#3
Thanks Mike, the article made it seem as if the elections were just around the corner.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/22/2008 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm a bit sheepish about the possibility of a conservative Kiwi government at the moment. Your longstanding, and I might add quite accurate perconceptions remain sound TW.
#8
Yes indeed NZ might go conservative. They do have a crazy electoral system though which I don't pretend to understand.
They did go free market under the Labour party government in the 1980's as a result of a push by their finance minister Roger Douglas. I don't think they had much choice but NZ still looks too regulated to me. I've got a dog in this hunt as my lovely wife hails from NZ and has 7 siblings there.
Posted by: Aussie Mike ||
09/22/2008 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Kewi's going conservative eh? Then I say... GO BLACKS!!!
From the days of FDR, the vast majority of American Jews have identified with the Democratic Party almost if it were their religion. This included most especially secular Jews like me whose blasé attitude toward their faith and toward religious observance in general made such a replacement all the more important emotionally. This same Jewish majority also identified with the cause of social justice and, as Barack Obama among many others has noted, were some of the most active participants in the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. That was all how it should have been and was a perfectly logical and praiseworthy epoch in the development of our country.
Hello those days are over! . . .
The reasons for this are many, but paramount among them is that being hostage to one political party is tantamount to giving up your freedom and relinquishing your ability to confront reality and act in your own interest, not to mention the interest of others. Many Jewish Americans still do this for reasons that are at best sentimental and nostalgic, and at worst self-destructive. But a tipping point may be approaching. The virtual night of the long knives played out between the Democratic Party and various Jewish organizations surrounding the Iran demonstration, including allegations that party operatives were threatening the loss of tax exempt status over Sarah Palins appearance, with more unpleasant revelations undoubtedly to come, is obviously causing people to reconsider this allegiance to the Democratic Party that approaches fealty.
I urge my fellow Jews to keep thinking about this and not to retreat into the cocoon-like safety of an outmoded tradition. Change is difficult. But remember that Hillary Clinton that paragon of the Democratic Party, a woman who calls herself a progressive (oh, desecration of the English language!) was willing to forego the protest of the man who is arguably the most significant enemy of the Jews since Hitler for partisan and (most likely) personal pique reasons. How morally repellent is that!
And then Joseph Biden told us he was busytoo busy to protest a nuclear-armed madman who fervently believes that his mysterious Twelfth Imam (Mahdi) is destined to unite a chaotic globe under Allah. (And dont tell me that evangelicals believe similar things. If you think there is an equation between evangelicals and Khomeinist Islamists, you need a cold bath.)
No, those Democrats thought of themselves and their party first, the citizens of this country and the world later. When Republicans behave in a similar reprehensible manner, we should condemn them with all ferocity. But fellow Jews, stop being slaves to the Democratic Party. End this illicit love affair not just for your own good, but for the good of humanity.
I would be very interested in Liberalhawk's reaction.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2008 10:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10327 views]
Top|| File under:
The US and its allies succeeded in toppling Taliban regime in November 2001 and replacing it with a puppet regime, but the Taliban were neither militarily defeated nor eliminated from the system. But for effective encirclement of Afghanistan from all directions and massive air support provided by USA, the Northern Alliance could not have made any progress. Once the Taliban realised that they were no more in a position to offer resistance particularly after Pakistan ditched them, they considered it prudent to carry out a tactical withdrawal from Kabul and most took shelter in Pashtun dominated southern and eastern Afghanistan. Some trickled into FATA and Baluchistan where they had their kith and kin and some moved into Iran. They remained inactive till 2002 but utilised this time to regroup and refit themselves to be able to strike back at the invading forces that had devastated their country. Bush and his teams of neo-cons felt complacent that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda had been taken care of and only the remnants had to be flushed out. It was this smugness which impelled them to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003.
In the meanwhile, the vices that had been eliminated by the Taliban during their short rule reappeared in a big way. Besides lack of justice, war lordism, corruption, poppy growing, drug business and nepotism reigned supreme. The Taliban and their supporters were either brutally killed or put in Bagram jail and subjected to horrendous torture. The Pashtuns being in great majority were persecuted and power got concentrated in the hands of non-Pashtun Northern Alliance elements and war lords. The occupation forces inflicted heavy collateral damage on civilians whenever they confronted the militants. These developments disillusioned the Afghans and sympathy wave among the Pashtuns living both sides of the border started to shift towards the Taliban. Induction of NATO forces in 2003 together with deteriorating law and order situation provided the spark to ignite insurgency.
Continued on Page 49
When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation's social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis? I don't know, maybe both? That was the idea, after all.
