to those created in previous attempts to understand the spread of death across the country. 'Most maps of mortality simply show that more people die in those towns and cities where more people live, particularly in the places where there are lots of elderly people,' said co-author Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield. 'But our maps show a person's chances of dying from a particular cause in a particular place, compared to the national average chance for that cause of death, having standardised for distributions of population and by age and sex in each area.'
The maps show deaths from a range of causes, including heart attack, cancer, murder, electrocution and deaths during surgery.
Electrocution? Oh, I forgot, British wiring!
The maps also reveal clusters of more unusual deaths. Most people who die by choking on food live in Morpeth and St Albans East.
Worried Brits will be able to pore over maps of various maladies and mishaps that reveal where you're most likely to be murdered or in which region you stand the greatest chance of cervical cancer. The possibilities are - endless?
The working title is The Grim Reaper's Road Map, An Atlas of Mortality in Britain.
The maps, to be published tomorrow by Policy Press, show patterns that are very different to those created in previous attempts to understand the spread of death across the country. 'Most maps of mortality simply show that more people die in those towns and cities where more people live, particularly in the places where there are lots of elderly people,' said co-author Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield. 'But our maps show a person's chances of dying from a particular cause in a particular place, compared to the national average chance for that cause of death, having standardised for distributions of population and by age and sex in each area.'
The maps show deaths from a range of causes, including heart attack, cancer, murder, electrocution and deaths during surgery.
Electrocution? Oh, I forgot, British wiring!
The maps also reveal clusters of more unusual deaths. Most people who die by choking on food live in Morpeth and St Albans East.
Powell: Obama, "Transformational "- McCain, "Over the Top"
Retired 4-star general, former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama as president of the United States.
From The New York Times:
Powell, "endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning as a candidate who was reaching out in a “more diverse and inclusive way across our society” and offering a “calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach” to the nation’s problems."
While Powell has been a friend and advisor to McCain for decades, he criticized the McCain campaign's attempts to smear Obama for his passing acquaintance with William Ayers. "I thought that was over the top,” Mr. Powell told reporters. “It was beyond just good political fighting back and forth.”
Powell added that McCain would simply be a new face pasted on the "orthodoxy of the Republican agenda."
I suspect we're beginning to see the Republican Party undergo a healthy re-alignment with the moderates - Powell, Chuck Hagel, even the Chicago Tribune, rejecting the neo-conservative movement of Bush/Cheney now embraced by John McCain. Sounds like they want their party back. They're drawing a line in the sand, telling the neo-cons that they would prefer to back a Dem than allow their party to languish in the far right of extremism. I wonder when progressive Conservatives will catch on.
From The New York Times:
Powell, "endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning as a candidate who was reaching out in a “more diverse and inclusive way across our society” and offering a “calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach” to the nation’s problems."
While Powell has been a friend and advisor to McCain for decades, he criticized the McCain campaign's attempts to smear Obama for his passing acquaintance with William Ayers. "I thought that was over the top,” Mr. Powell told reporters. “It was beyond just good political fighting back and forth.”
Powell added that McCain would simply be a new face pasted on the "orthodoxy of the Republican agenda."
I suspect we're beginning to see the Republican Party undergo a healthy re-alignment with the moderates - Powell, Chuck Hagel, even the Chicago Tribune, rejecting the neo-conservative movement of Bush/Cheney now embraced by John McCain. Sounds like they want their party back. They're drawing a line in the sand, telling the neo-cons that they would prefer to back a Dem than allow their party to languish in the far right of extremism. I wonder when progressive Conservatives will catch on.
Climate Change - American Fish Vote With Their Tails
Sarah Palin says she doesn't believe in man-made global warming. She also opposed placing the polar bear and beluga on America's endangered species list lest it trouble those oil companies she's always standing up to.
Now her state is facing another climate change victim - its main fish stock (no that's not king crab), the humble pollock, is taking off for Russia.
It's something we've seen plenty of out here on the coast. As the polar ice fields retreat, waters warm and species move north. There has been a steady northward retreat of the food chain. Grey whales which once used to gorge in the Bering now travel on into the Beaufort to find krill and, in the process, they're losing a lot of body mass.
But this is about Alaska and the pollock. You won't see pollock on the menus in fancy restaurants but it's a big seller packaged as fish sticks or fast food fish sandwiches or processed up as artificial crab. Alaskan fishermen have been harvesting about two billion pounds of pollock annually.
Fish stocks that were once abundant near the Aleutians are now reaching the Russian border, steadily moving the northwestern end of their range.
When migratory fish stocks dwindle on this coast, suspicion always turns to the neighbours. It's an historic squabble between BC and Washington salmon fishermen. Now it seems that same sort of dispute is inevitable between Alaskan and Russian authorities. When what's at stake is the largest human-food fishery in the world the rivalry could be intense.
Now her state is facing another climate change victim - its main fish stock (no that's not king crab), the humble pollock, is taking off for Russia.
It's something we've seen plenty of out here on the coast. As the polar ice fields retreat, waters warm and species move north. There has been a steady northward retreat of the food chain. Grey whales which once used to gorge in the Bering now travel on into the Beaufort to find krill and, in the process, they're losing a lot of body mass.
But this is about Alaska and the pollock. You won't see pollock on the menus in fancy restaurants but it's a big seller packaged as fish sticks or fast food fish sandwiches or processed up as artificial crab. Alaskan fishermen have been harvesting about two billion pounds of pollock annually.
Fish stocks that were once abundant near the Aleutians are now reaching the Russian border, steadily moving the northwestern end of their range.
When migratory fish stocks dwindle on this coast, suspicion always turns to the neighbours. It's an historic squabble between BC and Washington salmon fishermen. Now it seems that same sort of dispute is inevitable between Alaskan and Russian authorities. When what's at stake is the largest human-food fishery in the world the rivalry could be intense.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Zakaria Sees Hope on Horizon
In this era of uncertainty it's refreshing to hear a voice of reasoned optimism. From Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria:
Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced—and they have made up the difference by borrowing.
Two decades of easy money and innovative financial products meant that virtually anyone could borrow any amount of money for any purpose. If we wanted a bigger house, a better TV or a faster car, and we didn't actually have the money to pay for it, no problem. We put it on a credit card, took out a massive mortgage and financed our fantasies. As the fantasies grew, so did household debt, from $680 billion in 1974 to $14 trillion today. The total has doubled in just the past seven years. The average household owns 13 credit cards, and 40 percent of them carry a balance, up from 6 percent in 1970.
But the average American's behavior was virtue itself compared with the government's. Every city, every county and every state has wanted to preserve its many and proliferating operations and yet not raise taxes. How to square this circle? By borrowing, using ever more elaborate financial instruments. Revenue bonds were backed up by the prospect of future income from taxes or lotteries. "A growing trend is to securitize future federal funding for highways, housing and other items," says Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. The effect on the projects, he points out, is to make them more expensive, since they incur interest payments. Because they "insulate the taxpayer from the cost"—all that needs to be paid now is the interest—they also tend to produce cost overruns.
The whole country has been complicit in a great fraud. As economist Jeffrey Sachs points out, "We've wanted lots of government, but we haven't wanted to pay for it." So we've borrowed our way out of the problem. In 1990, the national debt stood at $3 trillion. (That sounds high, but keep reading.) By 2000, it had almost doubled, to $5.75 trillion. It is currently $10.2 trillion. The number moved into 11 digits last month, which meant that the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of space to display the figures. Its owners plan to get a new clock next year.
...At some point the magical accounting had to stop. At some point, consumers had to stop using their homes as banks and spending money that they didn't have. At some point, the government had to confront its indebtedness. The United States—and other overleveraged societies—have now gotten the wake-up call from hell. If we can respond and change our behavior markedly, this might actually be a blessing in disguise.
In the short term, all the solutions to the current crisis require that governments take on more debts and larger obligations. This is inevitable and necessary. But that doesn't mean we should, as some noted economists advocate, stimulate the economy with more tax cuts. That would be only one more way to keep the party going artificially—like asking a drunk to go to AA next year, but in the meantime to have even more whisky. A far better stimulus would be to announce and expedite major infrastructure and energy projects, which are investments, not consumption, and therefore have a much different effect on the country's fiscal fortunes.
...we have to get back to basics. Households, for instance, should save more. Governments should put incentives in place that make such savings more likely. The U.S. government offers enormous incentives to consume (the deduction of mortgage interest being the best example), and it works. We have the biggest houses in the world, the thinnest flat-screen TVs and the most cars. If we were to tax consumption and encourage savings, that would also work.
...A new discipline would benefit America in a more general sense, too. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has operated in the world with no constraints or checks on its power. This has not been good for its foreign policy. It has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless. Its decision making has resembled General Motors' business strategy in the 1970s and 1980s, a process driven largely by a vast array of internal factors but little sense of urgency or awareness of outside pressures. We didn't have to make strategic choices; we could have it all. We could make blunders, anger the world, rupture alliances, waste resources, wage war incompetently—it didn't matter. We had more than enough room for error—lots of error.
...Checks and balances are James Madison's crucial mechanisms, exposing and countering abuse and arrogance and forcing discipline on people. This discipline will be painful for a country that has gotten used to having it all. But it will make us much stronger in the long run. If we can learn the right lessons from this crisis, the United States will once more be playing by its own rules. And that cannot be bad for us.
There's Something Stirring in Baghdad
The real measure of Iraq's stability is about to be tested.
Forget the surge. That was never more than American political theatre. Yes, violence in Iraqi centres did decline. That actually began before the surge was implemented and that traces back to a number of developments in Iraq at that time.
The tinderbox issue of the moment is the Status of Forces Agreement between the Maliki government and Washington. It supposedly provides for the withdrawal of America forces from Iraq by 2011 but, in reality, it's riddled with so many conditions and escape clauses that withdrawal becomes iffy at best, out of the question at worst.
Everyone has been curious about Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army and where they've gone lately. Today, Reuters reports that thousands of Sadr supporters took to the streets of Baghdad to protest the agreement and demand that American forces quit Iraq.
What's entirely uncertain is whether the agreement will be passed by the Iraqi parliament. Asia Times Online reports that the Maliki government, even as it has signed the deal and submitted it to parliament for approval, privately hopes it is defeated:
The Americans announced, against [Maliki's] wishes, the arrest of a senior officer in the Iraqi army on charges of channeling funds from Tehran to radical groups inside Iraq.
The funds were to be used to buy the loyalty of certain Iraqi parliamentarians in order to sink the proposed treaty with the US. Maliki never wanted the much-loathed treaty with Washington, and neither did Tehran. To keep his post, however, he had to go on with American requests to ratify the pact before the end of 2008.
Meanwhile, he turned a blind eye to all those opposing it. In fact, he encouraged them at times because this echoed his own personal beliefs and what he felt best served the interests of both Iraq and Iran. Among other things, the treaty calls for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraqi cities by June 2009, and from all of Iraq by 2011, "unless requested otherwise by the Iraqi government".
...Within the political system, Maliki remains at odds with the Sadrists, although the tension is low nowadays because of mutual distrust of the American treaty. Maliki is mildly trying - again - to win the favors of Iraqi Sunnis as his relationship remains strained with the two Kurdish heavyweight parties. He wants the Sunnis to oppose the treaty as well, and then cite their opposition with US decision-makers."
If this account is accurate it means that Maliki signed the Status of Forces Agreement because he had to and now is looking to his parliament, including the opposition parties, to take him off the hook by voting it down.
The Americans are putting Maliki under a full court press to deliver a deal before the end of the year. That's when the UN mandate lapses. Without a done deal on January 1, 2009, America becomes an "illegal occupier" and subject to sanctions.
If the deal is signed, sealed and delivered, Iraq would be bound to accept the American occupation for at least two years, the agreement requiring that much notice of revocation.
Forget the surge. That was never more than American political theatre. Yes, violence in Iraqi centres did decline. That actually began before the surge was implemented and that traces back to a number of developments in Iraq at that time.
The tinderbox issue of the moment is the Status of Forces Agreement between the Maliki government and Washington. It supposedly provides for the withdrawal of America forces from Iraq by 2011 but, in reality, it's riddled with so many conditions and escape clauses that withdrawal becomes iffy at best, out of the question at worst.
Everyone has been curious about Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army and where they've gone lately. Today, Reuters reports that thousands of Sadr supporters took to the streets of Baghdad to protest the agreement and demand that American forces quit Iraq.
What's entirely uncertain is whether the agreement will be passed by the Iraqi parliament. Asia Times Online reports that the Maliki government, even as it has signed the deal and submitted it to parliament for approval, privately hopes it is defeated:
The Americans announced, against [Maliki's] wishes, the arrest of a senior officer in the Iraqi army on charges of channeling funds from Tehran to radical groups inside Iraq.
The funds were to be used to buy the loyalty of certain Iraqi parliamentarians in order to sink the proposed treaty with the US. Maliki never wanted the much-loathed treaty with Washington, and neither did Tehran. To keep his post, however, he had to go on with American requests to ratify the pact before the end of 2008.
Meanwhile, he turned a blind eye to all those opposing it. In fact, he encouraged them at times because this echoed his own personal beliefs and what he felt best served the interests of both Iraq and Iran. Among other things, the treaty calls for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraqi cities by June 2009, and from all of Iraq by 2011, "unless requested otherwise by the Iraqi government".
...Within the political system, Maliki remains at odds with the Sadrists, although the tension is low nowadays because of mutual distrust of the American treaty. Maliki is mildly trying - again - to win the favors of Iraqi Sunnis as his relationship remains strained with the two Kurdish heavyweight parties. He wants the Sunnis to oppose the treaty as well, and then cite their opposition with US decision-makers."
If this account is accurate it means that Maliki signed the Status of Forces Agreement because he had to and now is looking to his parliament, including the opposition parties, to take him off the hook by voting it down.
The Americans are putting Maliki under a full court press to deliver a deal before the end of the year. That's when the UN mandate lapses. Without a done deal on January 1, 2009, America becomes an "illegal occupier" and subject to sanctions.
If the deal is signed, sealed and delivered, Iraq would be bound to accept the American occupation for at least two years, the agreement requiring that much notice of revocation.
The Fall of an Empire
What happens when a megastate collapses under the weight of its own excesses and bad judgment?
The director of the liberty and national security project of the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University, Aziz Huq, offers this incredibly insightful look at what America has made of its unipolar superpower days and what lies ahead for the United States.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ18Ak03.html
The director of the liberty and national security project of the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University, Aziz Huq, offers this incredibly insightful look at what America has made of its unipolar superpower days and what lies ahead for the United States.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ18Ak03.html
The Saddest Picture I Have Ever Seen
Sometimes, very rarely, a photograph can change our lives, open our eyes, make us notice. This is one of those rarest of rare photographs. It shows a vulture patiently watching over a starving Sudanese girl.
The photo is 15-years old but somehow I've never seen it before. It has been chosen by Vanity Fair as one of the 25-best news photographs of all time.
Cuba + Wealth = ?
Here's something we've never had to visualize since Fidel Castro sent Battista packing - a Cuba flush with money. A lot of money. Money on a scale that's never been imagined by Cubans or by those who've kept the embargo thumbscrews on the place these past, oh, 50-years.
According to a report in The Guardian, Cuba may have considerable, untapped oil reserves, enough to place it in the top 20-oil producing nations within a matter of years.
"Mother nature, it emerged this week, appears to have blessed the island with enough oil reserves to vault it into the ranks of energy powers. The government announced there may be more than 20bn barrels of recoverable oil in offshore fields in Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico, more than twice the previous estimate.
According to a report in The Guardian, Cuba may have considerable, untapped oil reserves, enough to place it in the top 20-oil producing nations within a matter of years.
"Mother nature, it emerged this week, appears to have blessed the island with enough oil reserves to vault it into the ranks of energy powers. The government announced there may be more than 20bn barrels of recoverable oil in offshore fields in Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico, more than twice the previous estimate.
If confirmed, it puts Cuba's reserves on par with those of the US and into the world's top 20. Drilling is expected to start next year by Cuba's state oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet.
"It would change their whole equation. The government would have more money and no longer be dependent on foreign oil," said Kirby Jones, founder of the Washington-based US-Cuba Trade Association. "It could join the club of oil exporting nations."
This probably couldn't have come at a worse time - for Washington - now that Beijing has proven just how wonderfully communism and capitalism can get along.
I am no apologist for the excesses and wrongs committed during the Fidel years although, in fairness, he probably killed a lot fewer people in Central America than some US presidents did. I'd just like to see the Cuban people catch a break for once. That is long overdue.
Friday, October 17, 2008
How Low - Can You Go?
This has nothing to do with national or international politics, military shenanigans, environmental catastrophes or any of that good stuff.
It's all about how far back you go.
I'm lucky. My name is relatively uncommon, it comes with a thoroughly understood and numerically limited number of variations and spellings. There aren't enough anomalies to make tracing tedious, much less really difficult.
I'm lucky to have a distant relative, a retired US Air Force Colonel who set about to use all the very latest technology to research, catalogue and delineate our line, even to the point of DNA verification.
Thanks to Cousin Jim, I now know each and every generation of my past right back to a Teutonic knight on the Island of Gottland, just off Sweden circa 1275. I know who he married, their children and every descendant leading straight to my family ever since. It's a direct, unbroken line - full of registry information such as births, weddings, deaths, and burials.
From an item I read two weeks ago, the concept that Cousin Jim and others pioneered will soon show up on mainstream, nearly fully automated.
