In January, artist Roman Genn spent seven days embedded with U.S. Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment at an isolated forward operating base near Gulistan, a small village of mud huts in Farah province in central Afghanistan. In an area known for kidnappings and drug trafficking, the troops provide both security and humanitarian aid. Here [at link] are his drawings and captions from the trip; click on the thumbnails for larger images.
#1
Tedesco, the writer of the article, misses the point. The Canadian banks are not healthy because of government control but because the banking lending policies were conservative. Our lending institutions were not, mostly due to liberal lending policies initiated by the democrats and continued by both parties. Consolidation of and control of the US banks would not change a thing as long as foolish policies are still in place as required by the Congress and the President.
#3
I think we should revisit this topic later in the year when the Canuck government has to rescue its banks because of the banks' excessive exposure to Canuckistan's commodity and real estate bubbles. This is more of the usual stupidity and ideological posturing from the New York Times.
#4
BTW, Canadian banks aren't solvent - they're just late to the party, buoyed by a commodities bubble whose bursting is only in its early stages. Later in the year, investors in Canadian banks will look back upon today's 50% haircuts as the good old days.
#6
It's a little strange. I read all about the problems of the big US banks. Then I drive around my village and see that all the local community banks are building new branches. They're doing well. I think it's because they were small enough they couldn't grab a piece of the CDO pie, swaps, tranches, etc. But if I needed a loan (and I don't) I could go to them and get one (since I'm creditworthy).
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/01/2009 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Generally speaking, the further you get from the big cities, the healthier the banking institution. It's pretty easy to check them out. Here is a helpful link. Bankrate.com
#8
There are 8400 or so banks in the US. Just a small number of the regionals [The FDIC is only taking over a few a week] and a handful of the largest banks are in trouble in the same way that a handful of the mono lines and insurance companies are in trouble but they are the biggest and offer the systemic risk which is the current threat. But the regulators could make the problem worse. I was talking to my banker a week ago. They are a small regional bank which acquired for TARP money because "everyone was doing it". I suspect they will remove the application now. But the point he made was that the regulators are talking about increasing the current reserve requirement from 10% to 12%. That would cause a reduction of 20% in their lending capacity. Consequently they are taking it slowly until they know what is happening. That is the case with most banks. So while congress berates them from supposedly not lending [which in fact is not true anyway] the regulators are putting the clamps on them. It is the shadow banking sector which has stopped and despite the talk the Fed has not been able to restart it.
WaPo and the New Republic realize that Bambi isn't all he's cracked up to be ...
By Jon Chait
Most of President Obama's "missteps" to date have been Washington peccadilloes of the "let's find something to complain about" sort. But Obama has made one major mistake that has attracted little public attention: his appointment of Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman was attacked by pro-Israel activists, but the contretemps over Freeman's view of Israel misses the broader problem, which is that he's an ideological fanatic.
That may sound like an odd description for a respectable bureaucrat and impeccable establishmentarian such as Freeman. What's more, he's not an ideologue of the sort who draws most of the attention. When most people think of foreign policy ideology, they mean neoconservatism, which dominated the Bush administration. Broadly speaking, neoconservatism is obsessed with the moral differences between democracies and non-democracies. At its most simplistic (which, alas, it nearly always is) neoconservatism means supporting the "good guys" and fighting the "bad guys." As most of us have seen, neoconservatism has trouble recognizing that the good guys aren't perfectly good and that the bad guys aren't comic book villains.
Freeman belongs to the camp that's the mortal enemy of the neoconservatives: the realists. Realist ideology pays no attention to moral differences between states. As far as realists are concerned, there's no way to think about the way governments act except as the pursuit of self-interest. Realism has some useful insights. For instance, realists accurately predicted that Iraqis would respond to a U.S. invasion with less than unadulterated joy.
But realists are the mirror image of neoconservatives in that they are completely blind to the moral dimensions of international politics. Realists scoffed at Bill Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, which halted mass slaughter. Realists tend not to abide the American alliance with Israel, which rests on shared values with a fellow imperfect democracy rather than on a cold analysis of America's interests.
Taken to extremes, realism's blindness to morality can lead it wildly astray. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both staunch realists, wrote "The Israel Lobby," a hyperbolic attack on Zionist political influence. The central error of their thesis was that, since America's alliance with Israel does not advance American interests, it could be explained only by sinister lobbying influence. They seemed unable to grasp even the possibility that Americans, rightly or wrongly, have an affinity for a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage boys act around girls.
Freeman praised "The Israel Lobby" while indulging in its characteristic paranoia. "No one else in the United States has dared to publish this article," he told a Saudi news service in 2006, "given the political penalties that the lobby imposes on those who criticize it." In fact, the article was printed as a book the next year by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in New York.
The most extreme manifestation of Freeman's realist ideology came out in a leaked e-mail he sent to a foreign policy Internet mailing list. Freeman wrote that his only problem with what most of us call "the Tiananmen Square Massacre" was an excess of restraint:
"[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .
