I never saw "An Inconenient Truth" but I guess it really does paint a sort of apocalyptic view of the danger our world is in due to rising greenhouse gases. Now if you do have a sort of apocalyptic view of what the global environment is in for, fervor for the cause is understandable (although it may be misplaced).
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/index.html
After reading this, I asked myself the following question: Should I be building a rocket ship to shoot my baby into space?
If you do believe in this sort of apocalyptic vision, I can understand how you would believe that action must be taken immediately, and that it should be done by any means necessary.
There have been apocalypse cults/religions for ages. The Norse were pretty much an Apocalypse cult/religion, and had Ragnarok. Christianity has the Book of Revelations. Relatively recently there was a secular fear of apocalypse based on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. It must be maddening to those that denigrate Ronald Reagan that he was the savior from that form of Apocalypse more so than anyone else.
If you are an atheist, but you do have a psychological desire for doomsday, so that you can "save the world," then a global warming apocalypse must be right up your alley. You get to make oil companies the perennial villain, and paint the first world as evil for polluting (both valid points to some degree, but are the doors of Exxon the Gates of Hell?)
Fear is a great motivator. But what are we motivated to do because of it? Even if we take the danger of anthropogenic global warming as true, why is it we believe that the steps being proposed are indeed the proper ones?
Large scale solutions may appear to be the answer to large scale problems, but the law of unintended consequences can, and often does, lead to problems that were worse than the one that was supposed to be addressed.
Here the author talks about "deploying clean energy technology at an aggressive pace with a negligible net economic cost, 0.1 percent of GDP per year or less."
The problem I have with the analysis is that it is glib, and the problem I have with the analyst is that in my assessment he is alarmist to the point of hysterical.
"If I were writing climate legislation, I would leave transportation out of the cap and trade system. Why legislate what is inevitable anyway? The price of petroleum, gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel are going to soar in the coming years because we haven't had intelligent energy policy for decades. Let our previous stupidity and myopia drive the price higher for the foreseeable future.
To inaugurate real change, policymakers need to put together an aggressive "energy independence" package as part of the climate bill. The package should be focused on tougher fuel economy standards, a low-carbon-fuels standard and an aggressive push to adopt plug-in hybrids. "
This just doesn't make sense to me. From the overall article, I'm guessing that he is pushing for a cap and trade system for all industries, but after going through his analysis that fuel costs will inexorably rise, tougher fuel economy standards are required, some sort of low-carbon-fuels standard to be put in place, and plug in hybrids need to replace the national fleet.
Is there something about apocalypse thinking that leads to faulty logical constructs?
Years ago, there was a comic book titled "Normalman." The main character was a man without superpowers who lived in a world where everyone else had comic book superpowers. Normalman's origin was that he was rocketed to another planet by his father who had concluded that their own world was going to explode, and he couldn't convince the rest of his civilization of his prediction. But, as it turned out, Normalman's father was wrong. And when the world did not explode as he had predicted, his wife, the mother of their baby, shot Normalman's father, crying out something along the lines of "My Baby! Oh my god, you shot my baby into space! You're crazy!" As I recall, Normalman's father didn't have to live very long with the guilt of having shot his baby into space, as his wife cut his life short upon seeing what he had done.
I'm curious if, in the light of the latest blows to warmist theories, if he is doing what would be the equivalent of building his spaceship for his baby. Of course, the world isn't going to explode like Krypton did, so shooting a rocket into space isn't really necessary. But if you do think that the global environment is going to change drastically in your lifetime because conservatives manage to delay passage of initiatives to modify greenhouse gas emissions, you may want to consider buying land in Greenland.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/11/27/in-greenland-warming-fuels-dream-of-hidden-wealth.html?PageNr=1&-C=
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
Fugitive from the Law
The fact that his victim (who is hardly the same person they were when they were a victim) is on record for dropping the charges against Mr. Polanski goes a long way towards my siding towards the dropping of the charges. Taking it as fact that judicial misconduct appears to have been in play with regards to plea bargaining and Mr. Polanski's decision to flee the country gives me some sympathy for Mr. Polanski's situation and decisions.
Comparing Polanski to Jean Valjean rankles, because it compares stealing a loaf of bread with raping a thirteen year old child. The tragedies that Polanski has suffered in his life are real, and may even serve as something of an excuse (Mr. Polanski's crime occurred eight years after his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson "Family). Oddly enough, I wonder if at the time Mr. Polanski may have committed other similar crimes, but was lucky enough to avoid prosecution for them, but that is speculation well after the fact.
Let's start by considering the following items as the facts to be taken into account:
Mr. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. The girl was with Mr. Polanski for a photoshoot (it is unknown why there was no chaperone).
Mr. Polanski agreed to a plea deal for time served with prosecuting attorney, and pled guilty expecting to receive time served. The victim was satisfied with this plea deal.
With the guilty verdict in, the judge in the case chose to ignore the plea deal, and give Mr. Polanski a much stiffer penalty, potentially fifty years in jail.
Mr. Polanski became aware of the judge's intention, and fled the country.
Mr. Polanski has lived in Europe and remained a public figure, avoiding travel to countries that he perceived as having a high likelihood of holding him for extradition. He has lived what most would call "a good life" since.
You may feel that other facts are pertinent to this case, but for the most part I don't. A budget crisis in California isn't specifically relevant to this case per se, no more so than if this had happened when California had budget surpluses. To claim that it does is to claim that justice is a matter of finances, which is a claim I am not willing to accept. Finances certainly impact justice, but the costs here are not being laid out. I find it difficult to believe that extraditing Polanski and dealing with the case really impacts the budget much at all.
Polanski has been a FUGITIVE and a public figure for over 30 years. While he doesn't make statements openly mocking the California/U.S. justice system for being unable to catch up with him, he has remained a public figure, and his wealth and foreign sympathizers have given him the opportunity to live the life that he has had since fleeing the U.S.
I don't see how this is different from a wealthy executive committing the same crime and fleeing the country under the same circumstances. If you feel that Polanski got shafted by the justice system (and I do), you shouldn't get a pass because you got shafted by the system. You need to review and reform the system. People get shafted by the system all the time (the system is the best in the world, blah, blah). The system isn't perfect, but it is the system we live by and when we choose to play by our own rules it goes to show that the system is a tiered system, with one set of rules for the wealthy and another set of rules for those without such resources.
While this is in fact TRUE, it is incumbent on use to do our best to minimize that, and that means when someone we sympathize with gets shafted, we shouldn't try to give that individual a pass. We need to deal with the problems in the system.
Honestly, I don't blame Polanski for fleeing when he did, but it doesn't mean I condone it, or think he should get a pass because he has managed to get away with it for so long. What I find disturbing is that people aren't talking about the system. Saying that this is the wrong time to pursue Polanski because the California Budget is in turmoil is saying that justice is a luxury for a rich society.
Maybe Justice IS a luxury for a rich society, but if it is, then let's make that part of the justice system. Sentencing shouldn't be determined only by the crime, but also by the cost of the punishment and the ability of the state to pay for the punishment.
But I don't hear anybody advocating that.
You may not like what is happening to Polanski now, but that doesn't mean it isn't right or just. What happens after the case is reviewed may or may not be just of fair, but that is another part of the justice system. If you don't like it, then really, how would you change the system?
The fact that his victim (who is hardly the same person they were when they were a victim) is on record for dropping the charges against Mr. Polanski goes a long way towards my siding towards the dropping of the charges. Taking it as fact that judicial misconduct appears to have been in play with regards to plea bargaining and Mr. Polanski's decision to flee the country gives me some sympathy for Mr. Polanski's situation and decisions.
Comparing Polanski to Jean Valjean rankles, because it compares stealing a loaf of bread with raping a thirteen year old child. The tragedies that Polanski has suffered in his life are real, and may even serve as something of an excuse (Mr. Polanski's crime occurred eight years after his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson "Family). Oddly enough, I wonder if at the time Mr. Polanski may have committed other similar crimes, but was lucky enough to avoid prosecution for them, but that is speculation well after the fact.