But, in the meantime, I'd like to have some fun. If you read this and know about your genealogy, just how far back can you trace your family tree?
It's all about how far back you go.
I'm lucky. My name is relatively uncommon, it comes with a thoroughly understood and numerically limited number of variations and spellings. There aren't enough anomalies to make tracing tedious, much less really difficult.
I'm lucky to have a distant relative, a retired US Air Force Colonel who set about to use all the very latest technology to research, catalogue and delineate our line, even to the point of DNA verification.
Thanks to Cousin Jim, I now know each and every generation of my past right back to a Teutonic knight on the Island of Gottland, just off Sweden circa 1275. I know who he married, their children and every descendant leading straight to my family ever since. It's a direct, unbroken line - full of registry information such as births, weddings, deaths, and burials.
From an item I read two weeks ago, the concept that Cousin Jim and others pioneered will soon show up on mainstream, nearly fully automated.
But, in the meantime, I'd like to have some fun. If you read this and know about your genealogy, just how far back can you trace your family tree?
Is It Really That Difficult for you Dionistas to Understand?
We lost the damned election. We got our sails properly trimmed. We ought to consider ourselves lucky that we held on to Stornoway because I, for one, am not all that sure we deserved it.
Many are running around with the standard, Republican-machine myth that Dion was "stabbed in the back." That's how the Repugs blamed away Viet Nam and it's how they're trying to rid themselves of responsibility for everything from Iraq to Wall Street to Afghanistan.
Steph didn't need anyone to stab him in the back. He was too busy committing Seppuku all on his own.
We entrusted Mr. Dion to lead the party into the next election. That's something of a blank cheque - so long as you win and not a month longer. He was the leader and a lot of us, me included, made that so.
But, in taking on that authority (power he'd asked all of us to entrust to him), Mr. Dion took on a heavy burden of obligation. We weren't saying to him to lead us but to lead us back to power, to government. We trusted Stephane Dion to do the math and steer our party onto the path back.
Mr. Dion accepted that undertaking and he failed us. Yes, he failed us. As reported in today's Toronto Star, Dion was warned by the party's pollster - seven weeks before the election - that a green shift campaign would backfire. It would bring us down. It would cost us seats. I don't need to tell you what he did. We all watched what followed.
You Dionistas act as though this is of no moment. Anything but. Rarely do we get the opportunity to judge the qualities of our own candidate as we did this time. And yet the closer we looked at him, the less there was to support.
Leaving the Green Shift out of this entirely, Dion showed he wasn't fit to lead when he vacillated, prevaricated and. finally, capitulated on Afghanistan. No one who had read his early pronouncements and then witnessed his awful retreat from them could help but see the limits of Mr. Dion's integrity.
You know, there's a reason why the Liberal Party became known as Canada's Natural Governing Party. That's because the party was once a party of Keith Davey liberals who knew that retaining power was the only path to gradual but effective reform.
The LPC and the Canadian voter once shared a common chord. I think Mr. Dion tried and failed to contact that populace. At the end of the day, he allowed "Liberals" to become seen as outsiders.
I believe Stephane Dion may have damaged the Liberal Party more than we'll know for a year or two to come. That's the way these things go. But, in the meantime, both sides need to put the finger pointing and condemnation away and get on with the job of rebuilding what we both ultimately want. The party needs all of us to, for a while, put it first.
Many are running around with the standard, Republican-machine myth that Dion was "stabbed in the back." That's how the Repugs blamed away Viet Nam and it's how they're trying to rid themselves of responsibility for everything from Iraq to Wall Street to Afghanistan.
Steph didn't need anyone to stab him in the back. He was too busy committing Seppuku all on his own.
We entrusted Mr. Dion to lead the party into the next election. That's something of a blank cheque - so long as you win and not a month longer. He was the leader and a lot of us, me included, made that so.
But, in taking on that authority (power he'd asked all of us to entrust to him), Mr. Dion took on a heavy burden of obligation. We weren't saying to him to lead us but to lead us back to power, to government. We trusted Stephane Dion to do the math and steer our party onto the path back.
Mr. Dion accepted that undertaking and he failed us. Yes, he failed us. As reported in today's Toronto Star, Dion was warned by the party's pollster - seven weeks before the election - that a green shift campaign would backfire. It would bring us down. It would cost us seats. I don't need to tell you what he did. We all watched what followed.
You Dionistas act as though this is of no moment. Anything but. Rarely do we get the opportunity to judge the qualities of our own candidate as we did this time. And yet the closer we looked at him, the less there was to support.
Leaving the Green Shift out of this entirely, Dion showed he wasn't fit to lead when he vacillated, prevaricated and. finally, capitulated on Afghanistan. No one who had read his early pronouncements and then witnessed his awful retreat from them could help but see the limits of Mr. Dion's integrity.
You know, there's a reason why the Liberal Party became known as Canada's Natural Governing Party. That's because the party was once a party of Keith Davey liberals who knew that retaining power was the only path to gradual but effective reform.
The LPC and the Canadian voter once shared a common chord. I think Mr. Dion tried and failed to contact that populace. At the end of the day, he allowed "Liberals" to become seen as outsiders.
I believe Stephane Dion may have damaged the Liberal Party more than we'll know for a year or two to come. That's the way these things go. But, in the meantime, both sides need to put the finger pointing and condemnation away and get on with the job of rebuilding what we both ultimately want. The party needs all of us to, for a while, put it first.
It Only Took 161-Years. The Chicago Trib Endorses Obama!
When you're a Republican and you can't score the Chicago Tribune's endorsement, you're doing something very, very wrong.
Bad enough that John McCain gets turned into Grade A, Horse's Ass meat on the Letterman show, now it's this. And he's lost the LA Times and the Chicago Sun (circa 1844) endorsement to boot as they too have come out for Obama. The Los Angeles Times, apparently, hasn't endorsed a candidate from either side since Christ was a corporal.
To have the ChiTown Tribune turn on you is unequivocal proof that you've committed Republican apostasy. Once you've lost mainstream, conservative newspapers all you're left with are the rabid degenos like NewsMax and FoxNews and the open mouth hate mongers, the Hannityh-Limbaugh lowlife. I'm sure that wouldn't bother Sarah Palin but it has to hurt a guy like McCain with his very patrician Republican roots going back more than three generations.
Somewhere inside John McCain this has to be gnawing away as he watches his most prized possession, his notional integrity, steadily washed away.
Bad enough that John McCain gets turned into Grade A, Horse's Ass meat on the Letterman show, now it's this. And he's lost the LA Times and the Chicago Sun (circa 1844) endorsement to boot as they too have come out for Obama. The Los Angeles Times, apparently, hasn't endorsed a candidate from either side since Christ was a corporal.
To have the ChiTown Tribune turn on you is unequivocal proof that you've committed Republican apostasy. Once you've lost mainstream, conservative newspapers all you're left with are the rabid degenos like NewsMax and FoxNews and the open mouth hate mongers, the Hannityh-Limbaugh lowlife. I'm sure that wouldn't bother Sarah Palin but it has to hurt a guy like McCain with his very patrician Republican roots going back more than three generations.
Somewhere inside John McCain this has to be gnawing away as he watches his most prized possession, his notional integrity, steadily washed away.
America's Real Voter Fraud
Forget Acorn and a few workers who made up false voter registrations. The operative word is a "few." Here's a BBC News account by Greg Palast showing how Republicans are working overtime to steal the 2008 election
And this is supposed to be the "greatest democracy" on the planet? Maybe it should work on making itself just an ordinary democracy again.
And this is supposed to be the "greatest democracy" on the planet? Maybe it should work on making itself just an ordinary democracy again.
Redneck Republican Racism
Reports are beginning to emerge of racist hate campaigns underway among Republican groups in the runup to the US election. A Republican women's group in California circulated the fake food stamp shown here, arguing that Obama would be the first US president to appear on a food stamp instead of on a dollar bill. Naturally the image of Obama is surrounded by watermelon, a slab of ribs and a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The head of the Republican women's group said she got the image in several e-mail chain letters and was simply reproducing it although she apologized if anyone was offended. Say what?
But wait, there's more, a lot more than can be handled in this post. Here's one incident from TPM Cafe.
Earlier this week, the Sacramento County Republican Party and its chair, attorney Craig S. MacGlashan, caught some well-deserved flack for posting anti-Obama materials on the county GOP website including a call to "Waterboard Barack Obama" and a statement equating Obama with terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
Incidents like this reveal that, even within Republican Party organizations, racist degenerates like this still sometimes hold sway and feel bold enough to circulate this garbage. They seem to be surprised, not ashamed, when they get confronted. Astonishing.
There Is a Santa Claus - If You're a Failed Banker
This is nothing short of obscene. Despite pillaging the American taxpayers for more than a trillion dollars in bailouts, Wall Street still plans to pay out $70-billion in pay deals, including bonuses, to its top personnel.
Read the disgusting details in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking
Read the disgusting details in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking
Time for a New New Deal?
Nobel prize winner, economist and columnist Paul Krugman warns that the only thing that can help the United States now is a new New Deal but on a grander scale, perhaps, than the programme of FDR in the 30's.
Krugman notes that the economic collapse has now spread beyond the financial sector and has metastasized throughout the general economy. This, he maintains, makes it essential to move past bank bailouts and start directing aid to state governments and those segments of the public that will be hardest hit.
"Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish — and long.
How nasty? The unemployment rate is already above 6 percent (and broader measures of underemployment are in double digits). It’s now virtually certain that the unemployment rate will go above 7 percent, and quite possibly above 8 percent, making this the worst recession in a quarter-century.
And how long? It could be very long indeed.
Even if the ongoing efforts to rescue the banking system and unfreeze the credit markets work — and while it’s early days yet, the initial results have been disappointing — it’s hard to see housing making a comeback any time soon. And if there’s another bubble waiting to happen, it’s not obvious. So the Fed will find it even harder to get traction this time.
...In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.
...In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.
On the other hand, there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.
And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling."
The rightwingnuts will flap their wings and squawk "socialism" but that won't change the problem and it certainly won't make it one bit better either. It's a lesson that will soon become needed on our side of the border also. Harper needs to realize that, much as it runs against the grain of his doctrinaire ideology, Canada's most vulnerable, not just our record profit setting banks, will need help from the feds to get through this downturn just as we've always been there to help them in the past.
In a recession/borderline depression crisis, it's not deficits that bother me but the purposes they're put to - who actually gets help - that's what matters. Canada's infrastructure could also use a little help - from dilapidated bridges in Ontario and Quebec to the patchwork 401 Trans Canada highway to the crumbling water and sewer systems in Vancouver.
It's a lot tougher to govern a country in the really bad times. So far Harper and his team have had a pretty easy ride. We may be about to learn what they truly think of the average Canadian. If Steve doesn't prove up to the challenge I suspect the Canadian public might be very glad indeed that we've got a minority government.
The Green Shaft
I was deadset against the Green Shift gambit from the outset.
It was precisely the type of core policy you don't advance while you're in opposition. It takes the power of government to tackle something of that magnitude.
You have to be able to present a cohesive, coherent policy that you can explain in detail and at length to a skeptical voting public. That takes money and resources, plenty of both. The Liberal opposition had neither the time nor the money to take that on.
Mr. Dion allowed the plan to be uncovered weeks before it was unveiled. That allowed Mr. Harper to exploit his party's powerful financial advantage to frame the policy in the public's mind and then kick it to the curb. By the time the Dion Liberals got around to presenting this policy the damage was done, the Green Shift was fatally gored.
It's not as though Mr. Dion didn't know better. In today's Toronto Star, Linda Dobeil writes that the party's own pollster warned Dion that the Green Shift was a vote loser seven weeks before it was unveiled:
"Despite the confidential warning to senior campaign officials April 29 from pollster Michael Marzolini, the Dion team pressed ahead and, with great fanfare, announced the plan on June 19.
Johanne Senécal, Dion's chief-of-staff, emailed campaign co-chairs – Senator David Smith, Mark Marissen and Nancy Girard – that more focus group testing was required in order to sell it properly.
"Tell (Marzolini) that SD (Dion) is putting his political career at risk here and that we would be insane to let him go forward without testing the messages," she wrote in a May 8 email.
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/519051
The article makes clear that Dion gambled, and lost, not only his own political career but the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Party by ignoring these warnings.
What in God's name was he thinking?
It was precisely the type of core policy you don't advance while you're in opposition. It takes the power of government to tackle something of that magnitude.
You have to be able to present a cohesive, coherent policy that you can explain in detail and at length to a skeptical voting public. That takes money and resources, plenty of both. The Liberal opposition had neither the time nor the money to take that on.
Mr. Dion allowed the plan to be uncovered weeks before it was unveiled. That allowed Mr. Harper to exploit his party's powerful financial advantage to frame the policy in the public's mind and then kick it to the curb. By the time the Dion Liberals got around to presenting this policy the damage was done, the Green Shift was fatally gored.
It's not as though Mr. Dion didn't know better. In today's Toronto Star, Linda Dobeil writes that the party's own pollster warned Dion that the Green Shift was a vote loser seven weeks before it was unveiled:
"Despite the confidential warning to senior campaign officials April 29 from pollster Michael Marzolini, the Dion team pressed ahead and, with great fanfare, announced the plan on June 19.
Johanne Senécal, Dion's chief-of-staff, emailed campaign co-chairs – Senator David Smith, Mark Marissen and Nancy Girard – that more focus group testing was required in order to sell it properly.
"Tell (Marzolini) that SD (Dion) is putting his political career at risk here and that we would be insane to let him go forward without testing the messages," she wrote in a May 8 email.
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/519051
The article makes clear that Dion gambled, and lost, not only his own political career but the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Party by ignoring these warnings.
What in God's name was he thinking?
Pakistan - the Fuze in the Powder Keg
This is a glass half full sort of story, the kind you don't see on this blog very often. Here's the premise - maybe a South Asian Cold War wouldn't be all that bad.
Pakistan is in a shambles. It needs a big power patron to get it through the tough times it's now in. The US has already gone with India and has now fallen into its own economic abyss. Maybe we'd all be better off if China stepped in.
Just how bad are things in Pakistan today? That's pretty much answered in today's Guardian:
...A special session of parliament called by the government to forge a political consensus on the "war on terror" has backfired spectacularly as parties, including some in the ruling coalition, denounced the alliance with Washington and Nato rather than backing the army to take on the Pakistani Taliban.
...Critics of the government, which is led by controversial president Asif Ali Zardari, complain that there is a paralysis of decision-making and policy. A leaked US top secret National Intelligence Estimate on Pakistan concludes that the country is "on the edge". A US official was quoted summing up the assessment as "no money, no energy, no government".
The economic nosedive will aid recruitment to extremist groups, experts fear, and force more poor families to send their children to the free madrassa schools, which offer an exclusively religious curriculum. Inflation is running at 25%, or up to 100% for many staple food items, and unemployment is growing, pushing millions more into poverty. The rupee has lost around 30% of its value so far this year.
"The canvas of terrorism is expanding by the minute," said Faisal Saleh Hayat, a former interior minister.
"It's not only ideological motivation. Put that together with economic deprivation and you have a ready-made force of Taliban, al-Qaida, whatever you want to call them. You will see suicide bombers churned out by the hundred," he said.
"The majority of the people of Pakistan do not see it as our war. We are fighting for somebody else and we are suffering because of that," said Tariq Azim, a former minister in the previous government of Pervez Musharraf, whose party now sits in the opposition. "At the moment the only ones toeing the line are the People's party."
Members of parliament are particularly angered by recent signals from Washington that it is prepared to talk to the Afghan Taliban, while telling Pakistan that it must fight its Taliban menace. "They [the US] are showing a lot more flexibility on their side of the border," said Khurram Dastagir, a member of parliament for Sharif's party. "The US are trying to externalise their failure in Afghanistan by dumping it on us."
The rising spread of anti-American and anti-NATO anger among the Pakistani people and their leaders is bloody awful for those of us with troops stuck in next door Afghanistan. It seems that the more we push Pakistan, the worse our position becomes.
So, it's becoming painfully clear that we really can't deal with Pakistan and we'd be fools to keep repeating the same mistakes. Maybe we'd all be better off with Pakistan stabilized under Chinese hegemony. At least we know we have some ability to deal with the Chinese.
Don't get angry about this, it's our own damned fault. Back in the days of Bush I, we came to treat the end of the Cold War as the end of our problems. We refused to see the obvious, that the decline of Soviet hegemony would actually make the world a more dangerous place, spawning a whole nest of failed and rogue states.
There was an enormous opportunity to create a Marshall Plan for the most critical Third World states to stabilize them politically and economically but it was a window of opportunity that we neglected. If you don't understand that, look at Afghanistan. There was an enormous opportunity but no one was in the mood to commit the vast resources it would have taken to promote such an initiative, and so we let too much slide and we're paying for that today.
Maybe a return to Cold War hegemony wouldn't be entirely bad. For starters, it's already underway, it's happening whether we like it or not. Powerful nations inevitably seek to establish spheres of influence in their neighbouring states. We take ours for granted but imagine what Washington would do if it found Russian weaponry deployed along the Rio Grande?
As China borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan it has an inevitable vested interest in the spread of its sphere of influence into these countries. Likewise Russia has a strategic interest in maintaining its sphere of influence in the Cacasus and Eastern Europe. That doesn't mean subjugation as much as co-operation and doing what's necessary to achieve stability in these regions.