"We are normal people, ordinary people, like people everywhere," Aziz al-Saiedi said to me the other day, as we sat on a park bench in Sadr City, only recently freed from the grip of the Mahdi Army. The park was just a small patch of bare ground with a couple of swing sets; it didn't even have a name, yet it was filled to the bursting. "We want what everyone else wants in this world," he said. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the 24 months that her sons were gone, Ms. Salman said she rarely ventured outside. The exception, she said, was when she saw American soldiers. "Oh, I love them," Ms. Salman said, brightening in her darkened house. "I always knew I was safe with them." "Paging, John Murtha. John Murtha, please pick-up the nearest yellow courtesy phone..."
I don't agree with Paul Krugman on many things, but in this case, I'll make an exception.
Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulsons $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system cash for trash. Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.
Theres justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself and for his successor to deploy taxpayers money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesnt make sense.
Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because hes a smart guy who knows what hes doing. But thats only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis contained, and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes justifies the belief that he knows what hes doing? Hes making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.
So lets try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:
1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.
2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.
3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they havent been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.
4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the paradox of deleveraging.
The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?
Well, it might might break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isnt clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.
Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms and their stockholders and executives a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that Im not happy with this plan?
The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works dont go to the people who made the mess in the first place.
Thats what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. Its also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)
But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a clean plan. Clean, in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review by any court of law or any administrative agency, and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.
Im aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.
But Id urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Dont let yourself be railroaded if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, well all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.
#1
sheesh. Speak for yourself, VDH. Many Americans did not do this and they are the ones who are going to foot the bill for those who did. What caused this mess was that regulators looked the other way in exchange for sweetheart deals and allowed the risk to removed from those who hawked bad loans for commissions. No one cared that any blind man could see that a huge number of borrowers would eventually be unable to pay. It was a ponzi scheme that anyone who had even a minimum amount of knowledge knew would eventually crash.
The problem is that those who were making the loans didn't care. They could make their commissions and bonuses and then sell the junk to someone else all nicely wrapped in packages that kept the stink under wraps long enough for them to get out of town.
In 2000, the long fought for and long admired democracy of the United States of America began a slow and steady decline toward fascism - a Bush family tradition - with the installment of a president - a man the citizens overwhelmingly rejected (although the funny math told a still believed myth) - by a few corrupt judges on the US Supreme Court. That coup is now nearly complete and checkmate is all but unavoidable. . . .
It seems this time around, the Bush family is trying the more subtle approach to open bloodshed: first create a crisis, then under the guise of addressing that crisis, overthrow democracy. Yes, it does sound terribly conspiracy-theory-esque when explained just this way. But what else does one call a criminal conspiracy to destroy Congressional powers permanently, alter Judicial powers permanently, and steal public funds?
As I see it now, we have but two options and I have long alluded to hoping against hope that one of these options would not be the only one left to a peaceful people. The first and frankly most preferable option is for Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the members of this latest Business Plot.
No time needs to be wasted on hearings as we already now have in writing, formally as presented to Congress, the intentions of this administration to nullify Congressional powers permanently, to alter Judicial powers permanently, and to openly steal public funds using as blackmail the total collapse of the US economy if these powers are not handed over. You do see how this is blackmail, do you not? You do see how this is a manufactured crisis precisely designed to be used as blackmail, do you not?
The other option, the one I have long prayed we would never need to even consider, is a total revolution. But, If Congress won't act in its own self-defense, in the defense of democracy, in defense of us - the people who have elected them to protect us from this very danger - then what is left for us to do? I don't want to see it come down to this, but I fear that it will. "Revolution NOW, man! Off the pigs! Acid is groovy! Hendrix!!"
Put your party politics aside right now. We are in a crisis so dangerous that should these people succeed in their coup, your party affiliation will no longer matter, your American flag will be a nice collectible item of something that once was, and your version of God will be worshiped in secrecy because your freedoms will be owned by the few. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2008 08:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10325 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Had I not read it in the Huffington Post, well... I simply would not have believed!
#4
The really sad thing is the elections happen, the coup never arrives, but four years later they are convinced it will happen this time. I guess its easier to postpone your collision with reality than reevaluate your opinion of Bush.
#2
But it is certainly so today. And standing against all this hypnotic power the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America against all that we find an old warrior a paladin if ever there was one an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.
#4
Whittle is someone Winston Churchill would approve of. All I can say about his article is that I'm ready to vote, work and, if necessary fight to insure that the values he espouses are not lost through the corruption of the elites in this country. The good people of this country have been through tougher times than this and survived them. We'll get through this too.
#5
On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the worlds great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.
I guess these disinterested liberal elites thought it was preferable to live under the boot of a tyrant than to live as free men and women.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
It will come as a shock to most Americans and the media, but as the election reaches a crescendo on the issue of preparedness and energy, neither presidential candidate - nor anyone in local, state or federal government - has developed a contingency plan in the event of a protracted oil cut-off. It is not even being discussed. Government has prepared for hurricanes, anthrax, terrorism and every other disaster, but not the one threatened daily - a protracted oil stoppage, whether caused by terrorism, intervention in the Persian Gulf or a natural disaster.