Let's start by considering the following items as the facts to be taken into account:
Mr. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. The girl was with Mr. Polanski for a photoshoot (it is unknown why there was no chaperone).
Mr. Polanski agreed to a plea deal for time served with prosecuting attorney, and pled guilty expecting to receive time served. The victim was satisfied with this plea deal.
With the guilty verdict in, the judge in the case chose to ignore the plea deal, and give Mr. Polanski a much stiffer penalty, potentially fifty years in jail.
Mr. Polanski became aware of the judge's intention, and fled the country.
Mr. Polanski has lived in Europe and remained a public figure, avoiding travel to countries that he perceived as having a high likelihood of holding him for extradition. He has lived what most would call "a good life" since.
You may feel that other facts are pertinent to this case, but for the most part I don't. A budget crisis in California isn't specifically relevant to this case per se, no more so than if this had happened when California had budget surpluses. To claim that it does is to claim that justice is a matter of finances, which is a claim I am not willing to accept. Finances certainly impact justice, but the costs here are not being laid out. I find it difficult to believe that extraditing Polanski and dealing with the case really impacts the budget much at all.
Polanski has been a FUGITIVE and a public figure for over 30 years. While he doesn't make statements openly mocking the California/U.S. justice system for being unable to catch up with him, he has remained a public figure, and his wealth and foreign sympathizers have given him the opportunity to live the life that he has had since fleeing the U.S.
I don't see how this is different from a wealthy executive committing the same crime and fleeing the country under the same circumstances. If you feel that Polanski got shafted by the justice system (and I do), you shouldn't get a pass because you got shafted by the system. You need to review and reform the system. People get shafted by the system all the time (the system is the best in the world, blah, blah). The system isn't perfect, but it is the system we live by and when we choose to play by our own rules it goes to show that the system is a tiered system, with one set of rules for the wealthy and another set of rules for those without such resources.
While this is in fact TRUE, it is incumbent on use to do our best to minimize that, and that means when someone we sympathize with gets shafted, we shouldn't try to give that individual a pass. We need to deal with the problems in the system.
Honestly, I don't blame Polanski for fleeing when he did, but it doesn't mean I condone it, or think he should get a pass because he has managed to get away with it for so long. What I find disturbing is that people aren't talking about the system. Saying that this is the wrong time to pursue Polanski because the California Budget is in turmoil is saying that justice is a luxury for a rich society.
Maybe Justice IS a luxury for a rich society, but if it is, then let's make that part of the justice system. Sentencing shouldn't be determined only by the crime, but also by the cost of the punishment and the ability of the state to pay for the punishment.
But I don't hear anybody advocating that.
You may not like what is happening to Polanski now, but that doesn't mean it isn't right or just. What happens after the case is reviewed may or may not be just of fair, but that is another part of the justice system. If you don't like it, then really, how would you change the system?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Post Racialism...
The term "Post Racial is bandied about a lot, especially since Obama became President, but it really isn't very clear what it means. From what I can tell, it is supposed to mean that racism has been marginalized in America to the point that it is no longer a primary motivating force either politically, socially, or in business.
There is no doubt that great strides have been made in achieving such a goal, but there are two sides to a post racial society. The dominant culture/group needs to stop acting in a prejudiced manner, and the formerly oppressed culture/group needs to avoid crying oppression (racism) whenever they are subject to negative social power, such as arrest and the denial of advancement based on poor performance.
This can be difficult, and can take multiple generations to achieve. The biggest reason for this isn't really about prejudice, but about economics. An oppressed cultural group has difficulty amassing economic wealth and social/political power. Due to different social norms, different groups have a better or worse time succeeding in or dominant Democratic/Capitalist system. Having children before completing college, single mothers, and multiple children are all (in the short term) negative factors for gaining political, social and economic power (in the long term, in a democracy, this can also be very dangerous/destabilizing for other reasons). There is a limit to how much the dominant group can and will make allowances, especially when they have in fact for the most part given up their racist attitudes, and granted benefits to the previously disenfranchised group. Some of the dominant group goes to the point of wanting some sort of thank you (and some certainly resent the benefits that were granted). Of course, saying thanks for getting things to the way they should be is disingenuous, but I don't think that is the overall tone.
Still, there are people that had their life shaped by racism and racist attitudes. They may or may not have succeeded despite those impediments, but it seems less likely that they are able to see current situations and events without having it colored by their upbringing. Until those people can change their attitudes (and dying is one way that can happen), there will continue to be racist attitudes, and unwarranted cries of racism. And with immigration a continuing part of national demograpics, we will continue to import racist attitudes from other cultures.
I wouldn't say that racism is alive and well in America. But it it's not dead yet either (even if it was coughing up blood last night…).
The term "Post Racial is bandied about a lot, especially since Obama became President, but it really isn't very clear what it means. From what I can tell, it is supposed to mean that racism has been marginalized in America to the point that it is no longer a primary motivating force either politically, socially, or in business.
There is no doubt that great strides have been made in achieving such a goal, but there are two sides to a post racial society. The dominant culture/group needs to stop acting in a prejudiced manner, and the formerly oppressed culture/group needs to avoid crying oppression (racism) whenever they are subject to negative social power, such as arrest and the denial of advancement based on poor performance.
This can be difficult, and can take multiple generations to achieve. The biggest reason for this isn't really about prejudice, but about economics. An oppressed cultural group has difficulty amassing economic wealth and social/political power. Due to different social norms, different groups have a better or worse time succeeding in or dominant Democratic/Capitalist system. Having children before completing college, single mothers, and multiple children are all (in the short term) negative factors for gaining political, social and economic power (in the long term, in a democracy, this can also be very dangerous/destabilizing for other reasons). There is a limit to how much the dominant group can and will make allowances, especially when they have in fact for the most part given up their racist attitudes, and granted benefits to the previously disenfranchised group. Some of the dominant group goes to the point of wanting some sort of thank you (and some certainly resent the benefits that were granted). Of course, saying thanks for getting things to the way they should be is disingenuous, but I don't think that is the overall tone.
Still, there are people that had their life shaped by racism and racist attitudes. They may or may not have succeeded despite those impediments, but it seems less likely that they are able to see current situations and events without having it colored by their upbringing. Until those people can change their attitudes (and dying is one way that can happen), there will continue to be racist attitudes, and unwarranted cries of racism. And with immigration a continuing part of national demograpics, we will continue to import racist attitudes from other cultures.
I wouldn't say that racism is alive and well in America. But it it's not dead yet either (even if it was coughing up blood last night…).
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Can we still have Reasonable Discourse?
I am not an advocate or a fan of disruptiveness in public discourse. We seem to have become a terribly impolite, as well as a stupidly tolerant society. I don't understand why congressmen need to accept being berated by constituents at events that are intended to inform their constituents. If events of this type devolve into displays of disorderly conduct, then polite citizenry gets marginalized.
It's hard to figure out. Has the world become coarser over time? Or is this a sort of pendulum that is swinging the other way in reaction to the excesses of the past when the clamp down on this sort of activity was violent. American citizens have managed to get a lot of concessions against government crackdowns for the most part, but there has certainly been a lot of violence involved too. Still, there is a need for a government, no matter how much we may dislike it, and that also means we need to have some sort of public discourse.
What is sad is that the day of the town hall meeting may be over, and discourse will be managed through different mediums., at least when it comes to subjects that lead to passionate and loud protests disrupting what should be respectful discourse. But respectful discourse doesn't make for the nightly news either.
Civility will return when the fourth branch of government stops giving airtime to loud protests, which sadly means never. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is how the saying goes for a reason. So, when people get passionate about things, we are going to have to do our best to keep some perspective, and look to other resources to get our information.
Either that, or we are going to have to allow the police to more aggressively control meetings of this type. Honestly, I think that such police action is becoming necessary, but it probably has to be coupled with increased legal penalties for causing such a disruption. Protest is laudable, and a key part of democracy. However, so is education and communication, and tampering with the lines of communication is an attempt to subvert democracy, which is something we may have to address much more closely in the near future.