Maybe it's time we stopped running around trying to poke rivals in the eye with a sharp stick. It might be time to work with the Chinese to see if they can accomplish in Pakistan what we can't achieve. That might mean handing over a hunk of geo-political interest but that much seems inevitable in any case so perhaps we ought to see what we can get for it through negotiation first.
Oh Boy, A New Scam - and a New Toyota to Boot!
A new twist on the old Nigerian online scam. Instead of millions of dollars being held by a former African official willing to hand you a big chunk, this time it's a Toyota windfall. You might just want to get to know me better now that I'm the Grand Prize Winner of One Million Pounds Sterling as evidenced by the excerpt from the e-mail below:
This is to inform you that have been selected Toyota for a Cash prize of1,000.000.00 (One Million Pounds) and a brandnew Toyota car in The International programs held 2008 in LondonUK.
Is it just me or is there something fishy about this? Maybe it's the spelling, possibly the grammar. But, gee, won't I look great in that brand new Toyota with a trunk stuffed with English Pounds?
This is to inform you that have been selected Toyota for a Cash prize of1,000.000.00 (One Million Pounds) and a brandnew Toyota car in The International programs held 2008 in LondonUK.
Is it just me or is there something fishy about this? Maybe it's the spelling, possibly the grammar. But, gee, won't I look great in that brand new Toyota with a trunk stuffed with English Pounds?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Arms Race Update - Brand New Cold War? Surprise!
I'm telling you, you need to watch everything that's happening when you connect the dots in that region from Afghanistan to India, Russia, Pakistan and China. It's like watching something growing in a Petrie dish.
Remember Pakistan, Mr. Bush's most important ally in The War on Terror? Things have changed. A key factor was the Bush initiative to give nuclear science and assistance to Pakistan's main military rival - India. Then the Wall Street meltdown shockwave apparently hit Islamabad's markets and things went critical.
So where does Pakistan's president Zardari go when he needs a measly $6-billion to salvage his own economy? Why, to China of course. He goes for a four day visit. And what else does the Prez come home with? Nothing less than a nuclear technology transfer deal with the Chinese.
Now it's not the sort of comprehensive nuclear gift basket that India just received from the U.S., not openly. Rather it's a piecemeal sort of agreement, at least what's being presented for public consumption. CBS News, however, got this:
A senior Pakistani government official, familiar with discussions between Zardari and Chinese officials, claimed Thursday that China had agreed to “consider further nuclear power reactors to fulfill our needs. The relationship (on the nuclear issue) remains intact”. Speaking to CBS News on condition of anonymity, the official added, “there is now a complete understanding on our future cooperation”.
Oh great. Now we're creating bi-polar proxies again, only this time we might just be giving them advanced technology critical to their nuclear arsenals. Say that to yourself three times. This is probably a good time to learn a bit about the theory of the use of nuclear weapons. An exchange of weapons over there could trigger an irresistable spread within hours. And that would be that. So can somebody remind me why we're just going along with this, even increasing the possibility of this turning the lights off?
And that, ladies and gents, is exactly what's starting to happen there.
Here are a few of the cards that have already been dealt:
America's global economic domination appears to be winding down. It's being gradually squeezed by ascending economic superpowers including China and India and, to a lesser degree, Russia and Brazil.
America sees its key rival as China which is also America's biggest creditor. America and other nations have outsourced a great deal of their manufacturing capability to China which has given the Chinese the needed spark of stimulus to make huge leaps in education, technology and, yes, military expansion. China now produces its own rockets, jet fighters and nuke submarines and they're said to be surprisingly good.
China is flush with cash, nearly two trillion dollars of reserves, much of it American. America is flush with debt, about 11-trillion dollars worth of federal debt alone (closer to 55-trillion if you include unfunded obligations according to the US Comptroller General) with a financial sector in meltdown.
There now exists an intense, although understated, rivalry between the United States and China for global resources with particular focus on the Middle East and Africa. India, too, must compete for resources, especially oil.
China has become dependent on Middle Eastern oil. That gets shipped to China via tankers. The Chinese bound oil tankers ply sea lanes that pass right by India.
India is furiously expanding its "blue water" navy. It's adding a new generation of its own submarines as well as new surface vessels including aircraft carriers. The Indian Navy has already proclaimed its intention to secure the oceans east of India to the Russia's Kamchatka peninsula. That blankets China's entire seacoast, all of it.
The United States appears to have drawn India into its camp to aid in the containment of China. India and China are, after all, natural rivals who have clashed before.
The India-US nuclear deal increases the insecurity of China's tanker access to Middle Eastern oil and, for that matter, its access to just about every other resource. It also has sparked consternation and genuine insecurity in Islamabad.
Remember Pakistan, Mr. Bush's most important ally in The War on Terror? Things have changed. A key factor was the Bush initiative to give nuclear science and assistance to Pakistan's main military rival - India. Then the Wall Street meltdown shockwave apparently hit Islamabad's markets and things went critical.
So where does Pakistan's president Zardari go when he needs a measly $6-billion to salvage his own economy? Why, to China of course. He goes for a four day visit. And what else does the Prez come home with? Nothing less than a nuclear technology transfer deal with the Chinese.
Now it's not the sort of comprehensive nuclear gift basket that India just received from the U.S., not openly. Rather it's a piecemeal sort of agreement, at least what's being presented for public consumption. CBS News, however, got this:
A senior Pakistani government official, familiar with discussions between Zardari and Chinese officials, claimed Thursday that China had agreed to “consider further nuclear power reactors to fulfill our needs. The relationship (on the nuclear issue) remains intact”. Speaking to CBS News on condition of anonymity, the official added, “there is now a complete understanding on our future cooperation”.
Oh great. Now we're creating bi-polar proxies again, only this time we might just be giving them advanced technology critical to their nuclear arsenals. Say that to yourself three times. This is probably a good time to learn a bit about the theory of the use of nuclear weapons. An exchange of weapons over there could trigger an irresistable spread within hours. And that would be that. So can somebody remind me why we're just going along with this, even increasing the possibility of this turning the lights off?
And that, ladies and gents, is exactly what's starting to happen there.
Here are a few of the cards that have already been dealt:
America's global economic domination appears to be winding down. It's being gradually squeezed by ascending economic superpowers including China and India and, to a lesser degree, Russia and Brazil.
America sees its key rival as China which is also America's biggest creditor. America and other nations have outsourced a great deal of their manufacturing capability to China which has given the Chinese the needed spark of stimulus to make huge leaps in education, technology and, yes, military expansion. China now produces its own rockets, jet fighters and nuke submarines and they're said to be surprisingly good.
China is flush with cash, nearly two trillion dollars of reserves, much of it American. America is flush with debt, about 11-trillion dollars worth of federal debt alone (closer to 55-trillion if you include unfunded obligations according to the US Comptroller General) with a financial sector in meltdown.
There now exists an intense, although understated, rivalry between the United States and China for global resources with particular focus on the Middle East and Africa. India, too, must compete for resources, especially oil.
China has become dependent on Middle Eastern oil. That gets shipped to China via tankers. The Chinese bound oil tankers ply sea lanes that pass right by India.
India is furiously expanding its "blue water" navy. It's adding a new generation of its own submarines as well as new surface vessels including aircraft carriers. The Indian Navy has already proclaimed its intention to secure the oceans east of India to the Russia's Kamchatka peninsula. That blankets China's entire seacoast, all of it.
The United States appears to have drawn India into its camp to aid in the containment of China. India and China are, after all, natural rivals who have clashed before.
The India-US nuclear deal increases the insecurity of China's tanker access to Middle Eastern oil and, for that matter, its access to just about every other resource. It also has sparked consternation and genuine insecurity in Islamabad.
China, too, is embarking on an enormous rearmament campaign. So, too, is Russia. China, in particular, is focusing on its own "blue water" navy, one that will contest the same oceans and sea lanes that the Indians have said they will control.
The capability of China's subs was demonstrated about a year ago when one of its new boats popped up in the middle of a US Navy carrier battle group, just five miles from the carrier. Until they eyeballed it the American ships had no idea it was there. Popping to the surface was tantamount to saying, "Bang, you're all dead." That was much more than a stunt
China knows that it can't risk relying on its new navy to keep open its access to Middle East oil. Hence it's looking for overland routes and those pipelines would have to flow through Pakistan and, in particular, the Balochistan territory in the south.
The Americans, too, are eyeballing pipeline routes through this region that would bring oil and gas resources across Afghanistan into Pakistan and then on to India or south through Balochistan to the Arabian Sea and onward to the Good Guys
Pakistan is the perfect blocker to thwart Western and Indian access to these oil and gas reserves and divert them, instead, to China.
Pakistan, and Iran with which it shares a border, are both seeking membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO, which is, among other things, a military mutual defence alliance and now includes China, Russia and Khazakstan.
Are you beginning to get the picture? The world has been plunged into a state of flux geopolitically, economically and militarily. Some nations are on the way up, some nations are ebbing a bit. This creates a great deal of insecurity, suspicion and, to some degree, anger.
You know, we should be in high dudgeon over the ludicrous plunge into this. We're sitting by as the United States, by its nuclear suppport of India, is allowing the Chinese to cut an offsetting deal with the Pakistanis. If we can't stop this at our end, there's not a chance in Hell we'd be able to get the other side to back down. And, if we don't stop this in time, what do you end up with? A brand new, vastly more unstable and dangereous, Cold War.
This isn't wild speculation or fantasy. It's about the only coherent narrative you can extract from these circumstances. We have to start to think about just what is going on, where these things are headed.
Keep in mind how the Soviet Union and its superpower days came to an end. America drove it to financial ruin (thanks to a handy collapse in world oil prices when the Sovs most needed that revenue). It didn't end in a shooting war. It ended with the collapse of the Soviet economy that also brought the collapse of its military apparatus.
Now it's America that's economically vulnerable and China that is poised to exploit that weakness, wherever it can, while the window of opportunity remains open. American diplomacy during the Bush years has been an utter catastrophe, a succession of blunders that were never foreseen by an administration blinded by an insane ideology and hubris.
Wheels spinning within wheels. You may just be getting your first glimpse at the new Cold War.
NOT AGAIN!
More dead Afghans - women and children - taken out by an allied airstrike. The good news - this time it's only 18, maybe nine more buried under the rubble. From BBC News:
"A BBC reporter in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah saw the bodies - three women and the rest children - ranging in age from six months to 15.
The families brought the bodies from their village in the Nad Ali district, where they say the air strike occurred.
A further nine bodies are said to be trapped under destroyed buildings.
Nato-led forces say they are investigating the incident in an area where the British military are known to operate."
What is wrong with us? This plays straight into the Taliban's hands. It's the perfect way for us to lose the "hearts and minds" struggle of a guerrilla war.
And don't give me any of that garbage about these deaths being accidental. There's nothing accidental about them. We know that massive civilian deaths are inevitable when we rely on aerial bombs to make up for our deliberate choice not to field even a fraction of the number of troops this war demands. We know these civilian deaths are the logical consequence of our dependency on airstrikes and so there can be no argument that, in calling in these airstrikes, we are morally and legally intending to cause these deaths.
I wasn't going to get into this today but I've changed my mind. Here's an enlightening perspective from Seumas Milne in today's Guardian:
...The British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith was last week even blunter. "We're not going to win this war," he said, adding that if the Taliban were prepared to "talk about a political settlement", that was "precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this". The double-barrelled duo were duly slapped down by US defence secretary Robert Gates for defeatism. But even Gates now publicly backs talks with the Taliban, which are in fact already taking place under Saudi sponsorship.
This is the conflict western politicians and media continue to urge their reluctant populations to support as a war for civilisation. In reality, it is a war of barbarity, whose contempt for the value of Afghan life has fuelled the very resistance that western military and political leaders are now unable to contain.
In this year alone, for every occupation soldier killed, at least three Afghan civilians have died at the hands of occupation forces. They include the 95 people, 60 of them children, killed by a US air assault in Azizabad in August; the 47 wedding guests dismembered by US bombardment in Nangarhar in July - US forces have a particular habit of attacking weddings; and the four women and children killed in a British rocket barrage six weeks ago in Sangin.
...over the past year civilian deaths at the hands of Nato forces have tripled, despite changes in rules of engagement.
But most telling is the political and military calculation that underlies the Afghan civilian bloodletting. "Close air support" bomb attacks called in by ground forces - which rose from 176 in 2005 to 2,926 in 2007 and are now the US tactic of choice - are between four and 10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as ground attacks, the figures show, and air strikes now account for 80% of those killed by the occupation forces.
But while 242 US and Nato ground troops have died in the war with the Taliban this year, not a single pilot has been killed in action. The trade-off could not be clearer. With troops thin on the ground and the US military up to their necks in Iraq and elsewhere, US and Nato reliance on air attacks minimises their own casualties while guaranteeing that Afghan civilians will die in far larger numbers.
It is that equation that makes a nonsense of US and British claims that their civilian victims are accidental "collateral damage", while the Taliban's use of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and classic guerrilla operations from civilian areas are a sign of their moral depravity. In real life, the escalating civilian death toll is not a mistake, but the result of a clear decision to put the lives of occupation troops before civilians; westerners before Afghans.
Dependence on air power is also a reflection of US imperial overstretch and the reluctance of Nato states to put more boots on the ground. But however much the nominal Afghan president Hamid Karzai rails against Nato's recklessness with Afghan blood, the indiscriminate air war carries on regardless. Given that the US government spent 10 times more on every sea otter affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill than it does in "condolence payments" to Afghans for the killing of a family member, perhaps that shouldn't come as a surprise.
But nor should it be that the occupation's cruelty is a recruiting sergeant for the Taliban. As Aga Lalai, who lost both grandparents, his wife, father, three brothers and four sisters in a US bombing in Helmand last summer, put it: "So long as there is just one 40-day-old boy remaining alive, Afghans will fight against the people who do this to us."
There's nothing left that's noble in our war in Afghanistan. There is nothing noble in butchering Afghan civilians in order that we can wage "war on the cheap." It's no wonder the Taliban are resurgent, no surprise that they're now closing in on Kabul. We just keep recruiting more and more insurgents with every civilian we slaughter.
But this war isn't going to end anytime soon. NATO states might just drift away but American forces aren't leaving. I recently wrote about the Baloch insurrection in southern Pakistan and America's strategic and energy interests there. That said, there's no reason at all, none whatsoever, to continue soldiering on in Afghanistan as America's Foreign Legion either.
Burning the Bridge to Nowhere
It could just be that no one has more at stake in the November 4th presidential election that Sarah Palin. If Obama wins, it's very much a lose-lose proposition for Ms. Palin, both in Washington and back home in Juneau.
The Anchorage Daily News reports that Palin's campaign blunders and excesses haven't gone down well at home and she faces a much different reality if she has to go back to the governor's mansion:
Palin has always attracted controversy, but she is now a far more polarizing figure, both in Alaska as well as nationally, than before her nomination. If she returns, the Republican governor will face former Democratic allies furious at her campaign attacks.
She will also face lawmakers from both parties ticked off at her handling of the so-called 'troopergate' investigation and her recent false assertions that the investigator's report cleared her, according to interviews with a number of lawmakers and others who watch Alaska politics.
"We've seen her do and say things that are shocking to us, so it's going to be different, to put it mildly," said Juneau Democratic Rep. Beth Kerttula, the House minority leader. "We have a whole different way of looking at her."
Tories Have No Reason to Smirk
It was only 15-years ago. The Tories were led by Kim Campbell and she called an election she looked likely to win. When it was over there were but two Tories standing. They're certainly back, after a decade in the desert and a humiliating capitulation to the Reform/Alliance movement of Stephen "Uncle Joe" Harper.
So the Libs need to take heart in that the Dion loss, bad as it was, is still about 35 times better than the drubbing the Tories took way back when. We don't have nearly as much to do to rebuild. The core support of Canadians hasn't been lost, just temporarily displaced. Find the right chord that resonates with the electorate, start making Harper own his gaffes and excesses, and the Liberals will be back.
We have to face hard facts. We need a significantly different leadership than what we had during the first Harper administration, one that doesn't back down from him (or flee the Commons on tough votes), one that pins him to his own record. We need someone who connects with the Canadian public, a communicator and a fighter.
I can't entirely blame the Tories for smirking. They got cleanly away with so very much. Imagine Harper, who sat mute during the campaign, announcing less than one day after the polls had closed, plans to stack the Senate in order to force his notion of reform through the upper house. The guy was too cowardly, too craven, to seek a mandate from the voters on that one. He just pulled the wool over their eyes and he couldn't wait to make that plain, not even for 24-hours. Breathtaking.
No it's time to find a leader who'll put the boots to this scoundrel at every turn, time to form another rat pack to hound Harper relentlessly until everyone sees this character for what he is. It's time.
So the Libs need to take heart in that the Dion loss, bad as it was, is still about 35 times better than the drubbing the Tories took way back when. We don't have nearly as much to do to rebuild. The core support of Canadians hasn't been lost, just temporarily displaced. Find the right chord that resonates with the electorate, start making Harper own his gaffes and excesses, and the Liberals will be back.
We have to face hard facts. We need a significantly different leadership than what we had during the first Harper administration, one that doesn't back down from him (or flee the Commons on tough votes), one that pins him to his own record. We need someone who connects with the Canadian public, a communicator and a fighter.
I can't entirely blame the Tories for smirking. They got cleanly away with so very much. Imagine Harper, who sat mute during the campaign, announcing less than one day after the polls had closed, plans to stack the Senate in order to force his notion of reform through the upper house. The guy was too cowardly, too craven, to seek a mandate from the voters on that one. He just pulled the wool over their eyes and he couldn't wait to make that plain, not even for 24-hours. Breathtaking.