"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy."
This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence Council job is so technocratic that Freeman's rigid ideology won't have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn't work out very well, did it?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The central error of their thesis was that, since America's alliance with Israel does not advance American interests
Barring a Muzzi nuclear reactor, or two, the alliances USA made with various Arab States by promoting "Peace Process", and all the "American" R&D performed in Israel.
#2
Is "realist" the latest word the Left wants to hijack, after the likes of "liberal" and "progressive".
"For instance, realists accurately predicted that Iraqis would respond to a U.S. invasion with less than unadulterated joy." That was just the 'realists'? I could have sworn pretty much everyone expected the military overthrow of Saddam to be the easy part.
Re Freeman, it sounds as though his sympathies merely lie with the other side. Like most others in Obama's circle.
#3
I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be
Are we sure that this guy isn't going to be in charge of "Homeland Security" at the point where there are mass demonstrations against Obambi Fascism?
#5
Somehow, this realistic ideology can be compared to egocentric thinking:
Egocentric Thinking Patterns of Disturbed Characters
When the disturbed character wants something, he doesnât necessarily think about whether itâs right, good, or legal â or whether his pursuit of it might adversely affect anyone. He only cares that he wants it. His incessant concern for himself and the things that he desires creates a pattern of thinking which embodies an attitude of indifference to the rights, needs, wants, and expectations of others.-
#6
If this ""I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be.
is the belief of the Obamanation then, as the tea parties persist and expand, will prove the extent of their preferrence for tyranny.
#7
Until and unless these protests (tea parties) attract some serious participants I think Bambi and his minnions will view them as harmless. Just sayin', ya' know.
#8
I am wondering if this is not a little devious trick on the part of Obama to see how strong the AIPAC is currently in DC. You foist up Freeman like a red cape to a blood thirsty bull and see if the Jew lobby matador has any cajones left to spar with The One! Lets say AIPAC wins on this and the senate rejects Flashy Freeman. Does that show enough strength to Obama to go with Bam-Bam when he decides to take out Iran threat? Or, if AIPAC fails somehow to stop this does it give Obama a reason to throttle up discussions with the Mullahs and neutralize Israel while then winning hearts and minds of Hamas and Hizbollah? People want to know.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/01/2009 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#9
actually most of obama's missteps have been not vetting tax cheats - the mark of a real amateur - not - these little peccadilloes of finding things to whine abt.
#11
Now thant some weirdness JohnQC. Kinda agree, except thompsn and kesyey are door knob dead, Ima not certain about ginzburg, but I think him dead too.
HOLLYWOOD FINALLY DOES IRAQ RIGHT - AND (SURPRISE) GETS THE RATINGS
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2009 17:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't know if I'll watch it. I got the tee-shirt. Notification of Next of Kin and Survivor Assistance Officer.
Might not be able to manage it.
However, it is good to know, if there were ever any doubt, that the right kind of movie gets the viewers. And the wrong kind doesn't.
GOOD to know. Really, really good.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/01/2009 22:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
thanks Richard, I'll remember your.... support
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2009 23:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
your t-shirt? was it worth the silver?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2009 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
Ordinarily, from January to September of a new Presidents first year, the government lives under the budget of his predecessor. That isnt the case this year. Last fall the Democratic-controlled Congress refused to act on President Bushs 2009 budget proposal, gambling that by delaying ratification of the budget until the new year, they would also have the Presidency and could write the budget exactly the way they wanted: without any Republican interference.
It worked out for them like they planned. However, the 2009 budget may be a case of be careful what you wish for. Barack Obama and the Democrats now own the 2009 budget. Every bit of it. They also own all of the (almost certain to be an underestimated) $1.75 trillion budget deficit, an amount four times the largest deficit President Bush ever created.
If the economy turns around (click here to learn why it wont), all will be forgiven. However, if the economy tanks, Obama and the Democrats cant even pretend that it was President Bushs 2009 budget that made the difference.
#1
Obama and the Democrats can't even pretend that it was President Bush's 2009 budget that made the difference.
Of course they and their sockpuppet MSM Wormtongues will certainly try, while at the same time working damn hard to make sure that their ownership of Congress since 2006 had no impact in the accountability.
Iowahawk's resident social tick, Dave Burge, is back! ;-)
Thanks to the new housing bailout plan, happy days are here again for America's sub-prime borrowing community -- but Iowahawk's Dave Burge warns that national recovery is now threatened by deadbeat tax protesters who failed to understand the rules of the game...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/01/2009 08:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent! No known cure for WASP Escalade envy.
This is the reality that the NPR metrosexual crowd does not want to acknowledge. In their inverted reality, subsidizing bad behavior makes said bad behavior go away.
The Iowahawk site is a treasure.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/01/2009 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