I am not an advocate or a fan of disruptiveness in public discourse. We seem to have become a terribly impolite, as well as a stupidly tolerant society. I don't understand why congressmen need to accept being berated by constituents at events that are intended to inform their constituents. If events of this type devolve into displays of disorderly conduct, then polite citizenry gets marginalized.
It's hard to figure out. Has the world become coarser over time? Or is this a sort of pendulum that is swinging the other way in reaction to the excesses of the past when the clamp down on this sort of activity was violent. American citizens have managed to get a lot of concessions against government crackdowns for the most part, but there has certainly been a lot of violence involved too. Still, there is a need for a government, no matter how much we may dislike it, and that also means we need to have some sort of public discourse.
What is sad is that the day of the town hall meeting may be over, and discourse will be managed through different mediums., at least when it comes to subjects that lead to passionate and loud protests disrupting what should be respectful discourse. But respectful discourse doesn't make for the nightly news either.
Civility will return when the fourth branch of government stops giving airtime to loud protests, which sadly means never. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is how the saying goes for a reason. So, when people get passionate about things, we are going to have to do our best to keep some perspective, and look to other resources to get our information.
Either that, or we are going to have to allow the police to more aggressively control meetings of this type. Honestly, I think that such police action is becoming necessary, but it probably has to be coupled with increased legal penalties for causing such a disruption. Protest is laudable, and a key part of democracy. However, so is education and communication, and tampering with the lines of communication is an attempt to subvert democracy, which is something we may have to address much more closely in the near future.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Bill Clinton and the Reporters
So, on August 4th, 2009, Bill Clinton managed to fly out of North Korea with Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two journalists who had been tried and sentenced in North Korea, but received a pardon, officially due to former President Clinton's "personal humanitarian efforts."
Now what happened is pretty much what diplomacy is supposed to do. I call this a coup for Obama, and a win for Bill Clinton. We can argue as to whether the journalists should have been there at all, but a amongst the functions of government is the duty to protect and assist its citizens abroad. Having said that, there is always a cost/benefit analysis that has to be reviewed. In this case we do not have transparency we might like to determine what the true cost was. If the true political cost here was simply a visit by former President Clinton and the photo op and "legitimacy" that such a visit grants to the North Korean dictator, I'm okay with that. But was that all? Hard to know.
What really bothers me about this is the fiction that is being maintained with regards to this having been some sort of independent mission that now Citizen Clinton put together on his own with no direct instruction by the White House or by the Secretary of State. Bill Clinton isn't directly on the government payroll, so technically he is a private citizen, but it strains credulity to believe that the White House wasn't in on this event very closely.
Governments lie to their citizenry routinely. Sometimes I wonder if it is actually reflexively. I have a hard time figuring what the downside is for the White House to say something along the lines of "We were aware of the negotiations to secure a pardon for the unlucky reporters and did everything we could to ensure a positive outcome for all involved in keeping with our larger foreign policy goals."
I believe that democracy works best with an educated and informed electorate. That may be a faulty premise, but if it is, I still don't see how claiming that there was no White House involvement benefits the administration. If you want the people to trust in your guidance, why mislead them?
Then again, maybe trust isn't something that is being cultivated here. If the goal is to have a portion of the electorate distrust you and seem "paranoid" and flat out crazy (like the Birthers), and you count on those in the middle to give you the benefit of the doubt based on positive results, then maybe there is an advantage.
But that sort of reasoning is pretty twisted. Occam's razor and Carlos' first law tell me that this is not some devious ploy, but simply business as usual.
But from what I see now, the fact is that the reporters were released without any significant concessions from the United States Government, and that's a good thing.
So, on August 4th, 2009, Bill Clinton managed to fly out of North Korea with Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two journalists who had been tried and sentenced in North Korea, but received a pardon, officially due to former President Clinton's "personal humanitarian efforts."
Now what happened is pretty much what diplomacy is supposed to do. I call this a coup for Obama, and a win for Bill Clinton. We can argue as to whether the journalists should have been there at all, but a amongst the functions of government is the duty to protect and assist its citizens abroad. Having said that, there is always a cost/benefit analysis that has to be reviewed. In this case we do not have transparency we might like to determine what the true cost was. If the true political cost here was simply a visit by former President Clinton and the photo op and "legitimacy" that such a visit grants to the North Korean dictator, I'm okay with that. But was that all? Hard to know.
What really bothers me about this is the fiction that is being maintained with regards to this having been some sort of independent mission that now Citizen Clinton put together on his own with no direct instruction by the White House or by the Secretary of State. Bill Clinton isn't directly on the government payroll, so technically he is a private citizen, but it strains credulity to believe that the White House wasn't in on this event very closely.
Governments lie to their citizenry routinely. Sometimes I wonder if it is actually reflexively. I have a hard time figuring what the downside is for the White House to say something along the lines of "We were aware of the negotiations to secure a pardon for the unlucky reporters and did everything we could to ensure a positive outcome for all involved in keeping with our larger foreign policy goals."
I believe that democracy works best with an educated and informed electorate. That may be a faulty premise, but if it is, I still don't see how claiming that there was no White House involvement benefits the administration. If you want the people to trust in your guidance, why mislead them?
Then again, maybe trust isn't something that is being cultivated here. If the goal is to have a portion of the electorate distrust you and seem "paranoid" and flat out crazy (like the Birthers), and you count on those in the middle to give you the benefit of the doubt based on positive results, then maybe there is an advantage.
But that sort of reasoning is pretty twisted. Occam's razor and Carlos' first law tell me that this is not some devious ploy, but simply business as usual.
But from what I see now, the fact is that the reporters were released without any significant concessions from the United States Government, and that's a good thing.
Birthers
Birthers are fascinating, and I find them doubly so because they may give us some insight into the way many of us think.
So, was/is Obama constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States by virtue of being a "natural born citizen?" There is something fascinating about this question, because it leads to the question of what people believe and why they believe it. How much evidence do you need to believe a premise. The problem with this sort of issue though is that "proof" can only be presented in the form of eyewitness accounts, and documentation. It's not like you can run any experiments to show this. You can't take some sort of tissue sample and extrapolate from it the likely LOCATION of birth.
But eyewitnesses can lie, and documentation can be forged. But it's even worse than that. You see, records from that period can also be pretty shoddy. I have heard that people want a copy of the original "long form" birth certificate provided as evidence. There are some claims that the long form has been destroyed (a tricky claim at best, since if it is found now, it is even more likely to be declared a forgery).
Conspiracy theories are interesting in how they can come up with a counter to what most consider as evidence. What I don't understand is how conspiracy theorists mind's work. Clearly there is some need to make an attempt to rationalize their belief in order to try and convince others of their theory. And if this is the way some segment of the voting population thinks, is it possible that we all have that sort of logic circuit in our brains without realizing it? These sorts of thought processes seem to occur for all sorts of reasons. Birthers, creationists, flat earthers, the list goes on. Most religions seem to often tread on this sort of thinking behavior, and many downright require it.
I have to say, I try to avoid this sort of thinking. What I find most weird is that people that do think this way are generally very sure about their premise (for Birthers it is the belief that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States). As for myself, I'm generally unsure about a lot of things, and try to cite my sources when I can (of course I can always make stuff up, build a website for my verification purposes, and then point to that. One of the miracles of modern technology).
What I really wonder though is whether people may be generally hard wired to have this way of thinking.
Birthers are fascinating, and I find them doubly so because they may give us some insight into the way many of us think.
So, was/is Obama constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States by virtue of being a "natural born citizen?" There is something fascinating about this question, because it leads to the question of what people believe and why they believe it. How much evidence do you need to believe a premise. The problem with this sort of issue though is that "proof" can only be presented in the form of eyewitness accounts, and documentation. It's not like you can run any experiments to show this. You can't take some sort of tissue sample and extrapolate from it the likely LOCATION of birth.