No it's time to find a leader who'll put the boots to this scoundrel at every turn, time to form another rat pack to hound Harper relentlessly until everyone sees this character for what he is. It's time.
Harper & Dion Served Up Mallick-Style
Heather Mallick, writing in The Guardian, filed this post-mortem on our election and, if nothing else, it should lift your spirits:
There are three wings to Canadian political life. Harper, the Conservative PM, is a rightwing extremist, although he doesn't suck up like Cameron. He is an anti-choice, pro-prison, poverty-ignoring, food-safety-privatising, arts-ridiculing, Afghanistan war-loving, cowboy hat-wearing guy.
The Liberals, the nation's natural rulers, are in the middle of the road like an expiring woodchuck. They are sensible people without passion; they own just the one house; they're New Labour without the ratlike cunning, without the Cherie, shall we say. The New Democratic party is old Labour.
Harper began passing laws making Canada more like the States. His most complimentary adjective was "CEO-like". He wants life sentences for 14-year-old murderers, of whom we have maybe three in a nation of 33 million citizens. He wants to build more prisons, ban safe-injection sites for heroin addicts, privatise universal healthcare, make the foetus not just a person, but someone who can dress for success – you know the drill.
...So we voted. As in the movie Groundhog Day, where the post-election morning was the same as the last one, with the result being another minority government born of a quiet desperation that won't be soothed until the Liberals get a new leader, not a sweet smart guy like Stéphane Dion, but someone with claws like Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian you Brits took to your bosom some years ago.
Thanks for sending him back. It's getting hot here, our trees are sawdust and our ice is melting. Canada needs a smart decisive cynic. Anything to haul that crushed woodchuck off the road.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/canada-georgebush
There are three wings to Canadian political life. Harper, the Conservative PM, is a rightwing extremist, although he doesn't suck up like Cameron. He is an anti-choice, pro-prison, poverty-ignoring, food-safety-privatising, arts-ridiculing, Afghanistan war-loving, cowboy hat-wearing guy.
The Liberals, the nation's natural rulers, are in the middle of the road like an expiring woodchuck. They are sensible people without passion; they own just the one house; they're New Labour without the ratlike cunning, without the Cherie, shall we say. The New Democratic party is old Labour.
Harper began passing laws making Canada more like the States. His most complimentary adjective was "CEO-like". He wants life sentences for 14-year-old murderers, of whom we have maybe three in a nation of 33 million citizens. He wants to build more prisons, ban safe-injection sites for heroin addicts, privatise universal healthcare, make the foetus not just a person, but someone who can dress for success – you know the drill.
...So we voted. As in the movie Groundhog Day, where the post-election morning was the same as the last one, with the result being another minority government born of a quiet desperation that won't be soothed until the Liberals get a new leader, not a sweet smart guy like Stéphane Dion, but someone with claws like Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian you Brits took to your bosom some years ago.
Thanks for sending him back. It's getting hot here, our trees are sawdust and our ice is melting. Canada needs a smart decisive cynic. Anything to haul that crushed woodchuck off the road.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/16/canada-georgebush
Who Said Racism Isn't Alive & Well in America?
I realize this is from al Jazeera but you can find plenty of similar stuff from concerned Americans on the web. This one shows a segment of the crowd that's flocking to Sarah Palin.
The Republican Spectacle
To Americans who watched last night's third and final McCain/Obama debate, it seems the Illionois senator made it 3-0 over "Crash" McCain.
From what I saw of it, McCain was certainly at his best for a while until he lapsed back into default mode - frantic anger. The double whammy for McCain is that, when you get angry and you're that old, you come away looking like the scary old man who sits in his rocker on the porch yelling at the kids playing in the street. McCain's age really makes him look like an Old Geezer, furious but really wobbly, or, as Obama would call him, "erratic."
Republican pundits who were able to overlook the Geezer factor may have been right when they claimed that McCain won the debate on points but that's sort of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
McCain was clearly out to provoke an "angry black man" response from Obama. A racist ploy? Hell yes. But it didn't work. Obama didn't go for it and, in that, showed himself presidential while McCain showed himself the Old Geezer that he is.
Another thing that became apparent in the second debate and was utterly proven last night is that McCain isn't up to a 90-minute intellectual battle. He's fair enough for the first 30-minutes. After that he runs out of steam and reverts to default, angry old man mode. He just gets so wound up that he loses it.
I think last night reinforced a lot of minds that were already in Obama's camp or leaning that way. As for the Arizona senator it was sad to watch a man who has served his country all his life squander his integrity and debase his character only to come up empty-handed.
I think the White House is Obama's barring the race factor rearing its ugly head on November 4 to derail America's best hope for the future.
From what I saw of it, McCain was certainly at his best for a while until he lapsed back into default mode - frantic anger. The double whammy for McCain is that, when you get angry and you're that old, you come away looking like the scary old man who sits in his rocker on the porch yelling at the kids playing in the street. McCain's age really makes him look like an Old Geezer, furious but really wobbly, or, as Obama would call him, "erratic."
Republican pundits who were able to overlook the Geezer factor may have been right when they claimed that McCain won the debate on points but that's sort of like saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
McCain was clearly out to provoke an "angry black man" response from Obama. A racist ploy? Hell yes. But it didn't work. Obama didn't go for it and, in that, showed himself presidential while McCain showed himself the Old Geezer that he is.
Another thing that became apparent in the second debate and was utterly proven last night is that McCain isn't up to a 90-minute intellectual battle. He's fair enough for the first 30-minutes. After that he runs out of steam and reverts to default, angry old man mode. He just gets so wound up that he loses it.
I think last night reinforced a lot of minds that were already in Obama's camp or leaning that way. As for the Arizona senator it was sad to watch a man who has served his country all his life squander his integrity and debase his character only to come up empty-handed.
I think the White House is Obama's barring the race factor rearing its ugly head on November 4 to derail America's best hope for the future.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Arms Race Update - Security Fallout of US Meltdown
The Great Wall Street Caper crash has spread around the world and in some troubling spots the locals are getting decidedly anti-American. One of them is Pakistan.
There's some speculation that China is about to capitalize on America's fiscal blunders to extend its own sphere of influence while its rival is in disarray.
Pakistan is said to be on the verge of debt default, a crisis that has sent President Zardari off, not to Washington, but to Beijing looking for a rescue in the form of a $6-billion bailout. In a world where trillion dollar bailouts are now a fact of life, $6-billion doesn't sound like much but it can sure buy an awful lot of influence with a country such as Pakistan.
From the Washington Post:
"The Pakistanis like to call the Chinese their all-weather ally, and the U.S. their fair-weather friends," said Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "This kind of loan could be seen as self-serving by the Chinese, and continue that impression."
The paper reports that, in Pakistan, "the climate of crisis and public anger over domestic bailouts in the United States and Western Europe have made even a modest infusion from its Western allies politically difficult."
With American intelligence agencies calling Afghanistan a "downward spiral," a move by Pakistan away from the West and toward China's sphere of influence cannot help but jeopardize America's position in the region.
There's some speculation that China is about to capitalize on America's fiscal blunders to extend its own sphere of influence while its rival is in disarray.
Pakistan is said to be on the verge of debt default, a crisis that has sent President Zardari off, not to Washington, but to Beijing looking for a rescue in the form of a $6-billion bailout. In a world where trillion dollar bailouts are now a fact of life, $6-billion doesn't sound like much but it can sure buy an awful lot of influence with a country such as Pakistan.
From the Washington Post:
"The Pakistanis like to call the Chinese their all-weather ally, and the U.S. their fair-weather friends," said Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "This kind of loan could be seen as self-serving by the Chinese, and continue that impression."
The paper reports that, in Pakistan, "the climate of crisis and public anger over domestic bailouts in the United States and Western Europe have made even a modest infusion from its Western allies politically difficult."
With American intelligence agencies calling Afghanistan a "downward spiral," a move by Pakistan away from the West and toward China's sphere of influence cannot help but jeopardize America's position in the region.
Our So-Called Prime Minister, Liar in Chief
Well it sure didn't take very long to see how Stephen Harper deliberately kept voters in the dark. Less than 24-hours after winning his no-issue minority romp Harper unveiled Mr. Dion's economic platform, virtually item for item.
Then his aides told the press that they kept him from revealing what little he did have by way of a platform out of fear he would run off at the mouth and cost the party precious seats. There was a smart bet.
Now even the Americans warn that Harper's "no deficit" promise is so much smoke blown straight up the electorate's backside. From Bloomberg.com:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper framed his re-election campaign around promises to avoid deficits and a costly rescue of the country's banks.
While his Oct. 14 victory left him with more Conservative Party seats in Parliament, the deepening global financial crisis may force him to backpedal on both pledges.
Throughout the 37-day race, he boasted that Canada's financial system was still sound as other countries bailed out their banks and said a rescue wouldn't be necessary.
"The Americans are bailing out their banks and financial institutions,'' Harper, 49, said Oct. 11 at a rally in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil. "We are investing in jobs right here in Canada.''
Harper Reversal
Yesterday, Harper reversed course, indicating taxpayers will probably need to cover the cost of ensuring that Canadian banks stay solid. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, 58, may increase deposit insurance beyond the current C$100,000 ($83,900) per person and guarantee short-term bank debt, the Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 14, citing people it didn't identify by name.
The Bank of Canada may let mutual funds and pension funds take part in its short-term debt purchases aimed at shoring up liquidity in credit markets, the Globe also said.
So, there it is. Harper conned Canadian voters so rapaciously that his lies didn't hold up for even 24-hours after the polls closed. I'm sorry but this guy has as much respect for the Canadian people as Parizeau had for Quebeckers in the last referendum when he described them as lobsters ready for the pot. Harper duped his way to a minority win and he deserves our full contempt for the way he did it.
Then his aides told the press that they kept him from revealing what little he did have by way of a platform out of fear he would run off at the mouth and cost the party precious seats. There was a smart bet.
Now even the Americans warn that Harper's "no deficit" promise is so much smoke blown straight up the electorate's backside. From Bloomberg.com:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper framed his re-election campaign around promises to avoid deficits and a costly rescue of the country's banks.
While his Oct. 14 victory left him with more Conservative Party seats in Parliament, the deepening global financial crisis may force him to backpedal on both pledges.
Throughout the 37-day race, he boasted that Canada's financial system was still sound as other countries bailed out their banks and said a rescue wouldn't be necessary.
"The Americans are bailing out their banks and financial institutions,'' Harper, 49, said Oct. 11 at a rally in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil. "We are investing in jobs right here in Canada.''
Harper Reversal
Yesterday, Harper reversed course, indicating taxpayers will probably need to cover the cost of ensuring that Canadian banks stay solid. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, 58, may increase deposit insurance beyond the current C$100,000 ($83,900) per person and guarantee short-term bank debt, the Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 14, citing people it didn't identify by name.
The Bank of Canada may let mutual funds and pension funds take part in its short-term debt purchases aimed at shoring up liquidity in credit markets, the Globe also said.
So, there it is. Harper conned Canadian voters so rapaciously that his lies didn't hold up for even 24-hours after the polls closed. I'm sorry but this guy has as much respect for the Canadian people as Parizeau had for Quebeckers in the last referendum when he described them as lobsters ready for the pot. Harper duped his way to a minority win and he deserves our full contempt for the way he did it.
The Ghost of Judy LaMarsh
Don't get me wrong, I liked Judy LaMarsh. There was a lot about her to like, even admire. Yet if Judy had gotten her way, Pierre Trudeau would never have won the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Judy, you see, supported Paul Hellyer and, to her, Trudeau was an outsider who hadn't paid his dues. At the 1968 Liberal leadership convention, LaMarsh urged Hellyer to throw his support to Robert Winters, telling Hellyer, "Don't let that bastard win it, Paul - he isn't even a Liberal."
Judy's remark was picked up be a nearby CBC microphone. "That bastard" won the leadership and Judy's political career was abruptly over.
Judy's problem, like all the Judys in today's LPC, is that she couldn't see just how much an "outsider" had to offer the party and just how badly that party needed that sort of fresh blood.
We don't need more Judys to salvage today's LPC. What we need are a few Keith Daveys. This brief summary from the Canadian Encyclopedia gives you a fair idea of just who this man was, what he meant to the Liberal Party in his day and why we're so badly in need of another of his kind, not another Judy, today:
Keith Davey, politician (b at Toronto 21 Apr 1926). After graduating from University of Toronto's Victoria College, Davey worked in radio and held a number of positions in the Toronto-area Liberal Party. After Liberal defeats in the 1957 and 1958 general elections, Davey organized a small group, known as "Cell 13," to rejuvenate the party in Ontario. In 1961 Davey became the Liberal's national campaign director and helped to devise the strategy that defeated the Conservatives in 1963. His advice was less successful in 1965, when the Liberals sought a parliamentary majority.
Made a senator by Prime Minister PEARSON in 1966, Davey chaired a Senate investigation of Canadian mass media. Following the Liberal Party's near defeat in 1972, Davey was summoned by PMTRUDEAU to guide the party's electoral fortunes and was rewarded by a successful election in 1974. Although the Liberals were defeated in 1979, Davey returned the Liberals to power in 1980 as their national campaign cochairman and was brought back in midcampaign to try to revitalize John TURNER's flagging campaign in 1984. The experience was not a happy one, and in 1986 Davey took his doubts about Turner's leadership to the public in a book, The Rainmaker.
The Dion, ....er Harper Economic Plan
The Globe & Mail says it all. Harper has pretty much lifted Stephane Dion's plans for getting Canada through the hard times that we face:
Most of these measures are in fact actions one would expect a prime minister to take and the list looks similar to the five-point action plan proposed by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion during the campaign.
They include:
• Taking "whatever appropriate steps are necessary to ensure that Canada's financial system is not put at a competitive disadvantage."
• Discussing the crisis at Friday's Canada European Union Summit and talking about strengthening the economic partnership with this bloc.
• Summoning Parliament to meet this fall and tabling an economic update before the end of November.
• Participating in the Group of 20 finance ministers' meeting November 8-9 and calling for a further meeting of Group of Seven finance ministers to "build on progress made at their meeting.
• Keeping government spending "focused and under control" by continuing a four-year review of government departmental spending.
• Convening a meeting with the premiers and territorial leaders on the economy to discuss a joint approach to the global financial crisis.
Most of these measures are in fact actions one would expect a prime minister to take and the list looks similar to the five-point action plan proposed by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion during the campaign.
They include:
• Taking "whatever appropriate steps are necessary to ensure that Canada's financial system is not put at a competitive disadvantage."
• Discussing the crisis at Friday's Canada European Union Summit and talking about strengthening the economic partnership with this bloc.
• Summoning Parliament to meet this fall and tabling an economic update before the end of November.
• Participating in the Group of 20 finance ministers' meeting November 8-9 and calling for a further meeting of Group of Seven finance ministers to "build on progress made at their meeting.
• Keeping government spending "focused and under control" by continuing a four-year review of government departmental spending.
• Convening a meeting with the premiers and territorial leaders on the economy to discuss a joint approach to the global financial crisis.
Stop Blaming the Voters
I've read far too many posts blaming the Canadian voting public for last night's Liberal drubbing. That disgusting little narrative holds that they were too dumb to see through Mr. Harper or too weakminded to understand the brilliance that is Mr. Dion.
What an arrogant load of crap!
The Canadians who handed the LPC its head on a platter last night were the same Canadians who have trusted the Liberals to govern the country in the past. If they're good enough when they support us, they're every bit as good when they don't.
You have to win an election. Even the Liberals have no entitlement to govern. Liberals have a genuine advantage in that mainstream Canadians are ideologically compatible with the party. So, when voters turn elsewhere they've obviously rejected something or someone in the Liberal campaign.
You cannot win an election if you don't connect with the voting public. It was Mr. Dion's job every day since he assumed party leadership to connect with the voting public, to help them understand what the Liberals were offering and why they ought to support it. He went into this election already having failed on that score.
In terms of electoral skills, Dion was completely outclassed by Mr. Harper. Time and again when he ought to have brought the government down, he stepped aside and had his caucus shamefully flee the floor of the Commons. Had he brought the government down on any one of several, legitimate disputes, Dion would have had some control over the timing of the election and, more importantly, an ability to frame the issues.
The only surprise in Harper's election call was that anyone should have been surprised by it. Parliament had had the summer off and all the scandals and blunders of the Harper government had receded in the minds of the voters. This was Harper's one chance to not have to run on his record and clear issues. And he caught the opposition, particularly the Liberals utterly flatfooted.
We, the Liberal Party of Canada, did extremely poorly last night. We were completely outmatched and that was the culmination of a whole series of mistakes and blunders. We lost this election, the voters merely responded.
What an arrogant load of crap!
The Canadians who handed the LPC its head on a platter last night were the same Canadians who have trusted the Liberals to govern the country in the past. If they're good enough when they support us, they're every bit as good when they don't.
You have to win an election. Even the Liberals have no entitlement to govern. Liberals have a genuine advantage in that mainstream Canadians are ideologically compatible with the party. So, when voters turn elsewhere they've obviously rejected something or someone in the Liberal campaign.
You cannot win an election if you don't connect with the voting public. It was Mr. Dion's job every day since he assumed party leadership to connect with the voting public, to help them understand what the Liberals were offering and why they ought to support it. He went into this election already having failed on that score.