So the JPost is read in on all of the contingency plans that exist at the federal level?? Yeah, right.
The reality is that such a cut off would have massive consequences but they would be very much tied to the details at the time. Is there planning? yes. Should we be talking about it? no. Knock it off, JPost.
Of course we've planned. We have a Strategic Oil Reserve. We have plans to distribute it as needed. We also have (unlike Y'urp) a capable military that could help with various contingencies. There is just no need to publish our plans in the New York Times.
#2
The other part of the plan is to drill here, drill now. President Bush put in motion, future President McCain will take the advice of his vice president, who considers oil nurturing oil production one of her areas of expertise. Israel, however, she merely counts as an interest, as far as I know.
#5
part 1
A while ago we had a story about the US military researching synthetic fuels, Germsny did just that in WW2
[art 2
and Nimble Spemble asked what they know that we don't.
We know it's just a wartime thing when costs don't matter, synthetic fuel is for last-ditch times when no other fuel is available at any cost,
(They're trying to bring the costs down, but no real success yet)
Best saved for a war, not general consumption.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/22/2008 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Actually the USAF has already tried Synthetic fuel in a B1 and a couple of fighters. Supposing of cours that it would be cheaper. An account from a F-15 pilot said that "He could not tell the difference and the aircraft performed as expected"
#7
The bulk of military land vehicles are diesel. Diesel engines can run on biodiesel with little or no modification (modification tends to be required in cold climates). The military could run off of vegetable oil new or used. It's the tanks and aircraft that require a better class of fuel.
Of course the economy would have issues. Serious issues. but if the US is having issues the world is screwed.
...Check out the chart showing the recent spikes in the US 10-year credit default swap. In other words, the market is now pricing-in the genuine possibility that the US will struggle to pay-back some of its long-term T-bills.
That possibility is still deemed to be quite low. But the ultimate financial question - until recently, unthinkable - is now being asked. Yes siree, the mighty US government could default. That's how much the world has changed.
#1
Yeah, and an asteroid could come hurtling out of the blue tomorrow and destroy the planet completely. Neither one is likely.
If the U.S.G. defaults, the world's money markets are gone for good. It would hurt us terribly and the rest of the world worse. There would be governmental collapse in a great many places. The items of most value would be guns, ammo and canned goods.
#2
Governments don't default on debts in their own currency (they do default on debts in other countries currency, gold or when they introduce a new currency). They print money.
Which says to me we in for a period of asset deflation and consumable inflation.
#3
" The items of most value would be guns, ammo and canned goods."
Uh-huh. Been at the top of my list for a while now. Do you really think these shysters have not contemplated defaulting ? Look at their play now. Would it cause world-wide upheaval and possibly a world war ? Probably. Think they care ?
#4
The U.S. Naitonal debt is $9,671, 430,687,608.40 as of this morning.
The estimated population of the United States is 304,774,370 so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,733.08.
What has this money been used on? Do we want to add a trillion on to it for these douche-nozzles on Wall St? How much can we borrow before it ruins us? Or has it already hurt us irreparably?
#5
There's always the Zim-Bob model. I guess he doesn't have to sell T-Bills.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/22/2008 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
bigjim-ky: The six parts of the US budget are, in order,
Medicare & Medicaid (21%),
Social Security (21%),
Defense (20%) ,
Interest on the national debt. (9%)
Other Discretionary (18%), and
Other Mandatory (11%)
#7
Remember the total world burden of credit default swaps (CDS's) is in the neighborhood of $62 trillion, but no one knows for sure -- the CDS market is unregulated & unmonitored. CDS's are contracts where one party agrees to pay another if certain financial conditions are met, i.e., the swap is a bill that may need to be paid by someone to someone.
The Masters of the Universe who invented & propagated schemes like CDS's were really just Sorcerer's Apprentices. I strongly suspect the world CDS market will collapse long before the US Gov't needs to worry about defaulting.
#8
The government's focus on short-sellers was an attempt to divert attention from the highly-levered hedge funds in drag that now comprise our banks and brokerages. The reason these banks and brokerages haven't been reined in is because they're gambling with exotic instruments that regulators have decided should remain regulation-free, instead of the highly-levered bets with plain old futures and options that Long Term Capital took. The problem with non-regulation of banks and brokerages is what just happened last week - if anything bad happens, the government is on the hook, because of the vast numbers of voters negatively impacted.
#9
#3: " The items of most value would be guns, ammo and canned goods."
I reload Woozle, and have enough to get by, no way to provide 20 years of canned goods, not rich enough, and no warehouse available.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/22/2008 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Perhaps we should each invest in grain, vegetable, and spice seeds, and a small mixed herd of sheep. Just make sure the ram is heterosexual, and all will be well.
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.