But eyewitnesses can lie, and documentation can be forged. But it's even worse than that. You see, records from that period can also be pretty shoddy. I have heard that people want a copy of the original "long form" birth certificate provided as evidence. There are some claims that the long form has been destroyed (a tricky claim at best, since if it is found now, it is even more likely to be declared a forgery).
Conspiracy theories are interesting in how they can come up with a counter to what most consider as evidence. What I don't understand is how conspiracy theorists mind's work. Clearly there is some need to make an attempt to rationalize their belief in order to try and convince others of their theory. And if this is the way some segment of the voting population thinks, is it possible that we all have that sort of logic circuit in our brains without realizing it? These sorts of thought processes seem to occur for all sorts of reasons. Birthers, creationists, flat earthers, the list goes on. Most religions seem to often tread on this sort of thinking behavior, and many downright require it.
I have to say, I try to avoid this sort of thinking. What I find most weird is that people that do think this way are generally very sure about their premise (for Birthers it is the belief that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States). As for myself, I'm generally unsure about a lot of things, and try to cite my sources when I can (of course I can always make stuff up, build a website for my verification purposes, and then point to that. One of the miracles of modern technology).
What I really wonder though is whether people may be generally hard wired to have this way of thinking.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Fairness vs. Order
As I was looking over information and opinions on Gates Gate, I came across an article by Tonya A Weatherbee dated July 31, 2009. In it she states that there is a need to listen for those on either side of the Gates' arrest issue. But one premise she espoused is one that I feel has a lot more to do with the problem than any other. In essence she espoused the right to argue with the police in the heat of the moment.
Here's how she put it:
Since Gates' arrest and subsequent release, there's been more yelling. And not enough listening. There's yelling from the people who support Crowley; people who are only hearing the fact that he taught diversity classes. But if he was such an expert, he should have been sensitive to the fact that, to an elderly black man like Gates who defied stereotypes and rose to the top of academia, being mistaken for a criminal might not sit well with him. Others only see Gates as a man who shouldn't have raised his voice to a police officer. Yet, I utterly reject the notion that people should be subservient to the police if they believe they are being mistreated. The police are the ones who are the public servants, not the other way around. People ought to be able to argue with them - see First Amendment - without being arrested for it.
To believe otherwise is to put more of a premium on order than on fairness.
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/tonyaa_weathersbee/2009-07-28/story/professor_police_showdown_dramatizes_the_need
So, how is the citizenry supposed to relate to the police? And how are the police supposed to relate to the citizenry?
I find the reference to the first amendment to be amusing, because so many people construe the first amendment to mean all sorts of things. It gets invoked a lot for all sorts of things where it isn't applicable. Let's review:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as I can tell, Tanya is declaring laws against disorderly conduct to be unconstitutional, at least as long as the conduct is limited to verbal actions. Given that interpretation, I'm not sure why Tanya doesn't believe that people should have the right to berate policemen verbally under any circumstances, not limited to arguing.
"Fairness vs. Order" seems to be Tanya's argument, but I think we have laws specifically because "fairness" is a very subjective concept.
In the world of fairness, if someone steals my property (say a laptop, something easily portable) and I know that they have it in the bedroom of their apartment, it seems fair that I could go into their home and reclaim my property. Assuming I do not have their permission to enter, in this case fairness lets me trespass. In some people's mind, fairness lets me break and enter. I expect in some people's mind, fairness lets me commit assault. Clearly there is some limit here, and that's why we have laws and put a premium on order.
There is another issue though. Does order undermine fairness? If it does, I believe that is clearly a problem. Order/laws are there to ensure that fairness prevails over time. If they fail to perform that function, then they need to be changed. Is that the case here? If the officer was acting inappropriately, is there a lawful mechanism to address that? I don't know about the rules in this case, but berating the policeman does not seem to me to be the appropriate course of action. Is it an illegal course of action (and should it be?). When it reaches the stage of disorderly conduct, it is illegal. The policeman on the scene does get to make that determination (although in this case there were other witnesses, the only ones that have gone on the record that I know of are other police officers, and the agree with the disorderly conduct arrest, and for those of you keeping score, it is my understanding that one of the police witnesses was a black officer).
Police do hold a special place in our society, and we have to grant and acknowledge that they have special powers, amongst which is the power to detain and arrest for reasons they see fit. We do have the right to give a police officer crap of course, but they have the power to arrest us. If we feel that the actions taken were unfair given the circumstances, there should be a system to report and address grievances in place (which there is). When they cross the line, there should be consequences (and police definitely cross the line, even though I believe sometimes it is part of their training to do so, which was what I believed happened to Rodney King years ago).
I just have a hard time accepting that people have the right to argue (to the point of berating) with the police during an investigation without the possibility of an arrest for disorderly conduct. And even if an arrest is to be made, the police must still adhere to a code of conduct that requires the use of reasonable force.
A perception of "fairness" just doesn't seem to be a reasonable position to take to argue with an officer. And using age, race, sexual orientation or religion, or even just a bad day as a justification for giving a policeman a hard time seems unreasonable.
Then again, maybe I'm just a fascist at heart. Somehow though, I don't think so.
As I was looking over information and opinions on Gates Gate, I came across an article by Tonya A Weatherbee dated July 31, 2009. In it she states that there is a need to listen for those on either side of the Gates' arrest issue. But one premise she espoused is one that I feel has a lot more to do with the problem than any other. In essence she espoused the right to argue with the police in the heat of the moment.
Here's how she put it:
Since Gates' arrest and subsequent release, there's been more yelling. And not enough listening. There's yelling from the people who support Crowley; people who are only hearing the fact that he taught diversity classes. But if he was such an expert, he should have been sensitive to the fact that, to an elderly black man like Gates who defied stereotypes and rose to the top of academia, being mistaken for a criminal might not sit well with him. Others only see Gates as a man who shouldn't have raised his voice to a police officer. Yet, I utterly reject the notion that people should be subservient to the police if they believe they are being mistreated. The police are the ones who are the public servants, not the other way around. People ought to be able to argue with them - see First Amendment - without being arrested for it.
To believe otherwise is to put more of a premium on order than on fairness.
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/tonyaa_weathersbee/2009-07-28/story/professor_police_showdown_dramatizes_the_need
So, how is the citizenry supposed to relate to the police? And how are the police supposed to relate to the citizenry?
I find the reference to the first amendment to be amusing, because so many people construe the first amendment to mean all sorts of things. It gets invoked a lot for all sorts of things where it isn't applicable. Let's review:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as I can tell, Tanya is declaring laws against disorderly conduct to be unconstitutional, at least as long as the conduct is limited to verbal actions. Given that interpretation, I'm not sure why Tanya doesn't believe that people should have the right to berate policemen verbally under any circumstances, not limited to arguing.
"Fairness vs. Order" seems to be Tanya's argument, but I think we have laws specifically because "fairness" is a very subjective concept.
In the world of fairness, if someone steals my property (say a laptop, something easily portable) and I know that they have it in the bedroom of their apartment, it seems fair that I could go into their home and reclaim my property. Assuming I do not have their permission to enter, in this case fairness lets me trespass. In some people's mind, fairness lets me break and enter. I expect in some people's mind, fairness lets me commit assault. Clearly there is some limit here, and that's why we have laws and put a premium on order.
There is another issue though. Does order undermine fairness? If it does, I believe that is clearly a problem. Order/laws are there to ensure that fairness prevails over time. If they fail to perform that function, then they need to be changed. Is that the case here? If the officer was acting inappropriately, is there a lawful mechanism to address that? I don't know about the rules in this case, but berating the policeman does not seem to me to be the appropriate course of action. Is it an illegal course of action (and should it be?). When it reaches the stage of disorderly conduct, it is illegal. The policeman on the scene does get to make that determination (although in this case there were other witnesses, the only ones that have gone on the record that I know of are other police officers, and the agree with the disorderly conduct arrest, and for those of you keeping score, it is my understanding that one of the police witnesses was a black officer).