In terms of electoral skills, Dion was completely outclassed by Mr. Harper. Time and again when he ought to have brought the government down, he stepped aside and had his caucus shamefully flee the floor of the Commons. Had he brought the government down on any one of several, legitimate disputes, Dion would have had some control over the timing of the election and, more importantly, an ability to frame the issues.
The only surprise in Harper's election call was that anyone should have been surprised by it. Parliament had had the summer off and all the scandals and blunders of the Harper government had receded in the minds of the voters. This was Harper's one chance to not have to run on his record and clear issues. And he caught the opposition, particularly the Liberals utterly flatfooted.
We, the Liberal Party of Canada, did extremely poorly last night. We were completely outmatched and that was the culmination of a whole series of mistakes and blunders. We lost this election, the voters merely responded.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Keith Boag - Dion is Toast
The CBC's Keith Boag figures that, while Stephane Dion may want to whistle past the graveyard claiming Canadians have asked him to serve as leader of the Official Opposition, Dion's days are numbered and that number isn't very high either.
I agree with Boag. Stephane is a spent force who has essentially run the party into the ground. This isn't the NDP, it's the Liberal Party of Canada. You don't put up such a miserable showing and expect to hang around to heap more of the same on the party faithful.
Boag mentioned something else I also firmly believe. The Liberal Party of Canada can only suffer if it rushes into securing a replacement too quickly as, I suspect, both the Rae and Igantieff camps would prefer.
There may be no ideal candidate to lead the party within the existing front ranks. All have shortcomings and none has demonstrated the ability to capture the imagination and support of the Canadian electorate.
I already know who I want to lead the Liberal Party. I've been open about that for many months. I want a woman to run our party, I want a woman to lead this country. I want her not because she's a woman but regardless of her gender. I want Louise Arbour. I want Louise Arbour as Canada's next prime minister.
She's brilliant. She's accomplished. She's utterly fearless. Louise Arbour or someone of her stature is exactly the sort of person we need, Canada needs, to put our country back on an even keel. Supreme Court of Canada justice, war crimes prosecutor, UN human rights commissioner, Ms. Arbour stands so tall above the rest that she makes them dim in their mediocrity.
As I've written so often, we're coming out of an era of notional wealth and indulgence into an era when the old tricks no longer work. We need someone of exemplary intellect and forceful character who can use her talents to make us accepting, even wanting for what's only right and essential.
Living her detached from mainland Canada I accept the limitations that come from being removed and somewhat sheltered. Yet, if any of you can come up with someone better, please come up with names and explain why they should lead the Liberal Party out of the desert.
I agree with Boag. Stephane is a spent force who has essentially run the party into the ground. This isn't the NDP, it's the Liberal Party of Canada. You don't put up such a miserable showing and expect to hang around to heap more of the same on the party faithful.
Boag mentioned something else I also firmly believe. The Liberal Party of Canada can only suffer if it rushes into securing a replacement too quickly as, I suspect, both the Rae and Igantieff camps would prefer.
There may be no ideal candidate to lead the party within the existing front ranks. All have shortcomings and none has demonstrated the ability to capture the imagination and support of the Canadian electorate.
I already know who I want to lead the Liberal Party. I've been open about that for many months. I want a woman to run our party, I want a woman to lead this country. I want her not because she's a woman but regardless of her gender. I want Louise Arbour. I want Louise Arbour as Canada's next prime minister.
She's brilliant. She's accomplished. She's utterly fearless. Louise Arbour or someone of her stature is exactly the sort of person we need, Canada needs, to put our country back on an even keel. Supreme Court of Canada justice, war crimes prosecutor, UN human rights commissioner, Ms. Arbour stands so tall above the rest that she makes them dim in their mediocrity.
As I've written so often, we're coming out of an era of notional wealth and indulgence into an era when the old tricks no longer work. We need someone of exemplary intellect and forceful character who can use her talents to make us accepting, even wanting for what's only right and essential.
Living her detached from mainland Canada I accept the limitations that come from being removed and somewhat sheltered. Yet, if any of you can come up with someone better, please come up with names and explain why they should lead the Liberal Party out of the desert.
In earlier, less pressing times, I might even consider the idea of allowing Stephane Dion to have another go. These, however, are not less pressing times and we've gone about as far down this road as we can afford to travel.
I want Arbour. Who do you want? Come up with some names and explain why.
I've Never Seen So Many Holding Their Breath
It's the same story on both Liblogs and Progressive Bloggers - virtual silence. According to CBC, Lord Vader is still confined safely on the DeathStar, closer certainly but still no majority cigar. Maybe this time he'll face a responsible, co-operative opposition that is willing to act as though it had a pair. That, after all, is the only remedy for the playground bully.
Stephane Dion failed to meet the one challenge that faced him - doing at least as well as his predecessor, Paul Martin. In fact, the Dion Libs took a drubbing as though that should come as a surprise to anyone.
As far as I can tell just now, the only real losers tonight were the Libs under Stephane Dion. Is it any wonder?
If Stephen Harper is going to be run out of Dodge, it's going to take a Liberal leadership change and the sooner the better. I bit my tongue during the campaign but that's over now. There is a type of individual suited to leading the Liberal party. Mr. Dion is not of that standard. If he has any integrity he'll step down. If he doesn't, we need to show him the door.
Stephane Dion failed to meet the one challenge that faced him - doing at least as well as his predecessor, Paul Martin. In fact, the Dion Libs took a drubbing as though that should come as a surprise to anyone.
As far as I can tell just now, the only real losers tonight were the Libs under Stephane Dion. Is it any wonder?
If Stephen Harper is going to be run out of Dodge, it's going to take a Liberal leadership change and the sooner the better. I bit my tongue during the campaign but that's over now. There is a type of individual suited to leading the Liberal party. Mr. Dion is not of that standard. If he has any integrity he'll step down. If he doesn't, we need to show him the door.
The Wrong Guy to Rescue America?
If, as has been widely claimed, the real Achilles' Heel to the global financial meltdown, lies in $60-trillion dollars of bogus Credit Default Swaps dumped into the markets by American financial giants, how wise is it to rely on the recent head of one of those very companies to rescue America from this very curse?
Just read the Wikipedia biography of Henry Paulson and you decide:
Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972.[7] He then worked for the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from 1972 to 1973.
He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office for Manmeet Taneja. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998;[8] eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was US$37 million in 2005, and US$16.4 million projected for 2006.[9] His net worth has been estimated at over US$700 million.[9] Paulson has personally built close relations with China during his career. In July 2008 it was reported by The Daily Telegraph that: "Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country more than 70 times."[10]
[edit] Tenure at and later relationship with Goldman Sachs
In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses, including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure. The complaint that was put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements -- in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms' reserve holdings if the SEC agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow "voluntary" inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.
During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually dismantled by Chairman Christopher Cox, after discussions with Paulson. According to the New York Times, "While other financial regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Mr. Paulson, the [new] Treasury secretary, that proposed to reduce their stature — and that of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain that the blueprint would neuter the agency."[11]
In late September 2008, Chairman Cox and the other Commissioners agreed to end the 2004 program of voluntary regulation.
I don't know but it sure sounds to me as though Paulson was one of the key players who were gaming the American economy with these toxic, Credit Default Swaps, that created the Wall Street house of cards that now lies flattened.
A Brighter Day for America and Everyone
It might last just a few years if we're lucky, several more if we're not, but the America that emerges from the meltdown that's just beginning to take hold is bound to be a better, healthier, more dynamic country - more closely resembling a sophisticated version of what it was in the 60's than the diseased stepchild of the Reagan era.
The United States of America spent 30-years getting sick, really sick. Today's meltdown is just the fever of that long-cultivated illness.
And what a sickness it was. It was a disease of both body and mind. The predisposition to this malady has been around since the country's earliest days. It came in the form of what's known as "American exceptionalism." It's the sort of mass delusion that comes to the fore when Americans (such as Sarah Palin) talk about the "City on the Hill." It works its way through the American system in manifestations such as state rights, the every man a king sort of thing. It is infuriated by the perceived threat to liberty in central authority and any restraint on the notional "land of opportunity."
Most of that has been pretty thoroughly trashed over the past generation although the myth of exceptionalism dies hard. Look at recent videos of angry crowds lined up to get into McCain/Palin rallies. They seem to sense that the myth is over and they're both afraid of and furious at the uncertainty ahead.
American exceptionalism began its slow death when its Calvinist foundation began to erode during the Reagan years with the acceptance of debt and deficits as permanent governing principles of the country, its states, even its towns and cities - and, of course, its people. It died when, as Lewis Lapham put it, Americans came to, "equate wealth with virtue." That set off a generational orgy of consumerism that quickly led to a nation, its states, its cities and its people living beyond their means.
It's not entirely the Americans' fault. Foreign lenders were all too happy financing this bachannal, especially the Chinese who watched America's indentured wealth being siphoned off to grow China's economy.
But those days of greed and madness are coming to a close. China is weaning itself off its heavy dependence on American consumers. They'll still play a major part in China's economic ascendancy but the Chinese are now creating their own markets out of their own domestic affluence. The story is similar for India. The Euros, likewise, are looking to expand and cement their trade ties into alternate markets.
But it's not just the markets and fiscal policy that will bring America back to sanity. It's also the country's social policies and the looming crisis of its state and municipal governments' neglect.
I did a post about a year ago detailing how India is opening 29-new science and technology universities every year. China, too, is churning out legions of mathematicians, scientists and engineers. America, by contrast, is lurching backward in training its next generation of leaders. The New York Times' op-ed columnist Bob Herbert focused on the double whammy coming America's way from the failure of its education policies and the looming collapse of its decayed infrastructure:
'“The United States is failing to develop the math skills of both girls and boys, especially among those who could excel at the highest levels, a new study asserts, and girls who do succeed in the field are almost all immigrants or the daughters of immigrants from countries where mathematics is more highly valued.”
The idea that the U.S. won’t even properly develop the skills of young people who could perform at the highest intellectual levels is breathtaking — breathtakingly stupid, that is.
Meanwhile, the country is going down the tubes. Felix Rohatyn, who helped lead New York City out of the dark days of the 1970s fiscal crisis, had an article in a recent issue of The New York Review of Books (with co-author Everett Ehrlich) lamenting the sad state of the U.S. infrastructure. Most Americans are oblivious on this issue. We’re like a family that won’t even think about fixing a sagging, leaky roof until it collapses on our heads.
New Orleans was nearly wiped from the map in the Hurricane Katrina nightmare, and 13 people were killed when a bridge in Minneapolis broke apart during rush hour, hurling helpless motorists 60 feet into the Mississippi River. Neither of those disasters was enough of a warning for us to think seriously about infrastructure maintenance, repair and construction.
Could these types of disasters happen again? They’re going to happen again. Mr. Rohatyn reminds us that nearly 30 percent of the nation’s bridges are “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.”
We haven’t even got sense enough to keep an eye on the water we drink. Citing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, Mr. Rohatyn and Mr. Ehrlich write: “Current funding for safe drinking water, amounts to ‘less than 10 percent of the total national requirement.’ ”
A country that refuses to properly educate its young people or to maintain its physical plant is one that has clearly lost its way. Add in the myriad problems associated with unnecessary warfare and a clueless central government that wastes taxpayer dollars by the trillions, and you’ve got a society in danger of becoming completely unhinged."
This is the price exacted of a country that equates education with elitism and believes that taxation is nothing short of robbery. I recall a case from several months back where Louisiana voters, whose state is about as impoverished and backward as you can find in the Lower 48, introduced and passed a proposition to slash funding for education for no reason other than to shave a couple of points off the tax rates.
Astonishing, absolutely astonishing. But now, finally, this drunken orgy is coming to an end. The era of 4,000 sq. ft. homes for everyone is over. America is about to enter a period of sustainable retreat and, in that, lies its salvation. For despite all the excesses of the past decades there remains within the United States a core of vitality that has survived by staying low key, mainly in the halls of academia. It's from America's top universities that a new generation of clear thinkers will emerge, free of the now utterly discredited dogma and jingoism that has brought their country to its knees.
These are the people who understand the need to again invest their country's wealth in rebuilding America's economy, not China's - in the need to reward effort, production and innovation, not bogus paper shuffling and coupon clipping. They don't need to be told that America's strength lies in the health of its blue and white collar working and middle classes, not the rentiers.
We will see these people come forward over the next decade to cure the madness that is today's America. It'll be a long road back and there'll be a lot of potholes along the way but there's no other option if America is to maintain its place in the community of nations.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Another Reason Not to Vote for Harper- He's an Economist, Supposedly
Preston Manning tells us that we should re-elect Stephen Harper because he's an economist and that's just what Canada needs to get the country through the hard times that lie ahead.
But wait a minute! If an economist of Mr. Harper's stature is critical to our future in the years to come, how did we find ourselves spread eagled in this mess when we've had this same economist at the helm for two and a half years already?
As a highly educated economist, what didn't Steve Harper see coming and when didn't he see it?
Put another way, our Economist-in-Chief ought to have seen this coming and ought to have introduced measures to protect Canadians from it, no? I mean he's gone to university and everything, right? He's an elite guy after all, full of all that book learning. And even if he couldn't find his economics ass with two hands, even he could read what that other economist, Paul Krugman, was writing twice a week in The New York Times or am I wrong again?
Now I know that Steve has been pretty busy running in full-bore campaign mode these past couple of years but surely he can tell us something he did to protect Canadians from the downside of this mess. Something. Anything? And if, as it so plainly appears, he did nothing, nada, zip, zilch - why then I'm sure he had some good reason for that too, no? So, why did our Conservative Brain Trust not use that expensive, taxpayer funded education to help us?
The fact is Steve wasn't playing heads up ball. He was busy implementing an agenda and looking for a way to create just the right conditions to pull a snap election. As for the economy, this joker was asleep at the wheel and that's why, kids, we're now headed for the ditch.
Stephen Harper has totally let Canada down on this one and we're all going to feel plenty of pain from his neglect and raw political ambition.
But wait a minute! If an economist of Mr. Harper's stature is critical to our future in the years to come, how did we find ourselves spread eagled in this mess when we've had this same economist at the helm for two and a half years already?
As a highly educated economist, what didn't Steve Harper see coming and when didn't he see it?
Put another way, our Economist-in-Chief ought to have seen this coming and ought to have introduced measures to protect Canadians from it, no? I mean he's gone to university and everything, right? He's an elite guy after all, full of all that book learning. And even if he couldn't find his economics ass with two hands, even he could read what that other economist, Paul Krugman, was writing twice a week in The New York Times or am I wrong again?
Now I know that Steve has been pretty busy running in full-bore campaign mode these past couple of years but surely he can tell us something he did to protect Canadians from the downside of this mess. Something. Anything? And if, as it so plainly appears, he did nothing, nada, zip, zilch - why then I'm sure he had some good reason for that too, no? So, why did our Conservative Brain Trust not use that expensive, taxpayer funded education to help us?
The fact is Steve wasn't playing heads up ball. He was busy implementing an agenda and looking for a way to create just the right conditions to pull a snap election. As for the economy, this joker was asleep at the wheel and that's why, kids, we're now headed for the ditch.
Stephen Harper has totally let Canada down on this one and we're all going to feel plenty of pain from his neglect and raw political ambition.
Krugman Wins Nobel
Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Krugman, routinely castigated by America's rightwing, is a self-described liberal. He has used his column and books to repeatedly show how his country was on a path to the meltdown that has consumed it today.
In "The Great Unraveling" Krugman assembled a selection of his columns going back to the arrival of George w. Bush in Washington that depicted the madness that has been Republican economic and social policy in the 21st Century.
Krugman, routinely castigated by America's rightwing, is a self-described liberal. He has used his column and books to repeatedly show how his country was on a path to the meltdown that has consumed it today.
In "The Great Unraveling" Krugman assembled a selection of his columns going back to the arrival of George w. Bush in Washington that depicted the madness that has been Republican economic and social policy in the 21st Century.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
One More Thought on Global Meltdown
The media are beginning to sort through the debris and identify the upwards of 60-trillion dollars in bogus Credit Default Swaps as the real malignancy in today's global economic meltdown.
It's even argued that world governments should step in to make good these enormous liabilities. Yeah, that's right, a taxpayer funded SIXTY TRILLION dollar bailout.
Here's my problem with that idea. The banks, stock brokers and insurers who were trading back and forth in these Credit Default Swaps had to know they weren't worth the paper they were printed on. They had to know that they weren't good for the obligations they were selling and that the other firms weren't good for the obligations either.
So, if they engaged in this mutual, mass larceny - why the hell are taxpayers supposed to make good what was never more than scrap paper anyway?
What would happen if the world governments simply declared all Credit Default Swaps null and void? Tell all these financial sector giants that they're no longer liable on the CDSs they wrote but they won't be collecting anything on the CDSs they're holding either. It started off as a greed-driven scam, it continued as a greed-driven scam all the way until the meltdown, so why legitimize a scam by forcing the taxpayer make it good?
It's even argued that world governments should step in to make good these enormous liabilities. Yeah, that's right, a taxpayer funded SIXTY TRILLION dollar bailout.
Here's my problem with that idea. The banks, stock brokers and insurers who were trading back and forth in these Credit Default Swaps had to know they weren't worth the paper they were printed on. They had to know that they weren't good for the obligations they were selling and that the other firms weren't good for the obligations either.
So, if they engaged in this mutual, mass larceny - why the hell are taxpayers supposed to make good what was never more than scrap paper anyway?
What would happen if the world governments simply declared all Credit Default Swaps null and void? Tell all these financial sector giants that they're no longer liable on the CDSs they wrote but they won't be collecting anything on the CDSs they're holding either. It started off as a greed-driven scam, it continued as a greed-driven scam all the way until the meltdown, so why legitimize a scam by forcing the taxpayer make it good?
Global Meltdown Dissected
Governments around the world are throwing trillions of dollars into their financial sector industries in what increasingly appears to be a failed attempt to arrest the global economic meltdown.
We didn't hear much about it, but the Brits just came through with their very own, 500-billion pound rescue package (just over one trillion Cdn.) Like the trillion dollar American deal it doesn't seem to be curing the problems.
We didn't hear much about it, but the Brits just came through with their very own, 500-billion pound rescue package (just over one trillion Cdn.) Like the trillion dollar American deal it doesn't seem to be curing the problems.
Last weekend, 60 Minutes introduced many of us to what might be the culprit, the real malignancy in the global markets - up to $60-trillion in scam insurance contracts called Credit Default Swaps used by the big financial houses to squeeze out the last drops of profit from selling the ticking time bombs we now know as ABCP, asset backed commercial paper, or derivatives made up of bundled good and bad mortgages.
In today's English paper, The Observer, Will Hutton argues that all the government bailouts won't work without tackling the Credit Default Swaps:
What needs to happen on top is an assault on the dark heart of the global financial system - the $55 trillion market in credit derivatives and, in particular, credit default swaps, the mechanisms routinely used to insure banks against losses on risky investments. This is a market more than twice the size of the combined GDP of the US, Japan and the EU. Until it is cleaned up and the toxic threat it poses is removed, the pandemic will continue. Even nationalised banks, and the countries standing behind them, could be overwhelmed by the scale of the losses now emerging.
This market in credit derivatives has grown explosively over the last decade largely in response to the $10 trillion market in securitised assets - the packaging up of income from a huge variety of sources (office rents, port charges, mortgage payments, sport stadiums) and its subsequent sale as a 'security' to be traded between banks.
Plainly, these securities are risky, so the markets invented a system of insurance. A buyer of a securitised bond can purchase what is in effect an insurance contract that will protect him or her against default - a credit default swap (CDS).
Their purpose was a market solution to make securitisation less risky; in fact, they make it more risky, as we are now witnessing. The collapse of Lehman Brothers - the refusal to bail it out has had cataclysmic consequences - means that it can no longer honour $110bn of bonds, nor $440bn of CDSs it had written. On Friday, the dud contracts were auctioned, with buyers paying a paltry eight cents for every dollar. Put another way, there is now a $414bn hole which somebody holding these contracts has to honour. And if your head is spinning now, add the three bust Icelandic banks. They can no longer honour more than $50bn of bonds, nor a mind-boggling $200bn of CDSs.
While every bank tries to pass the toxic parcel on to somebody else, the system has to find the money. So will compensation for the near valueless contracts and thus now uninsured debt ultimately be made - and by whom? And because nobody knows - not the regulators, banks or governments - who owns the swaps and whether they are credit-worthy, nobody can answer the question. Maybe holders of insurance policies will get the cash due to them, but will that weaken somebody else? The result - panic.
This is the ultra-dangerous downward vortex in which the system is locked. It is why share prices are plummeting. As recession deepens, there will be defaults on securitised bonds and the potential collapse of more banks outside the G7 ring-fence. Nobody knows what proportion of the $55 trillion of credit default contracts that have actually been written will be honoured and who might bear losses running into trillions of dollars.
One element of the necessary response is in the making - giving banks access to unlimited taxpayers' capital, guaranteeing interbank lending and pumping cash into the system. I suspect that only majority government control of the West's major banks will now stabilise matters. But that is not enough. The markets no longer believe in the financial market structures they have invented. As a result, the US Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and Bank of England must become not just lenders, but insurers of last resort, providing the insurance contracts that the markets have stopped. Governments must write CDSs themselves.
Most of those who should be leading the world's recovery are, politically speaking, numbered among the politically walking wounded or dead; either near the end of office like George Bush, in a fractious coalition like Angela Merkel, or leading a dysfunctional party like the weak Taro Aso of Japan.
For 30 years, greedy, callow, ignorant financiers, supported by no less callow politicians from all the political parties, have proclaimed the wonders of financial innovation and how proud we all should be of the City of London. The price tag for their behaviour is an economic calamity. We should never have bought such snake oil. The consolation in these dark times is that we never will again.
What I find most vexing about these Credit Default Swaps is that they were essentially fraudulent. McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm introduced and spearheaded the legislation allowing these contracts and preventing anyone from regulating them. By calling them "swaps" (they could just as easily have been called doorbells or mustard) instead of "insurance" they remained outside the purview of US regulators. And yet they were in every respect insurance contracts. What set them apart and has led to the crisis today is that they were unfunded obligations that were, themselves, traded as securities. Regulators make sure that insurance companies have enough assets to meet their obligations. No one required that for GDS's.
To my simple mind, selling what you know to be an insurance contract while knowing you have no means to satisfy your obligation is fraudulent. It's like me selling you my neighbour's car and pocketing the sale price. I can't deliver what I've promised - title to the car - because I don't have it.
Phil Gramm & company have unleashed an economic maelstrom on everyone and somebody has to atone. The US government in particular ought to be lining up all those good Republicans who perpetrated this fraud - the CEO's and the executives of these investment banks and insurance companies and securities houses - and they should be marched away in irons. Everyone who facilitated the perpetration of this, the greatest and most cataclysmic swindel in history, ought to be slung into a cell, stripped of every penny of assets and locked away forever. The lasting damage each of these kingpins has caused makes any serial killer look like a jaywalker.
That Other Little Civil War Next Door - Balochistan
The previous post on Pakistani forces fighting alongside the Taliban reminded me of Pakistan's own troubling insurgency with the tribesmen of Balochistan, curiously enough called the Balochs (sometimes Baluchs).
The Balochs' homeland (shown in pink above), like that of the Pashtun, lies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Baloch territory lies south of Waziristan in the region where Pakistan meets the Indian Ocean. Qetta, a Taliban stronghold, lies in the northern part of Balochistan.
Like the Pashtun, the Balochs got divvied up in a two-state deal when the Brits drew the Duran Line to mark the Pakistan/Afghan border.
Pakistan has four major ethnic groups - Punjabi (the military), Sindhi (the economic and political), Pashtun or Pathan and Baloch. Like Afghanistan's ethnic melange, these players don't always see eye to eye and at times work at cross purposes. This is one of those moments for the Balochs.
Like other ethnic groups, such as the Kurds, the Balochs would really like the unification of their people (in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran) and the creation of an independent state. The Balochs have been waging insurrections against the Pakistanis almost since Pakistan was created by the Brits in 1947. There have been insurgencies in 1948, 1968, 1973, 1977, 2005, 2006, and right now.
Everybody has an interest in the Baloch region of Pakistan. The US sees it as an excellent staging area in the event of war with Iran. Tehran accuses the Americans of supporting a Baloch insurgency within Iran. And then there's the dual villains in much of today's global insecurity - oil and gas.
The region also holds large reserves of natural gas, oil and uranium critical to an energy starved Pakistan. The Balochs complain they're being exploited by Islamabad and demand greater prosperity from these resources.
Through the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, the Baloch territory offers a corridor for a commercial and energy corridor. Planning is underway for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and Iran both to the sea and north to China and possibly into India.
Look at the players - Pakistan, the United States, Afghanistan, India, Iran and China. If that mob doesn't give you a headache, it should.
The energy issue creates what American strategic analysts call an "energy-insurgency nexus." How Washington perceives that to be in American and Western strategic interests could reshape the geopolitical makeup of the entire region.
Pakistan, alienated by the recent American nuclear deal with India, is already toying with membership in the SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran also wants into that defensive alliance. That could bring both countries and the energy facilities of their region under the umbrella of Russia and China.
We've seen how determined the US has been to oust Soviet influence in the energy-rich Caucasus region, first Georgia and now Ukraine. Would the Americans be any less determined to deny Chinese influence over South Asian energy resources?
Like everything else in this region, it's all wheels within wheels. No two players' interests here are inevitably coterminous. So far the US hasn't had to take sides between Islamabad and the Balochs yet it may well come down to that. China, meanwhile, operates very quietly in this region. China is already planning to build a rail and highway route into northern Afghanistan where it has acquired the rights to that country's biggest copper reserves. China may find it worthwhile to try to pry Pakistan out of Washington's sphere of influence.
I suspect we won't have much chance of settling the Taliban issue while the Baloch insurgency stands unresolved. It's hard to conceive of America pulling its military forces out of Afghanistan for many years to come. There's far too much at stake, geo-politically, within Afghanistan and along its borders (Pakistan, China, Iran) and nowhere else for Washington to maintain a sizeable military presence. It's entirely unclear whether the Afghan tribes will tolerate a quasi-permanent American military force in their country or whether they will temporarily side with the Taliban as they united with the Pashtun two decades earlier to drive out the Soviets.
The Balochs' homeland (shown in pink above), like that of the Pashtun, lies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Baloch territory lies south of Waziristan in the region where Pakistan meets the Indian Ocean. Qetta, a Taliban stronghold, lies in the northern part of Balochistan.
Like the Pashtun, the Balochs got divvied up in a two-state deal when the Brits drew the Duran Line to mark the Pakistan/Afghan border.
Pakistan has four major ethnic groups - Punjabi (the military), Sindhi (the economic and political), Pashtun or Pathan and Baloch. Like Afghanistan's ethnic melange, these players don't always see eye to eye and at times work at cross purposes. This is one of those moments for the Balochs.
Like other ethnic groups, such as the Kurds, the Balochs would really like the unification of their people (in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran) and the creation of an independent state. The Balochs have been waging insurrections against the Pakistanis almost since Pakistan was created by the Brits in 1947. There have been insurgencies in 1948, 1968, 1973, 1977, 2005, 2006, and right now.
Everybody has an interest in the Baloch region of Pakistan. The US sees it as an excellent staging area in the event of war with Iran. Tehran accuses the Americans of supporting a Baloch insurgency within Iran. And then there's the dual villains in much of today's global insecurity - oil and gas.
The region also holds large reserves of natural gas, oil and uranium critical to an energy starved Pakistan. The Balochs complain they're being exploited by Islamabad and demand greater prosperity from these resources.
Through the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, the Baloch territory offers a corridor for a commercial and energy corridor. Planning is underway for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and Iran both to the sea and north to China and possibly into India.
Look at the players - Pakistan, the United States, Afghanistan, India, Iran and China. If that mob doesn't give you a headache, it should.
The energy issue creates what American strategic analysts call an "energy-insurgency nexus." How Washington perceives that to be in American and Western strategic interests could reshape the geopolitical makeup of the entire region.
Pakistan, alienated by the recent American nuclear deal with India, is already toying with membership in the SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran also wants into that defensive alliance. That could bring both countries and the energy facilities of their region under the umbrella of Russia and China.
We've seen how determined the US has been to oust Soviet influence in the energy-rich Caucasus region, first Georgia and now Ukraine. Would the Americans be any less determined to deny Chinese influence over South Asian energy resources?
Like everything else in this region, it's all wheels within wheels. No two players' interests here are inevitably coterminous. So far the US hasn't had to take sides between Islamabad and the Balochs yet it may well come down to that. China, meanwhile, operates very quietly in this region. China is already planning to build a rail and highway route into northern Afghanistan where it has acquired the rights to that country's biggest copper reserves. China may find it worthwhile to try to pry Pakistan out of Washington's sphere of influence.
I suspect we won't have much chance of settling the Taliban issue while the Baloch insurgency stands unresolved. It's hard to conceive of America pulling its military forces out of Afghanistan for many years to come. There's far too much at stake, geo-politically, within Afghanistan and along its borders (Pakistan, China, Iran) and nowhere else for Washington to maintain a sizeable military presence. It's entirely unclear whether the Afghan tribes will tolerate a quasi-permanent American military force in their country or whether they will temporarily side with the Taliban as they united with the Pashtun two decades earlier to drive out the Soviets.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Pakistani Army Fighting Alongside Taliban
British officials are being accused of covering up the death of a Pakistani army officer killed by British troops last year during a raid on a Taliban strongpoint in Afghanistan's Sangin valley. When soldiers entered the compound they found an ID card identifying one of the Taliban dead as a Pakistani officer.
The Times of London reports that this was the first concrete proof of Pakistani military participation in the Taliban insurgency. Afghan president Karzai is said to have been furious at the British coverup.
The newspaper quotes an American marine officer as saying that US forces have been in several gunfights with Pakistani forces:
"Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Nash, who commanded an embedded training team in eastern Afghanistan from June 2007 to March this year, told the Army Times that Pakistani forces flew repeated helicopter missions into Afghanistan to resupply a Taliban base camp during a fierce battle in June last year. Nash said: “We were on the receiving end of Pakistani military D-30 [a howitzer]. On numerous occasions Afghan border police checkpoints and observation posts were attacked by Pakistani military forces.”
The Times of London reports that this was the first concrete proof of Pakistani military participation in the Taliban insurgency. Afghan president Karzai is said to have been furious at the British coverup.
The newspaper quotes an American marine officer as saying that US forces have been in several gunfights with Pakistani forces:
"Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Nash, who commanded an embedded training team in eastern Afghanistan from June 2007 to March this year, told the Army Times that Pakistani forces flew repeated helicopter missions into Afghanistan to resupply a Taliban base camp during a fierce battle in June last year. Nash said: “We were on the receiving end of Pakistani military D-30 [a howitzer]. On numerous occasions Afghan border police checkpoints and observation posts were attacked by Pakistani military forces.”
Who's Really Un-American, Sarah?
Sarah Palin loves to incite the mob with sleazy "guilt by association" tactics, no matter how flimsy. Turns out, as this clip from the Jed Report shows, that Sarah has a few troubling associations herself and they're far from flimsy.
There's actually a longer clip than this that reveals Palin and her wife, Todd, to have had quite an extensive involvement with Alaskan separatists for years. It really is worth a look. Find it here:
www.236.com
There's actually a longer clip than this that reveals Palin and her wife, Todd, to have had quite an extensive involvement with Alaskan separatists for years. It really is worth a look. Find it here:
www.236.com
Should We Be Sending Observers to the US Election?
This one stinks. It reeks. CBC News reports that a New York County sent out advance ballots listing the Democratic candidate as Barack Osama.
Election officials moved quickly to pull the ballots once the "mistake" was spotted by a local newspaper.
Just a typo they claim. Yeah, sure. Not Onama or Okama or Olama, no Osama as in "bin Laden." Typo my ass.
Election officials moved quickly to pull the ballots once the "mistake" was spotted by a local newspaper.
Just a typo they claim. Yeah, sure. Not Onama or Okama or Olama, no Osama as in "bin Laden." Typo my ass.
Liars, Liars - Ode to Sarah and Steve
As though the scrapbook of unscrupulous rightwing ploys wasn't already bursting at the seams, we now have to add Sarah Palin abusing her powers as Alaska governor and our very own Stevie Harper lying his ass off about being defamed.
Harper said the tape recording of comments he made about Chuck Cadman and efforts to "reach" the dying MP to bring down the Martin government -- why those were made up. Those damned, dirty, underhanded Liberals doctored the tape. And who would know better than the guy who was on the tape? Steve knew what he said, right? Steve knew he didn't say those things, he would never say such things, right?
Wrong. It seems that the nefarious control freak actually did say the things he was so desperate to deny. He did say the things that he claims were defamatory of his good name and reputation when the Libs relied on the tapes. Now it turns out that Harper's own tech expert says there was no doctoring of the tapes, what you hear is Harp himself, no editing, no splicing.
Harper went that one step over the line when he accused the Libs of tampering with the tape recording, of doctoring it to make him look bad. He not only made a despicable, groundless accusation against the Libs, he also admitted that his own statements were reprehensible.
It's no wonder Harper has to gag the civil service and our Armed Forces. The guy is just plain creepy.
And Sarah, oh Sarah. Yes you abused your gubernatorial powers to pursue a vendetta against your former brother in law in the midst of his custody battle with your sister. You denied it. Absolutely untrue. Then you and McCain did everything in your power to get the investigation derailed until after the November elections.
The McCainiac response to the report? Pretend it doesn't exist. They're saying Palin had plenty of policy reasons for dismissing her public safety chief. She did. Then they go on to say officer Wooten was a nasty guy. Sandwich those two statements together and maybe nobody will notice that the meat that's supposed to be inside - the abuse of power - is missing.
Harper said the tape recording of comments he made about Chuck Cadman and efforts to "reach" the dying MP to bring down the Martin government -- why those were made up. Those damned, dirty, underhanded Liberals doctored the tape. And who would know better than the guy who was on the tape? Steve knew what he said, right? Steve knew he didn't say those things, he would never say such things, right?
Wrong. It seems that the nefarious control freak actually did say the things he was so desperate to deny. He did say the things that he claims were defamatory of his good name and reputation when the Libs relied on the tapes. Now it turns out that Harper's own tech expert says there was no doctoring of the tapes, what you hear is Harp himself, no editing, no splicing.
Harper went that one step over the line when he accused the Libs of tampering with the tape recording, of doctoring it to make him look bad. He not only made a despicable, groundless accusation against the Libs, he also admitted that his own statements were reprehensible.
It's no wonder Harper has to gag the civil service and our Armed Forces. The guy is just plain creepy.