Police do hold a special place in our society, and we have to grant and acknowledge that they have special powers, amongst which is the power to detain and arrest for reasons they see fit. We do have the right to give a police officer crap of course, but they have the power to arrest us. If we feel that the actions taken were unfair given the circumstances, there should be a system to report and address grievances in place (which there is). When they cross the line, there should be consequences (and police definitely cross the line, even though I believe sometimes it is part of their training to do so, which was what I believed happened to Rodney King years ago).
I just have a hard time accepting that people have the right to argue (to the point of berating) with the police during an investigation without the possibility of an arrest for disorderly conduct. And even if an arrest is to be made, the police must still adhere to a code of conduct that requires the use of reasonable force.
A perception of "fairness" just doesn't seem to be a reasonable position to take to argue with an officer. And using age, race, sexual orientation or religion, or even just a bad day as a justification for giving a policeman a hard time seems unreasonable.
Then again, maybe I'm just a fascist at heart. Somehow though, I don't think so.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Cash for clunkers
In principle I am generally opposed to government redistributing wealth directly amongst the population, but I admit that I do believe there should be some exceptions. So, when a program is created that does this, it has to be reviewed closely. As it turns out I have a friend who had a stroke at age 43, and now requires long term invalid care, and has essentially been an invalid for the last two years. He had no insurance at the time of his stroke, and his care is paid for through public funds. Without public funds, his standard of care would be much lower than what it is now (which isn't great), and a further financial burden would be placed on his family. Of course, if he had no family, such a burden would go to charitable institutions, or of course he could die due to lack of care. So, we have set up a system where wealth is transferred to the disabled to keep such a scenario from playing out.
Back to Cash for Clunkers. This program gives money to those that have a functioning vehicle that is old, gives them a $4,500 credit (paid to a car delearhship) The people that get this windfall are people that have older, more polluting cars that they are still paying insurance on (and so in theory driving). The old car is destroyed (scrapped/crushed, so I guess recycled), eliminating a higher polluting vehicle, and giving a more reliable vehicle to the program beneficiary. The beneficiary is rather likely to be a lower net worth individual since they have held on to a "clunker" or chosen to purchase one in the secondary market since they probably couldn't afford a new vehicle. They probably have some sort of income (even if it is a low income) as they are able to qualify for a new vehicle with the government incentive. Overall, as transfers of wealth go, I have to say that this is far better than handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to big businesses that mismanaged themselves to the point of bankruptcy. I wonder if the program would have been as popular if it was means tested though. There are some reports that a large number of sales are being made on a cash basis, so the clunker owner probably could have afforded a new car (although I must say that I don't see a problem with rewarding a frugal saver either, but it does keep the question open as to who really is benefiting).
Unfortunately, this program also seems to have shown that legislators really don't have a good grip on how much things will cost.
When I heard about the program, I questioned just how many people really could qualify for the program. Assuming the cost per vehicle was actually $5,000, with an initial budget of One Billion dollars, that would translate to two hundred thousand cars. I didn't think that there were that many "clunkers" that would be available for the program, and apparently neither did the legislators. Now I can be excused, as I didn't do any research into the number of vehicles that could qualify, but I would think that this information would be available to the legislators. Seeing as the initial funding limit was hit within two weeks for what was supposed to be a 2 month plan, somebody's numbers were off.
I still object to government redistributing wealth (note that this is a transfer not only to car purchasers, but to dealers and manufacturers). I have a hard time buying that this amounts to a general public good (as opposed to long term invalid care). And while this is still playing out, it is already clear that there are already operational and cost questions that are already making this program cost more than expected, and while I am sure it is popular with people that are getting the benefits, it's usually a good bet that a government program like this generally just doesn't wind up with the cost benefit ratio that one might hope for.
In principle I am generally opposed to government redistributing wealth directly amongst the population, but I admit that I do believe there should be some exceptions. So, when a program is created that does this, it has to be reviewed closely. As it turns out I have a friend who had a stroke at age 43, and now requires long term invalid care, and has essentially been an invalid for the last two years. He had no insurance at the time of his stroke, and his care is paid for through public funds. Without public funds, his standard of care would be much lower than what it is now (which isn't great), and a further financial burden would be placed on his family. Of course, if he had no family, such a burden would go to charitable institutions, or of course he could die due to lack of care. So, we have set up a system where wealth is transferred to the disabled to keep such a scenario from playing out.
Back to Cash for Clunkers. This program gives money to those that have a functioning vehicle that is old, gives them a $4,500 credit (paid to a car delearhship) The people that get this windfall are people that have older, more polluting cars that they are still paying insurance on (and so in theory driving). The old car is destroyed (scrapped/crushed, so I guess recycled), eliminating a higher polluting vehicle, and giving a more reliable vehicle to the program beneficiary. The beneficiary is rather likely to be a lower net worth individual since they have held on to a "clunker" or chosen to purchase one in the secondary market since they probably couldn't afford a new vehicle. They probably have some sort of income (even if it is a low income) as they are able to qualify for a new vehicle with the government incentive. Overall, as transfers of wealth go, I have to say that this is far better than handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to big businesses that mismanaged themselves to the point of bankruptcy. I wonder if the program would have been as popular if it was means tested though. There are some reports that a large number of sales are being made on a cash basis, so the clunker owner probably could have afforded a new car (although I must say that I don't see a problem with rewarding a frugal saver either, but it does keep the question open as to who really is benefiting).
Unfortunately, this program also seems to have shown that legislators really don't have a good grip on how much things will cost.
When I heard about the program, I questioned just how many people really could qualify for the program. Assuming the cost per vehicle was actually $5,000, with an initial budget of One Billion dollars, that would translate to two hundred thousand cars. I didn't think that there were that many "clunkers" that would be available for the program, and apparently neither did the legislators. Now I can be excused, as I didn't do any research into the number of vehicles that could qualify, but I would think that this information would be available to the legislators. Seeing as the initial funding limit was hit within two weeks for what was supposed to be a 2 month plan, somebody's numbers were off.
I still object to government redistributing wealth (note that this is a transfer not only to car purchasers, but to dealers and manufacturers). I have a hard time buying that this amounts to a general public good (as opposed to long term invalid care). And while this is still playing out, it is already clear that there are already operational and cost questions that are already making this program cost more than expected, and while I am sure it is popular with people that are getting the benefits, it's usually a good bet that a government program like this generally just doesn't wind up with the cost benefit ratio that one might hope for.
Friday, July 31, 2009
I tend to agree in the belief that the American Health Care system is broken. One interesting point here though is that I also think that most Americans have a vague sense that Health Care should be socialized, since in principal I think that most would say that all people are entitled to high quality medical care. It's a sort of Christian/charitable thing, and for the most part illness is seen as a basically uncontrollable event, similar to a disaster. Additionally, people are not really comfortable with the idea of insurer's profiting greatly for what amounts to a clerical/administrative layer that stands between the ill and medical care. Add to this the sense that pharmaceutical companies are also profiting greatly and monetarily incentivized to produce treatments rather than cures is troubling. And bottom line is the act that health care costs have been increasing at a pace that is both unsustainable and shows no sign of slowing down leads to the conclusion that the system is breaking/is broken and will not correct itself without a lot of pain unless the power of government gets involved. (For the record, I don't agree with all these reasons, but I have listed them as a starting point).
The Health Care System is a huge part of the national economy, and it is well represented and lobbyists are certainly reviewing bills with keen interest. Senators and Congressmen it seems were elected to "lead, not read" for the most part. The problem is that there will be winners and losers in a dramatic overhaul of the existing health care system. And by the nature of things, the biggest losers are likely to be the ones that have the most. Bottom line is that you simply can't lose big if you don't have a lot to begin with. Note that this doesn't apply to the American People as a whole though, because as a whole there are really no lobbyists for the American People as such. Standing up to the existing power players is going to require an effort of political will and political savvy. I do not believe it is possible to come up with a "Win-Win" scenario, so the question becomes one of political will and declaring actual losers and making it stick.
It is important to note that the President does not create legislation, although the President can veto it. Obama hasn't led the charge against any elements of the current health care system, and doesn't appear to have the will to take the heat from the groups that will oppose him. He'd rather have the legislators do that, but I doubt that they want to bite the hands that feed them, so a stalemate ensues, which is something Democracy is very good at ensuring.