And Sarah, oh Sarah. Yes you abused your gubernatorial powers to pursue a vendetta against your former brother in law in the midst of his custody battle with your sister. You denied it. Absolutely untrue. Then you and McCain did everything in your power to get the investigation derailed until after the November elections.
The McCainiac response to the report? Pretend it doesn't exist. They're saying Palin had plenty of policy reasons for dismissing her public safety chief. She did. Then they go on to say officer Wooten was a nasty guy. Sandwich those two statements together and maybe nobody will notice that the meat that's supposed to be inside - the abuse of power - is missing.
Why the Right Embraces Emotion Over Reason
The New York Times' veteran rightwing commentator David Brooks is something of a rarity these days, a conservative intellectual. One annoying aspect of this is that it's sometimes tough to disagree with him. His column today where he explains how the right found its home in anti-intellectualism is one example:
over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.
Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.
What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.
Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.
The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
Brooks contends that this descent to the bottom of the barrel has now brought the right to ruin. Having already driven away the educated classes, it has now failed the working classes by its gross neglect of the economy. Squeezed at both ends, there's nowhere left to go.
over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.
Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.
What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.
Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.
The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
Brooks contends that this descent to the bottom of the barrel has now brought the right to ruin. Having already driven away the educated classes, it has now failed the working classes by its gross neglect of the economy. Squeezed at both ends, there's nowhere left to go.
Arms Race Update - Russian Navy Flexing Muscles
Do you yearn for the nostalgia of the Cold War? Relax, it'll be back before you know it.
The Russian navy has successfully test fired a new model of submarine launched ballistic missile. The Sineva rocket flew more than 7,100 miles to land in a range in the central Pacific.
The Sineva comes in a variety of models. The ICBM is said to have an accuracy of 500 metres. There's also an anti-missile variant that the Russkies boast already outperforms any anti-missile system likely to be deployed anytime soon.
But wait, there's more! President Medvedev has told the Russian press that he's ordered the construction of new aircraft carriers too.
There's something of a Dreadnought race underway these days. China, India and Russia are all embarked on major expansion of their naval forces. India is on our side, sort of, Russia and China not so much.
Medvedev is also going to give the finger to Washington when the Russian fleet arrives soon in the Caribbean for exercises with the Venezuelan navy. They should be showing up any day now.
How did we ever let this happen? It's not just the increasing risk of major power warfare but also the hundreds of billions of dollars that are so desperately needed for other problems, such as global warming adaptation, that are instead being funneled straight into weaponry. As for how it happened, there's one person who stands out above all others. A complete moron.
The Russian navy has successfully test fired a new model of submarine launched ballistic missile. The Sineva rocket flew more than 7,100 miles to land in a range in the central Pacific.
The Sineva comes in a variety of models. The ICBM is said to have an accuracy of 500 metres. There's also an anti-missile variant that the Russkies boast already outperforms any anti-missile system likely to be deployed anytime soon.
But wait, there's more! President Medvedev has told the Russian press that he's ordered the construction of new aircraft carriers too.
There's something of a Dreadnought race underway these days. China, India and Russia are all embarked on major expansion of their naval forces. India is on our side, sort of, Russia and China not so much.
Medvedev is also going to give the finger to Washington when the Russian fleet arrives soon in the Caribbean for exercises with the Venezuelan navy. They should be showing up any day now.
How did we ever let this happen? It's not just the increasing risk of major power warfare but also the hundreds of billions of dollars that are so desperately needed for other problems, such as global warming adaptation, that are instead being funneled straight into weaponry. As for how it happened, there's one person who stands out above all others. A complete moron.
Sticking It To The Poor - Again
If America's rightwing vermin have learned anything during the Era of Reagan, it's how to deflect responsibility for their own greed and manic indulgence.
Now that America's richest of the rich have sent Wall Street collapsing under the weight of their boundless avarice they need someone to blame, someone, right now. And who better to blame than the poor.
Here's the narrative that I've heard oozing out from different corners of the uber-right recently. It's all the poor folks fault. They took advantage of a government programme, the Community Reinvestment Act, to wrangle subprime mortgages out of reluctant lenders. The poor are, in other words, not merely the victims of their own misfortune but the authors of everyone else's misery.
As the Boston Globe explains, the programme the real bandits are trying to hide behind had nothing to do with the US meltdown:
The law applies specifically to commercial banks, which in recent months have been the least volatile part of the financial-services industry. The measure was passed in 1977 to combat redlining, the practice of banks refusing to write mortgages in poor neighborhoods - even when they were taking deposits from residents of those neighborhoods.
Now that America's richest of the rich have sent Wall Street collapsing under the weight of their boundless avarice they need someone to blame, someone, right now. And who better to blame than the poor.
Here's the narrative that I've heard oozing out from different corners of the uber-right recently. It's all the poor folks fault. They took advantage of a government programme, the Community Reinvestment Act, to wrangle subprime mortgages out of reluctant lenders. The poor are, in other words, not merely the victims of their own misfortune but the authors of everyone else's misery.
As the Boston Globe explains, the programme the real bandits are trying to hide behind had nothing to do with the US meltdown:
The law applies specifically to commercial banks, which in recent months have been the least volatile part of the financial-services industry. The measure was passed in 1977 to combat redlining, the practice of banks refusing to write mortgages in poor neighborhoods - even when they were taking deposits from residents of those neighborhoods.
To meet Community Reinvestment Act requirements, banks do make loans to low-income homebuyers - often in concert with community groups that provide financial advice and other crucial training. ... One key initiative of this sort, the state's SoftSecond mortgage program, has a delinquency rate of 1.8 percent - compared with about 5 percent for all mortgages in Massachusetts.
The subprime mortgages that have failed left and right are the antithesis of the carefully designed, well-supervised loans provided by tightly regulated banks. No law forced a mob of unregulated lenders to make loans in poor neighborhoods. Rather, mortgage companies and Wall Street financiers saw a business opportunity in subprime lending, where the risk of default was high but so were the interest rates.
Never mind that subprime mortgages were once considered as disreputable a business as check-cashing stores and payday loans; big-time investors took a keen interest once the potential rewards became clear. When financial firms began buying up and bundling mortgages, redividing them into securities, and selling them off, individual brokers had no incentive to make sure any given mortgage would be sustainable if housing prices fell.
Far from being forced to write new loans, brokers competed to sell home mortgages to lower-income customers.
In ...many of today's mortgage horror stories, the lender wasn't a traditional bank. According to Callahan, 98.4 percent of the subprime mortgages in Massachusetts in 2006 were made by lenders whose operations in the state are not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
The subsequent meltdown of the nation's entire financial system could not have happened without a huge - and entirely voluntary - inflow of money from Wall Street into a sketchy sector of the mortgage market. Nobody forced investment firms to wager billions of dollars directly on these loans, or to build an elaborate web of complex financial transactions dependent upon their continued performance. But they did.
The recent animosity over the Community Reinvestment Act, in short, simply can't be explained by the facts. Among the law's critics, there's more than a whiff of social Darwinism - the certainty that only a government policy aimed at helping losers could lead the whiz kids of Wall Street so far astray. Hogwash. The current financial crisis grows out of loose regulation that gave big investors plenty of freedom to make foolish bets, and then force their losses upon the taxpayers."
So, there's no basis, none whatsoever, for blaming the meltdown on the poor exploiting a government benefit programme. The blame lies entirely at the top of the heap, not the bottom. So what? In a nation where some 10% believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, this lie will find traction and spread. In a nation that reveres abject ignorance, even in its executive branch (Hi Sarah), this ugly little narrative is a magical bundle of absolution for those who deserve approbation and the enormous comfort these types always get from scapegoating.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Canada's Economy Just Keeps Getting Stronger and Stronger, $25-Billion At a Time
Doing his best Martha Stewart impersonation, our Furious Leader has assured the voting public that his government's $25-billion bank bailout is "good for the economy." It's a "good thing" eh Steve? Maybe not quite as good as if the fundamentals of the Canadian economy were really strong and we didn't have to spring for $25-billion to unclog the credit drains but these days good things come in several flavours, all of them bitter.
Steve says he wants to ensure "greater liquidity" for Canadian banks. Does that mean the banks had a liquidity problem? Why, that would mean that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy really weren't strong, eh Steve? You were just screwin' with us, weren't you?
Just think how much better we're going to be when you spring for your next bailout. I'm sure that too will be a good thing for Canada.
I'd like to know a bit more about these mortgages we're buying. You say they're CMHC guaranteed. If the banks are holding mortgages that are 100% backed by CMHC guarantees why would they be desperate to flog those to you, Steve? Are these definitely Canadian mortgages or are these those miserable, subprime derivatives from the States?
Okay, Steve, one more time. Tell us that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong.
Steve says he wants to ensure "greater liquidity" for Canadian banks. Does that mean the banks had a liquidity problem? Why, that would mean that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy really weren't strong, eh Steve? You were just screwin' with us, weren't you?
Just think how much better we're going to be when you spring for your next bailout. I'm sure that too will be a good thing for Canada.
I'd like to know a bit more about these mortgages we're buying. You say they're CMHC guaranteed. If the banks are holding mortgages that are 100% backed by CMHC guarantees why would they be desperate to flog those to you, Steve? Are these definitely Canadian mortgages or are these those miserable, subprime derivatives from the States?
Okay, Steve, one more time. Tell us that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong.
Zimbabwe's National Sport - Inflation
Call it Mugabe Magic. Zimbabwe's inflation rate has now hit 231-million percent per annum.
Let's put that into some perspective for those of us who can't stand to look at another obscenely huge number.
Let's try 40% - per minute. Just standing in the checkout line the price of your groceries could multiply like crazy.
Let's put that into some perspective for those of us who can't stand to look at another obscenely huge number.
Let's try 40% - per minute. Just standing in the checkout line the price of your groceries could multiply like crazy.
Why Americans Still Venerate Ronald Reagan
Over the past 30-years, Americans have come to revere Ronald Reagan as the guy who restored their country and their pride. I suspect the Reagan magic has as much to do with how Americans saw only his achievements and not the downside he inflicted, the very hens that are now coming home to roost.
Ronald Reagan did transform the United States. When he took charge America was the world's largest creditor nation. That's right, America was a country that loaned money to other, poorer countries. When Reagan finally left eight years later he had transformed the United States into the world's largest debtor nation.
Ronald Reagan launched America onto the path of continuously living beyond its means. Every previous president since WWII had reduced the government debt as a percentage of GDP. Each and every one of them, Republican and Democratic. Reagan changed all that, sending the debt/GDP ratio soaring.
I think the secret of Reagan's veneration, however, is that when he sold out his nation's real wealth, its fiscal integrity, he left a country that was able to continue to borrow vast sums for decades to come. It was in pursuit of Reagan's fiscal legacy that Bush Jr. managed to double the federal government's debt to what will be a staggering $11-trillion by the time he packs up his crayons in January.
It was Reagan who tought the American people that paying for their government was wrong, that taxes were bad. It was Reagan who, with the aid of his conjurer Stockman, pulled the wool over his people's eyes with nonsense about "supply side economics" and the "trickle down" theory of tax cuts for the rich.
It was Reagan who launched the transformation of the American economy from an industrial driven engine to a financialized economy in which financial services - banking, stocks and insurance - became the largest component of the American economy while its industrial base was packaged up and shipped abroad.
It was Reagan who pushed for massive federal deregulation, a mission that was taken up with gusto by Bush/Cheney. It was the union rep Reagan who turned union buster and drove American labour into the ground.
Debt, deficits, foreign borrowings, deregulation, de-industrialization, financialization, tax cuts for the rich - everything Reagan mapped out has brought America to where it is today. His directing hand is in everything that has gone so horribly wrong today in the United States.
And yet the American people continue to revere Ronald Reagan and venerate his legacy. Astonishing.
Ronald Reagan did transform the United States. When he took charge America was the world's largest creditor nation. That's right, America was a country that loaned money to other, poorer countries. When Reagan finally left eight years later he had transformed the United States into the world's largest debtor nation.
Ronald Reagan launched America onto the path of continuously living beyond its means. Every previous president since WWII had reduced the government debt as a percentage of GDP. Each and every one of them, Republican and Democratic. Reagan changed all that, sending the debt/GDP ratio soaring.
I think the secret of Reagan's veneration, however, is that when he sold out his nation's real wealth, its fiscal integrity, he left a country that was able to continue to borrow vast sums for decades to come. It was in pursuit of Reagan's fiscal legacy that Bush Jr. managed to double the federal government's debt to what will be a staggering $11-trillion by the time he packs up his crayons in January.
It was Reagan who tought the American people that paying for their government was wrong, that taxes were bad. It was Reagan who, with the aid of his conjurer Stockman, pulled the wool over his people's eyes with nonsense about "supply side economics" and the "trickle down" theory of tax cuts for the rich.
It was Reagan who launched the transformation of the American economy from an industrial driven engine to a financialized economy in which financial services - banking, stocks and insurance - became the largest component of the American economy while its industrial base was packaged up and shipped abroad.
It was Reagan who pushed for massive federal deregulation, a mission that was taken up with gusto by Bush/Cheney. It was the union rep Reagan who turned union buster and drove American labour into the ground.
Debt, deficits, foreign borrowings, deregulation, de-industrialization, financialization, tax cuts for the rich - everything Reagan mapped out has brought America to where it is today. His directing hand is in everything that has gone so horribly wrong today in the United States.
And yet the American people continue to revere Ronald Reagan and venerate his legacy. Astonishing.
Hard Times For the "Black Bomb"?
Marmite, the gooey, pitch-like yeast extract that Brits have been slathering on their toast since 1902 has been booted off the kids menu by a Welsh county council.
The Ceredigion Council in Mid Wales operates 51 "breakfast clubs" for needy school kids aimed at improving their health and their academic performance. Marmite got the boot because - too much salt.
Next thing you know they'll be taking away the kids' smokes.
Afghanistan - Only Getting Worse - Top US General
America's top uniform, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen didn't pull any punches when he sat down to a breakfast with reporters this morning. He warned them that conditions will likely worsen in Afghanistan next year. Mullen said that the Afghan situation has been headed in the wrong direction for the past two years. From McClatchey Newspapers:
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the security situation in Afghanistan cannot improve until there's economic and political development in Afghanistan and the U.S. and its coalition partners have embraced a strategy that links Afghan and Pakistani issues.
"The trends across the board are not going in the right direction," Mullen said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. "It will be tougher next year unless we get at all these challenges."
So, just why did we let things go to hell in a handbasket these past two years? What was that all about? Oh yeah, it's that "economy of force" thing, a means of describing the American military approach to Afghanistan which translates into committing a minimal number of troops.
General David Petraeus himself has described counterinsurgency warfare, the very type we're waging in Afghanistan, is the most labour-intensive of all. He's said that you have to throw huge numbers of troops into it for a long period of time - or you lose. He's written that you have to tackle this sort of war aggressively and get the job done fast because, if you don't, you lose the support of the locals and that means you lose the war.
If you read the American military's new counterinsurgency manual, prepared under the direction of Petraeus himself, you'll find that it details the "do's and don't's" of counterinsurgency warfare and that, for the past seven years, we've been on the wrong side of the do's and the don'ts. We've made every error in the book and yet we still seem puzzled that the Taliban is resurgent?
But wait, there's more! NATO, already unable to contain the Taliban, has decided to attack the opium trade but - get this - only the operations that support the Taliban.
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the security situation in Afghanistan cannot improve until there's economic and political development in Afghanistan and the U.S. and its coalition partners have embraced a strategy that links Afghan and Pakistani issues.
"The trends across the board are not going in the right direction," Mullen said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. "It will be tougher next year unless we get at all these challenges."
So, just why did we let things go to hell in a handbasket these past two years? What was that all about? Oh yeah, it's that "economy of force" thing, a means of describing the American military approach to Afghanistan which translates into committing a minimal number of troops.
General David Petraeus himself has described counterinsurgency warfare, the very type we're waging in Afghanistan, is the most labour-intensive of all. He's said that you have to throw huge numbers of troops into it for a long period of time - or you lose. He's written that you have to tackle this sort of war aggressively and get the job done fast because, if you don't, you lose the support of the locals and that means you lose the war.
If you read the American military's new counterinsurgency manual, prepared under the direction of Petraeus himself, you'll find that it details the "do's and don't's" of counterinsurgency warfare and that, for the past seven years, we've been on the wrong side of the do's and the don'ts. We've made every error in the book and yet we still seem puzzled that the Taliban is resurgent?
But wait, there's more! NATO, already unable to contain the Taliban, has decided to attack the opium trade but - get this - only the operations that support the Taliban.
Moving the Goalposts
I love it when rightwing nutjobs stage a tactical retreat. It's always so obvious.
Peter Worthington had a typically gung-ho piece on Afghanistan in today's Edmonton Sun that had a hilarious title like "Damn Straight, Brigadier" in which he did his best to spin the warning earlier this week by British general that we're not going to defeat the Taliban and, at best, can only hope to dampen the insurgency to the point the Afghans can handle it.
Of course, Worthington notes, that's precisely the same objective our military leaders had in going into Afghanistan in the first place. It's the old, "we'll stand down when they stand up" line.
But Peter, this isn't the rightwing nutland of your dreams. We call this a democracy. In a democracy it's the politicians, not the generals, who set the objectives when they unleash their military forces. The politicians decide what we're going to be fighting for and they define the parameters of our success or failure.
The objectives Mr. Harper used to go on about included a stable, democratic government for Afghanistan and a few other things like human rights and the liberation of Afghan women and girls. If we accomplish that, we win Peter. If we don't accomplish those things - it's that other option, oh yeah - we lose. Now that we've given up on those defining objectives - and we surely have, we've lost the war we went to fight.
But even if I'm wrong, even if Harper was just screwing with us when he talked about democracy and women's rights, even if the goal was just to train an Afghan army - we've still failed.
Seven years Pete, seven years to raise an army from one of the world's genuine warrior societies and all we've managed is to hobble together about 70,000 soldiers which we now think is only half of what Afghanistan needs. Seven years! If that had been our goal and if we ever truly meant to achieve it, we would have had that 150,000 strong army in place long before now.
Canada, Britain and the United States, we've fought and won entire wars, including training and equipping our armies, against real enemies like Germany and Japan in less time than it's taken us so far to hobble together half an army for the Afghans. We know that we can train, equip and field an army in under a year, we've done it - more than once. But, in Afghanistan, we've had seven years to get maybe halfway to building their army while the Taliban have returned, resurgent.
So, don't give us your "damn straight" BS, Mr. Worthington. You can't move the goalposts that far without hauling them right out of the stadium.
Peter Worthington had a typically gung-ho piece on Afghanistan in today's Edmonton Sun that had a hilarious title like "Damn Straight, Brigadier" in which he did his best to spin the warning earlier this week by British general that we're not going to defeat the Taliban and, at best, can only hope to dampen the insurgency to the point the Afghans can handle it.
Of course, Worthington notes, that's precisely the same objective our military leaders had in going into Afghanistan in the first place. It's the old, "we'll stand down when they stand up" line.
But Peter, this isn't the rightwing nutland of your dreams. We call this a democracy. In a democracy it's the politicians, not the generals, who set the objectives when they unleash their military forces. The politicians decide what we're going to be fighting for and they define the parameters of our success or failure.
The objectives Mr. Harper used to go on about included a stable, democratic government for Afghanistan and a few other things like human rights and the liberation of Afghan women and girls. If we accomplish that, we win Peter. If we don't accomplish those things - it's that other option, oh yeah - we lose. Now that we've given up on those defining objectives - and we surely have, we've lost the war we went to fight.
But even if I'm wrong, even if Harper was just screwing with us when he talked about democracy and women's rights, even if the goal was just to train an Afghan army - we've still failed.
Seven years Pete, seven years to raise an army from one of the world's genuine warrior societies and all we've managed is to hobble together about 70,000 soldiers which we now think is only half of what Afghanistan needs. Seven years! If that had been our goal and if we ever truly meant to achieve it, we would have had that 150,000 strong army in place long before now.
Canada, Britain and the United States, we've fought and won entire wars, including training and equipping our armies, against real enemies like Germany and Japan in less time than it's taken us so far to hobble together half an army for the Afghans. We know that we can train, equip and field an army in under a year, we've done it - more than once. But, in Afghanistan, we've had seven years to get maybe halfway to building their army while the Taliban have returned, resurgent.
So, don't give us your "damn straight" BS, Mr. Worthington. You can't move the goalposts that far without hauling them right out of the stadium.
Whatever Happened to "The Economy Is Strong?"
So Flaherty's opening bet is $25-billion to buy "insured mortgage pools" in order to keep Canada's credit pipes from gumming up.
But, it's not a bank bailout. No it isn't. No really, you need to understand that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong. That's straight from our Fuhrious Leader.
Let's just do a little math. Yesterday we were told that the Afghanistan mission bill will come in at $18-billion (excluding buried costs) which means about $1,500 per household. That would put the bank bailout at about $2,000 per household. Now if you're watching your retirement investments melting at the same time, those figures look even larger, more dismal.
But what happens if the bailout turns out to be as ineffective at unclogging the credit drains as the American bailout? Are we going to be throwing more of the Canadian taxpayers' money into this and, if so, how much more, Mr. Flaherty?
And what have you got in mind for when the Canadian public - not the banks, the working people - take the trade hit that's coming our way out of the south? Have you got a cash cushion tucked away for them or is it just the banks who'll get bailed out?
Now I know you don't want to talk about this, not with an election just days away. Too bad because we certainly deserve a little openness, a little transparency, a good dollop of accountability from this government right now.
But, it's not a bank bailout. No it isn't. No really, you need to understand that the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong. That's straight from our Fuhrious Leader.
Let's just do a little math. Yesterday we were told that the Afghanistan mission bill will come in at $18-billion (excluding buried costs) which means about $1,500 per household. That would put the bank bailout at about $2,000 per household. Now if you're watching your retirement investments melting at the same time, those figures look even larger, more dismal.
But what happens if the bailout turns out to be as ineffective at unclogging the credit drains as the American bailout? Are we going to be throwing more of the Canadian taxpayers' money into this and, if so, how much more, Mr. Flaherty?
And what have you got in mind for when the Canadian public - not the banks, the working people - take the trade hit that's coming our way out of the south? Have you got a cash cushion tucked away for them or is it just the banks who'll get bailed out?
Now I know you don't want to talk about this, not with an election just days away. Too bad because we certainly deserve a little openness, a little transparency, a good dollop of accountability from this government right now.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
America Isn't Finished, Far From It
The US meltdown underway and now spreading globally may usher in a new day but it won't see America falling to its knees, at least not for very long.
Think of it more as a rationalization of statehood. It's the doing away with a degree of madness inculcated by Ronald Reagan when he pitched America onto the path of unsustainable policies and practices. That's a real mental disorder which, left untreated, will cause enormous damage.
It was Reagan who transformed the United States of America in the brief window of one administration from the world's largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation. It takes a certain mentality to see greatness in a leader who does that and yet the American people embraced the myth of this character's greatness. It was Reagan who Cheney claimed had proved that "deficits don't matter."
For three decades America has defied fiscal gravity, relying on levitation to hover safely above the mountain of debt that was building below. Now America is going through the first spasm (there will be more) that marks a beginning to the end of that lunacy.
There's a lot of promise in the changes that are coming to the US. It takes an enormous amount of money and effort to dress up as the world hegemon. Imagine one country with only five percent of the world population that spends more on its military than the next, what is it, I don't know - say the next 20 nations combined? (Trivia - who's #2? Why, that'd be Japan, at least by 2002).
America needs to step down from its perch as the self-proclaimed world policeman if only because it is spent and needs the rest. At home it needs a new New Deal for its working and middle classes. Abroad it needs a new, co-operative relationship with its traditional allies, one in which America is not necessarily always the leader but, at times, just an equal.
I really think Americans will be far happier when they learn to back off a bit and focus on returning their government's attention to the American people first, not America's corporatism first. My guess is that would restore a tremendous amount of vitality and confidence that has largely been sapped by globalization and the rise of multinationals that wield undue economic and political clout in Washington. (Look how Germany came back when their companies began re-investing their revenue and their nation's wealth into German companies again instead of Asian. That relatively little country just, I mean just, lost top exporter bragging rights to China.)
America has always considered democracy and capitalism as conjoined. It was the dogma we all learned during the Cold War. You can see its lasting impact in the way Americans misunderstand even mild socialism and use the word as an epithet. Yet China has shown that capitalism hardly needs democracy to flourish, it actually can do better away from democracy. All those industries that have run off to the People's Republic prove that capitalism and corporatism do not find totalitarianism repugnant.
Capitalism benefits enormously from autocratic rule.
When Americans come to demand that their interests prevail over capitalist agendas, they'll hardly become a more backward nation. To the contrary, freed from slavish adherence to the harshest precepts of free market capitalism, Americans will probably advance as a people as they haven't since the early 70's.
Is this too great a tide change to hope for anytime soon? Who can tell? Despite their resistance to change, Americans have undergone some fundamental changes since the advent of Reagan, changes that are now coming home to roost and, in the process, shattering a lot of preconceived notions about the strength and resiliance of their country and its economy.
The changes underway now in the United States appear seismic but, stripped of illusion, are really just a reckoning, a return to sanity. America was in a state of lunacy before the meltdown. Too many people believed that their houses were the real life equivalent of the Golden Goose. The movers and shakers of Wall Street were positively deranged by greed.
Look at the tax burden America's baby boomers have bequeathed to the generations of taxpayers to follow. Imagine the state of penury this most profligate and self-indulged generation would be struggling with today had their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents' generations done the same to them? But those generations didn't do that. They built and grew and preserved, leaving America greater from one generation to the next. And then the madness set in. An entire generation, two in fact, caught up in the imbecilic notion that they could have the wealth of their own making plus a good hunk of the wealth of those who would follow. That perversion, more than anything else, is what has brought America to its knees today.
It's a perversion that's being kept alive and well by the Republicans above all else. They have the notion that their government can spend freely but must not tax, especially not the most privileged. The idea of this generation having to surrender taxes to pay its way is now treated as anti-American heresy, virtual treason.
They mask this charade with the notion of "trickle down" economics. Cutting taxes for the rich actually benefits those beneath. You can only accept that delusion if you ignore that those tax cuts are funded, not by enormous economic activity below, but by vast sums borrowed from foreign lenders.
It's a disease of the mind, one that has seen America's federal debt, under just one addled administration, actually double to reach utterly ruinous heights. It truly is a disease of the mind because it's illogical, totally dysfunctional and ultimately self-destructive.
It all sounds so apocalyptic, so hopeless, but I don't believe that. I had the opportunity to do my undergrad in the States back when they were in the tumultuous throes of Vietnam. I've seen that nation rent with dissent, even hatred of the very same venomous type yelled today at Republican rallies against Obama. And yet the nation recovered, licking its wounds.
The veteran war correspondent and author, Chris Hedges, has said that America was at its best when it came away humbled by Vietnam. He's probably right but then along came a giant of a snakeoil salesman, Ronald Reagan, offering a false return to greatness and laying the path for what besets America today.
We all know that Americans are profoundly patriotic people. There are those who've learned the power to be had in exploiting that fervor. I believe the American people will eventually catch on to that. In fact, roughly half the American population already has so, if the tipping point hasn't been reached it's awfully close. For the sake of the American people, for the sake of us all, I hope it's not too much longer in arriving.
Think of it more as a rationalization of statehood. It's the doing away with a degree of madness inculcated by Ronald Reagan when he pitched America onto the path of unsustainable policies and practices. That's a real mental disorder which, left untreated, will cause enormous damage.
It was Reagan who transformed the United States of America in the brief window of one administration from the world's largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation. It takes a certain mentality to see greatness in a leader who does that and yet the American people embraced the myth of this character's greatness. It was Reagan who Cheney claimed had proved that "deficits don't matter."
For three decades America has defied fiscal gravity, relying on levitation to hover safely above the mountain of debt that was building below. Now America is going through the first spasm (there will be more) that marks a beginning to the end of that lunacy.
There's a lot of promise in the changes that are coming to the US. It takes an enormous amount of money and effort to dress up as the world hegemon. Imagine one country with only five percent of the world population that spends more on its military than the next, what is it, I don't know - say the next 20 nations combined? (Trivia - who's #2? Why, that'd be Japan, at least by 2002).
America needs to step down from its perch as the self-proclaimed world policeman if only because it is spent and needs the rest. At home it needs a new New Deal for its working and middle classes. Abroad it needs a new, co-operative relationship with its traditional allies, one in which America is not necessarily always the leader but, at times, just an equal.
I really think Americans will be far happier when they learn to back off a bit and focus on returning their government's attention to the American people first, not America's corporatism first. My guess is that would restore a tremendous amount of vitality and confidence that has largely been sapped by globalization and the rise of multinationals that wield undue economic and political clout in Washington. (Look how Germany came back when their companies began re-investing their revenue and their nation's wealth into German companies again instead of Asian. That relatively little country just, I mean just, lost top exporter bragging rights to China.)
America has always considered democracy and capitalism as conjoined. It was the dogma we all learned during the Cold War. You can see its lasting impact in the way Americans misunderstand even mild socialism and use the word as an epithet. Yet China has shown that capitalism hardly needs democracy to flourish, it actually can do better away from democracy. All those industries that have run off to the People's Republic prove that capitalism and corporatism do not find totalitarianism repugnant.
Capitalism benefits enormously from autocratic rule.
When Americans come to demand that their interests prevail over capitalist agendas, they'll hardly become a more backward nation. To the contrary, freed from slavish adherence to the harshest precepts of free market capitalism, Americans will probably advance as a people as they haven't since the early 70's.
Is this too great a tide change to hope for anytime soon? Who can tell? Despite their resistance to change, Americans have undergone some fundamental changes since the advent of Reagan, changes that are now coming home to roost and, in the process, shattering a lot of preconceived notions about the strength and resiliance of their country and its economy.
The changes underway now in the United States appear seismic but, stripped of illusion, are really just a reckoning, a return to sanity. America was in a state of lunacy before the meltdown. Too many people believed that their houses were the real life equivalent of the Golden Goose. The movers and shakers of Wall Street were positively deranged by greed.
Look at the tax burden America's baby boomers have bequeathed to the generations of taxpayers to follow. Imagine the state of penury this most profligate and self-indulged generation would be struggling with today had their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents' generations done the same to them? But those generations didn't do that. They built and grew and preserved, leaving America greater from one generation to the next. And then the madness set in. An entire generation, two in fact, caught up in the imbecilic notion that they could have the wealth of their own making plus a good hunk of the wealth of those who would follow. That perversion, more than anything else, is what has brought America to its knees today.
It's a perversion that's being kept alive and well by the Republicans above all else. They have the notion that their government can spend freely but must not tax, especially not the most privileged. The idea of this generation having to surrender taxes to pay its way is now treated as anti-American heresy, virtual treason.
They mask this charade with the notion of "trickle down" economics. Cutting taxes for the rich actually benefits those beneath. You can only accept that delusion if you ignore that those tax cuts are funded, not by enormous economic activity below, but by vast sums borrowed from foreign lenders.
It's a disease of the mind, one that has seen America's federal debt, under just one addled administration, actually double to reach utterly ruinous heights. It truly is a disease of the mind because it's illogical, totally dysfunctional and ultimately self-destructive.
It all sounds so apocalyptic, so hopeless, but I don't believe that. I had the opportunity to do my undergrad in the States back when they were in the tumultuous throes of Vietnam. I've seen that nation rent with dissent, even hatred of the very same venomous type yelled today at Republican rallies against Obama. And yet the nation recovered, licking its wounds.
The veteran war correspondent and author, Chris Hedges, has said that America was at its best when it came away humbled by Vietnam. He's probably right but then along came a giant of a snakeoil salesman, Ronald Reagan, offering a false return to greatness and laying the path for what besets America today.
We all know that Americans are profoundly patriotic people. There are those who've learned the power to be had in exploiting that fervor. I believe the American people will eventually catch on to that. In fact, roughly half the American population already has so, if the tipping point hasn't been reached it's awfully close. For the sake of the American people, for the sake of us all, I hope it's not too much longer in arriving.
America's Debt Clock Has Run Out of Digits
BBC News reports that the National Debt Clock in New York has been overrun by Bush economics.
The digital counter marks the national debt level, but when that passed the $10 trillion point last month, the sign could not display the full amount.
The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
The clock's owners say two more zeros will be added, allowing the clock to record a quadrillion dollars of debt.
The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
The clock's owners say two more zeros will be added, allowing the clock to record a quadrillion dollars of debt.
A "quadrillion" dollars of debt? But relax, it's not a British quadrillion, which is a 1 followed by 24 zeroes, but merely an American quadrillion which is 1 followed by just 15 zeroes:
As in: $1,000,000,000,000,000.
Who cares? That's too many zeroes to fit onto a cheque anyway.
Alan Greenspan - Drawn and Quartered
Alan Greenspan continues to claim there was nothing wrong with the scantily regulated derivatives that lie at the heart of the global economic meltdown. It wasn't the securities, he claims, it was the people who were trading in them. It sounds a lot like the NRA at a schoolhouse massacre claiming that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
The New York Times has finally come out with a vivisectionist's examination of Alan Greenspan and what remains of his legacy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?em
The New York Times has finally come out with a vivisectionist's examination of Alan Greenspan and what remains of his legacy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?em
Afghanistan a "Downward Spiral"
America's intelligence agencies have concluded that Afghanistan is in a "downward spiral" in which the Kabul government is no longer capable of containing the resurgence of the Taliban.
The assessment isn't due to be released until after the November elections but officials involved in it have been speaking with journalists. They say the report will show that the Karzai government is hopelessly weakened by corruption at all levels. From The New York Times:
Inside the government, reports issued by the Central Intelligence Agency for more than two years have chronicled the worsening violence and rampant corruption inside Afghanistan, and some in the agency say they believe that it has taken the White House too long to respond to the warnings.
Henry A. Crumpton, a career C.I.A. officer who last year stepped down as the State Department’s top counterterrorism official, attributed some of Afghanistan’s problems to a “lack of leadership” both at the White House and in Europea
The assessment isn't due to be released until after the November elections but officials involved in it have been speaking with journalists. They say the report will show that the Karzai government is hopelessly weakened by corruption at all levels. From The New York Times:
Inside the government, reports issued by the Central Intelligence Agency for more than two years have chronicled the worsening violence and rampant corruption inside Afghanistan, and some in the agency say they believe that it has taken the White House too long to respond to the warnings.
Henry A. Crumpton, a career C.I.A. officer who last year stepped down as the State Department’s top counterterrorism official, attributed some of Afghanistan’s problems to a “lack of leadership” both at the White House and in Europea