If Obama really wants to tackle big problems, he is going to have to change his style, and change it quickly. But even if he does, it's not going to be easy. The August "deadline" has been given up, and I simply don't believe that Obama is willing (or perhaps even able) to declare winners and losers in the upheaval that is required, and without that it is unlikely that any dramatic change will come about.
The Health Care System is a huge part of the national economy, and it is well represented and lobbyists are certainly reviewing bills with keen interest. Senators and Congressmen it seems were elected to "lead, not read" for the most part. The problem is that there will be winners and losers in a dramatic overhaul of the existing health care system. And by the nature of things, the biggest losers are likely to be the ones that have the most. Bottom line is that you simply can't lose big if you don't have a lot to begin with. Note that this doesn't apply to the American People as a whole though, because as a whole there are really no lobbyists for the American People as such. Standing up to the existing power players is going to require an effort of political will and political savvy. I do not believe it is possible to come up with a "Win-Win" scenario, so the question becomes one of political will and declaring actual losers and making it stick.
It is important to note that the President does not create legislation, although the President can veto it. Obama hasn't led the charge against any elements of the current health care system, and doesn't appear to have the will to take the heat from the groups that will oppose him. He'd rather have the legislators do that, but I doubt that they want to bite the hands that feed them, so a stalemate ensues, which is something Democracy is very good at ensuring.
If Obama really wants to tackle big problems, he is going to have to change his style, and change it quickly. But even if he does, it's not going to be easy. The August "deadline" has been given up, and I simply don't believe that Obama is willing (or perhaps even able) to declare winners and losers in the upheaval that is required, and without that it is unlikely that any dramatic change will come about.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
We all view events through the prism of our own experience. That goes for everybody, including Presidents of the United States, Harvard Professors, and Massachusetts policemen. Trying to untangle the reality of events is difficult at this stage, but as a brown man, and having grown up as a young brown man in Darryl Gates' Los Angeles, I think I have a reasonable lens to view this through.
Clearly the most important actor in this little reality play was President Barak Hussein Obama. Obama even prefaced his comments on the situation by pointing out that he might be biased given his personal relationship with Gates. I suspect that there were a few more unspoken biases as well. For the most part, I do believe that Black and Brown my age and older to have a gut check distrust of police. I expect that Obama has that gut reaction as well based on his characterization of the police officer's actions despite his admission that he didn't know all the facts and that he had a personal bias.
If people wanted to evaluate the incident itself, there are a number of other witnesses to the event that could be questioned. Also note that Professor Gates had an unnamed driver with him, who from what I can tell had either left the scene by the time the Officer Crowley arrived, or was there and managed to avoid arrest as well as other police officers who had arrived at the scene.
The issue isn't what happened though, it is what Obama said about it. Obama is a "post-racial" figure in American Politics. Given that status, I think that the teachable moment here is for Obama himself. He needs to recognize that incidents that involve different racial groups happen all the time in the United States, and that they do not ALWAYS have racist overtones. Obama may not have realized that he was even treading on racially charged ground by using the phrase "acted stupidly." His gut reaction was to assume that the police were in the wrong, and he went with that despite the fact that he is the President of the United States (and the first black one at that). Being President means you have to move beyond your own personal biases and take a bigger picture approach. To some degree (and you can decide how great that degree was), Obama was elected because he is seen as a racially healing figure. That is a very challenging. He has to let white folks know that sometimes minorities actually are out of line, while acknowledging that racism does still exist. To do that well, he has to get his facts straight if he is going to get involved in the discussion of any such incident. By his own admission, he said he wasn't clear on all the facts of the incident, but he still chose to judge the action taken by the police. He judged them before getting all the facts. He pre-judged them. There is another word for that, but I won't use it here.
Thing is, we all pre-judge things at some time or another, about all sorts of things. But when we pre-judge people we don't know, we need to take a step back and really think about what we are saying. Obama failed to do that this time. I hope he can learn something from this.
Clearly the most important actor in this little reality play was President Barak Hussein Obama. Obama even prefaced his comments on the situation by pointing out that he might be biased given his personal relationship with Gates. I suspect that there were a few more unspoken biases as well. For the most part, I do believe that Black and Brown my age and older to have a gut check distrust of police. I expect that Obama has that gut reaction as well based on his characterization of the police officer's actions despite his admission that he didn't know all the facts and that he had a personal bias.
If people wanted to evaluate the incident itself, there are a number of other witnesses to the event that could be questioned. Also note that Professor Gates had an unnamed driver with him, who from what I can tell had either left the scene by the time the Officer Crowley arrived, or was there and managed to avoid arrest as well as other police officers who had arrived at the scene.
The issue isn't what happened though, it is what Obama said about it. Obama is a "post-racial" figure in American Politics. Given that status, I think that the teachable moment here is for Obama himself. He needs to recognize that incidents that involve different racial groups happen all the time in the United States, and that they do not ALWAYS have racist overtones. Obama may not have realized that he was even treading on racially charged ground by using the phrase "acted stupidly." His gut reaction was to assume that the police were in the wrong, and he went with that despite the fact that he is the President of the United States (and the first black one at that). Being President means you have to move beyond your own personal biases and take a bigger picture approach. To some degree (and you can decide how great that degree was), Obama was elected because he is seen as a racially healing figure. That is a very challenging. He has to let white folks know that sometimes minorities actually are out of line, while acknowledging that racism does still exist. To do that well, he has to get his facts straight if he is going to get involved in the discussion of any such incident. By his own admission, he said he wasn't clear on all the facts of the incident, but he still chose to judge the action taken by the police. He judged them before getting all the facts. He pre-judged them. There is another word for that, but I won't use it here.
Thing is, we all pre-judge things at some time or another, about all sorts of things. But when we pre-judge people we don't know, we need to take a step back and really think about what we are saying. Obama failed to do that this time. I hope he can learn something from this.
Friday, April 10, 2009
What I can't figure out is how AIG convinced the Federal Reserve to print up and given them Eighty Five Billion Dollars. Okay, granted printing wasn't actually done, they just electronically increased the money supply by Eighty Five Billion and transferred that to AIG. It seems to me that the Fed is aware of big finance, so AIG's business operations are at least are on their radar, along with major banks and other financial institutions. From what I can tell, AIG talks to the Fed over the years, says, "Yep, business is good. Our bonuses are nice and fat, and we are making giant piles of money. Our risk is minimal, since we only work in highly rated debt instruments. We'll let you know if we see any problems."
Some folks may have said something about capitalization, over-leveraging. The phrase: "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction" may even have been used. But the people saying that sort of thing were clearly alarmists that didn't understand the markets very well, like, well, like Warren Buffett. Capitalism dictates that a business will act in its own self interest, but take into account risk because of a fear of failure. De-regulation along with a corresponding lack of transparency and flat out malfeasance (here I point at the ratings agencies) disguised as "quantified risk" using exotic mathematical analysis that was clearly self serving and poorly critiqued/understood.
And so, one day AIG realizes that things are about to get bad for them. Bad to the point of bankruptcy, and they call their friends at the Federal Reserve. (I'm not sure just how chummy these people are, but that will be a subject of a different analysis). They do realize that they will be asked questions, so they set up a report detailing just how bad it is. The so called "Doomsday Report."
I figure that it went sort of like this.
AIG guy (AIGG): Hey, Federal Reserve. You know how we talked about how we are doing well, and making all sorts of money since we only insure those highly rated financial instruments? Well, looks like we made a mistake.
Federal Reserve Guy (FRG): Hmmm, well you are calling me now to tell me about it, so it can't be good. But really, how bad could it be? I mean, it's all low risk stuff.
AIGG: Listen, I just sent a report over to you. I think you should read it and then call me back. But you remember what happened with Lehman Brothers? That was nothing.
FRG: What? Dude, send me that report.
AIGG: The courier is in your lobby. Listen, be careful with that report. If it gets out, who knows what will happen. We kept it short, but you know who's who, and what's what.
FRG (a bit angry now): Fine, I'll call you when I'm done reading.
The FRG reads the mysterious Doomsday Report, and realizes it is in fact really bad.
FRG (shaken and scared): AIGG, man, this is really bad. What the fuck are we going to do now?
AIGG: You read the report. You have to get us a big pile of money, and fast. You have the numbers.
FRG: How could you let this happen man?
AIGG: Hey, everybody was making money, everybody was making big bonuses, and those ratings guys and quants said it was all safe. You knew that.
FRG: I trusted you man. I've got a lot to keep track of. Geez, how could it get this bad so fast?
AIGG: Listen, we played the game, we made the political contributions, and everybody was making money. This isn't about me. I mean, you know I have plenty. But this is bigger than either of us.
FRG: Listen, I have to talk to the rest of the Board. We'll have to tell the President if we do this
AIGG: Yeah, I know. But you can't let too much of what's in that report out you know. Otherwise it will still be bad.
FRG: Yeah, but bad for who?
I don't know if this alleged report exists, but something like it must. A detailed investigation of this report and others would likely paint a much clearer picture of the mistakes that were made, and potentially the crimes that were committed, as well as who would be impacted by AIG bankruptcy. The fact that no prosecutions seem to be underway, and there has yet to be any discussion of significant detailed legislation on how to ensure no repeat of these problems, while public moneys are transferred to ensure the continued well being of those that have created the problems have the option to continue along the path of moral hazard that we have allowed because of the bailout.
The more I look into this, the more sense socialists make, and that is kind of scary. Of course, what is going on here isn't what I think of as capitalism either, but arguments are often full of false dichotomies. What can you do?
Some folks may have said something about capitalization, over-leveraging. The phrase: "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction" may even have been used. But the people saying that sort of thing were clearly alarmists that didn't understand the markets very well, like, well, like Warren Buffett. Capitalism dictates that a business will act in its own self interest, but take into account risk because of a fear of failure. De-regulation along with a corresponding lack of transparency and flat out malfeasance (here I point at the ratings agencies) disguised as "quantified risk" using exotic mathematical analysis that was clearly self serving and poorly critiqued/understood.
And so, one day AIG realizes that things are about to get bad for them. Bad to the point of bankruptcy, and they call their friends at the Federal Reserve. (I'm not sure just how chummy these people are, but that will be a subject of a different analysis). They do realize that they will be asked questions, so they set up a report detailing just how bad it is. The so called "Doomsday Report."
I figure that it went sort of like this.
AIG guy (AIGG): Hey, Federal Reserve. You know how we talked about how we are doing well, and making all sorts of money since we only insure those highly rated financial instruments? Well, looks like we made a mistake.
Federal Reserve Guy (FRG): Hmmm, well you are calling me now to tell me about it, so it can't be good. But really, how bad could it be? I mean, it's all low risk stuff.
AIGG: Listen, I just sent a report over to you. I think you should read it and then call me back. But you remember what happened with Lehman Brothers? That was nothing.
FRG: What? Dude, send me that report.
AIGG: The courier is in your lobby. Listen, be careful with that report. If it gets out, who knows what will happen. We kept it short, but you know who's who, and what's what.
FRG (a bit angry now): Fine, I'll call you when I'm done reading.
The FRG reads the mysterious Doomsday Report, and realizes it is in fact really bad.
FRG (shaken and scared): AIGG, man, this is really bad. What the fuck are we going to do now?
AIGG: You read the report. You have to get us a big pile of money, and fast. You have the numbers.
FRG: How could you let this happen man?
AIGG: Hey, everybody was making money, everybody was making big bonuses, and those ratings guys and quants said it was all safe. You knew that.
FRG: I trusted you man. I've got a lot to keep track of. Geez, how could it get this bad so fast?
AIGG: Listen, we played the game, we made the political contributions, and everybody was making money. This isn't about me. I mean, you know I have plenty. But this is bigger than either of us.
FRG: Listen, I have to talk to the rest of the Board. We'll have to tell the President if we do this
AIGG: Yeah, I know. But you can't let too much of what's in that report out you know. Otherwise it will still be bad.
FRG: Yeah, but bad for who?
I don't know if this alleged report exists, but something like it must. A detailed investigation of this report and others would likely paint a much clearer picture of the mistakes that were made, and potentially the crimes that were committed, as well as who would be impacted by AIG bankruptcy. The fact that no prosecutions seem to be underway, and there has yet to be any discussion of significant detailed legislation on how to ensure no repeat of these problems, while public moneys are transferred to ensure the continued well being of those that have created the problems have the option to continue along the path of moral hazard that we have allowed because of the bailout.
The more I look into this, the more sense socialists make, and that is kind of scary. Of course, what is going on here isn't what I think of as capitalism either, but arguments are often full of false dichotomies. What can you do?
Friday, March 27, 2009
After the first 700 Billion dollar plan failed to pass a house vote on September 29 (which was quite a surprise at the time it happened, after all, those votes generally aren't taken unless the outcome has been brokered and counted ahead of time, so someone got cold feet at the last minute). A new bill that added "tax breaks and other sweeteners" did manage to pass in the Senate and then the house, to be signed by Dubya on October 3, 2008. Apparently a lot of discretion on how to hand out the actual funds was left though, because as of this writing, NONE of the funds were used to buy up any of the "troubled assets" aka "Toxic assets."
Treasure Secretary Paulson got authority to use 250 Billion to start, but decided that buying up the "Toxic Assets" was not the best way to use the ammunition he had been given. Instead, he apparently used the money to buy bank stock to get cash onto the banks balance sheets, so that the banks would start lending again.
Paulson did claim that the initial plan to purchase "toxic assets" which would in theory help out citizens that were in mortgage trouble had changed in light of "changing facts."
"I will never apologize for changing an approach or strategy when the facts change," he said.
Pasted from <http://cbs11tv.com/national/paulson.bailout.meltdown.2.862368.html>
This sort of statements is disturbing no matter how you slice it. Assuming that Paulson is being honest, it means that he really didn't know about the lending problems that were going on, or the difficulties inherent in trying to purchase the toxic assets. In other words, he really wasn't very competent about how to best use the funds. Of course, if he did understand that, and pretty much knew ahead of time that he would just have to give out giant piles of cash in a pseudo-nationalization effort, he was being crafty and manipulative and needed to get legislative "buy-in" by saying that he wasn't going to just help out the banks, but somehow help out that portion of the citizenry that was in peril of foreclosure. The fact that the bill did not specifically require the purchasing of "Toxic Assets" to my mind makes congress complicit, but I can see legitimately giving them a pass, since Congressmen aren't known to be economically literate. Still, they are supposedly legislatively literate, and it doesn't look like they put much in the way of oversight in the system.
This could start to look like a conspiracy, but that would imply that there was a group of people that knew enough about what was going on. I think that this was more a "conspiracy of like minded folk" to do what they felt was best for everybody, but of course, that would mean what was best for them to begin with.
Treasure Secretary Paulson got authority to use 250 Billion to start, but decided that buying up the "Toxic Assets" was not the best way to use the ammunition he had been given. Instead, he apparently used the money to buy bank stock to get cash onto the banks balance sheets, so that the banks would start lending again.
Paulson did claim that the initial plan to purchase "toxic assets" which would in theory help out citizens that were in mortgage trouble had changed in light of "changing facts."
"I will never apologize for changing an approach or strategy when the facts change," he said.
Pasted from <http://cbs11tv.com/national/paulson.bailout.meltdown.2.862368.html>
This sort of statements is disturbing no matter how you slice it. Assuming that Paulson is being honest, it means that he really didn't know about the lending problems that were going on, or the difficulties inherent in trying to purchase the toxic assets. In other words, he really wasn't very competent about how to best use the funds. Of course, if he did understand that, and pretty much knew ahead of time that he would just have to give out giant piles of cash in a pseudo-nationalization effort, he was being crafty and manipulative and needed to get legislative "buy-in" by saying that he wasn't going to just help out the banks, but somehow help out that portion of the citizenry that was in peril of foreclosure. The fact that the bill did not specifically require the purchasing of "Toxic Assets" to my mind makes congress complicit, but I can see legitimately giving them a pass, since Congressmen aren't known to be economically literate. Still, they are supposedly legislatively literate, and it doesn't look like they put much in the way of oversight in the system.
This could start to look like a conspiracy, but that would imply that there was a group of people that knew enough about what was going on. I think that this was more a "conspiracy of like minded folk" to do what they felt was best for everybody, but of course, that would mean what was best for them to begin with.
Monday, March 16, 2009
I have been reading/hearing how the current economic crisis is akin to a “War,” and that it is important for politicians and citizens to follow the lead of the President as if we had been attacked, similar to 9-11 or even Pearl Harbor. And so, we should all get behind the President and work together to defeat the threat that we face.
This premise is so bizarre that I find it difficult to even decide where to begin. My synapses fire in a rebellion of thought that I have to pause to review what they are telling me, since this premise is flawed in so many ways, you may as well tell me that the Soviet Union has decided to re-invade Afghanistan and are in pitched battles with U.S. forces who are on the verge of actually capturing Osama Bin Laden.
The crisis has unfolded rather chronologically, so I’ll try to arrange my thoughts based on the chronology of events as I recall them.
Back when Lehman Brothers failed, and no government bailout saved them (when we didn’t even know who our next President was going to be), the first stimulus package was passed. Even then there were those that made the claim that we were “on the brink,” or “looking into the abyss” or an equally tired alarmist phrase regarding the banking and market system that we have in place. From what I can tell, the fact was that banks were unwilling to lend to each other because with the collapse of Lehman Brothers bankers finally realized that if they made bad loans, they might not be repaid, because the entity they made a loan to might actually go bankrupt. And banks feared this primarily because they knew that there were such large off balance sheet transactions that had been hidden, and no one knew who was holding the hot potatoes. And so, the markets would freeze up, and payroll checks would stop, stock prices would plunge since no one would be willing to buy stocks, cats and dogs would be living together, and the antichrist would lead his armies throughout the land, laying waste to the countryside and forcing folks to write bad checks.
In order to avert this “Armageddon,” apparently our high priest of the Church of The Federal Reserve spoke to the politicians and told them “Oh ye of little economic understanding, listen unto me, and give unto me the wealth of your nation so I may avert the end of times.” Apparently Bernanke had not seen the Austin Powers series of movies, or he would likely have asked for the even One Trillion Dollars while holding his right pinky up to his lip. Of course, now it looks like we would have gotten off cheap if he had gotten the One Trillion Dollars and the problem did go away.
Politicians did move with speed befitting a war/attack type of event though. While there was one aborted attempt to pass a bailout (and note that while that news did indeed cause a market downturn, somehow the world muddled through to the next vote on the bailout). Back in
September of '08, Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chariman Ben Bernanke asked for 700 Billion dollars Bush is quoted as having said, "Every American should know that the federal government continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money." When I read that, I ask, "What about the bankruptcy laws?"
Paulson is quoted as having said:
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative _ a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson. "The financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/20/bush-asking-for-700-billi_n_127926.html>
That seems to be the extent of the explanation given of the danger that we faced/are facing. Let's try to make sense of this statement:
"A continuing series of financial institution failures" Okay, banks would fail, and the FDIC would have to pony up cash to make sure that people got their money. There is no clear perception of how many banks would fail though.
"Frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion." With so many banks failing, no one would be willing to loan money, forcing a lot of companies to minimize expansion plans, and those companies without reserves would fail because they would not be able to secure financing.
At the same time, Paulson did not want to increase federal regulation of industries. I'm not sure if that was because he felt that more legislation was useless, and that what we needed was stronger enforcement of existing legislation, or if he is trying to stick with a more libertarian or laissez faire view of how markets should operate. I would expect that a libertarian approach would really mean that he would want further legislation for transparency in reporting. But since I have heard of little being made of a drive to increase enforcement capability for finance, I have to say that a Laissez Faire approach is exactly what got us into the mess.
Still, the call to arms was made, and the enemy was both "Fear itself," and some sort of vague problem with the financial markets that the gurus of finance would be able to fix. And at that point, they were talking about a buyback of the so-called toxic assets" that were held by financial institutions. So, the war began. We knew who/what the enemy was (toxic assets) and what we were going to do to deal with it (have the government buy them up).
This premise is so bizarre that I find it difficult to even decide where to begin. My synapses fire in a rebellion of thought that I have to pause to review what they are telling me, since this premise is flawed in so many ways, you may as well tell me that the Soviet Union has decided to re-invade Afghanistan and are in pitched battles with U.S. forces who are on the verge of actually capturing Osama Bin Laden.
The crisis has unfolded rather chronologically, so I’ll try to arrange my thoughts based on the chronology of events as I recall them.
Back when Lehman Brothers failed, and no government bailout saved them (when we didn’t even know who our next President was going to be), the first stimulus package was passed. Even then there were those that made the claim that we were “on the brink,” or “looking into the abyss” or an equally tired alarmist phrase regarding the banking and market system that we have in place. From what I can tell, the fact was that banks were unwilling to lend to each other because with the collapse of Lehman Brothers bankers finally realized that if they made bad loans, they might not be repaid, because the entity they made a loan to might actually go bankrupt. And banks feared this primarily because they knew that there were such large off balance sheet transactions that had been hidden, and no one knew who was holding the hot potatoes. And so, the markets would freeze up, and payroll checks would stop, stock prices would plunge since no one would be willing to buy stocks, cats and dogs would be living together, and the antichrist would lead his armies throughout the land, laying waste to the countryside and forcing folks to write bad checks.
In order to avert this “Armageddon,” apparently our high priest of the Church of The Federal Reserve spoke to the politicians and told them “Oh ye of little economic understanding, listen unto me, and give unto me the wealth of your nation so I may avert the end of times.” Apparently Bernanke had not seen the Austin Powers series of movies, or he would likely have asked for the even One Trillion Dollars while holding his right pinky up to his lip. Of course, now it looks like we would have gotten off cheap if he had gotten the One Trillion Dollars and the problem did go away.
Politicians did move with speed befitting a war/attack type of event though. While there was one aborted attempt to pass a bailout (and note that while that news did indeed cause a market downturn, somehow the world muddled through to the next vote on the bailout). Back in
September of '08, Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chariman Ben Bernanke asked for 700 Billion dollars Bush is quoted as having said, "Every American should know that the federal government continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money." When I read that, I ask, "What about the bankruptcy laws?"
Paulson is quoted as having said:
"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative _ a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson. "The financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/20/bush-asking-for-700-billi_n_127926.html>
That seems to be the extent of the explanation given of the danger that we faced/are facing. Let's try to make sense of this statement:
"A continuing series of financial institution failures" Okay, banks would fail, and the FDIC would have to pony up cash to make sure that people got their money. There is no clear perception of how many banks would fail though.
"Frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion." With so many banks failing, no one would be willing to loan money, forcing a lot of companies to minimize expansion plans, and those companies without reserves would fail because they would not be able to secure financing.
At the same time, Paulson did not want to increase federal regulation of industries. I'm not sure if that was because he felt that more legislation was useless, and that what we needed was stronger enforcement of existing legislation, or if he is trying to stick with a more libertarian or laissez faire view of how markets should operate. I would expect that a libertarian approach would really mean that he would want further legislation for transparency in reporting. But since I have heard of little being made of a drive to increase enforcement capability for finance, I have to say that a Laissez Faire approach is exactly what got us into the mess.
Still, the call to arms was made, and the enemy was both "Fear itself," and some sort of vague problem with the financial markets that the gurus of finance would be able to fix. And at that point, they were talking about a buyback of the so-called toxic assets" that were held by financial institutions. So, the war began. We knew who/what the enemy was (toxic assets) and what we were going to do to deal with it (have the government buy them up).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)