Flagrant Market Manipulation

SEC Press Release Friday September 19, 2008: "SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks to Protect Investors and Markets; Commission Also Takes Steps to Increase Market Transparency and Liquidity" How does banning short selling increase liquidity? That would be 799 financial stocks, btw. SEC to market makers: never mind, short away!

SEC Press Release Sunday September 21, 2008: "Statement of SEC Division of Trading and Markets Regarding Technical Amendments to Short Sale Order"--

...However, this exception now requires that, for new positions, a market maker may not sell short if the market maker knows a customer or counterparty is increasing an economic net short position in the shares of the Included Financial Firm.

In effect, they're not allowing investors to buy puts.

Doubtless entirely of its own volition--

The SEC has delegated to each national securities exchange the authority to identify additional listed companies that qualify for inclusion in the list of companies covered by the revised prohibition.

--, the New York Stock Exchange has added 31 companies to its do-not-short list, including major foreign banks, General Motors, and the icon General Electric.

Such flailing around does not increase my confidence in the powers-that-be. If things are really serious, they should close the market and coordinate a coherent response.

Indicators?

During the Friday bailout rally, a number of ETFs--SPY, QQQQ, MDY, XLF, etc.--closed below their opening prices (which, of course, were up sharply over the previous close). Now premarket prices are down close to 2%.

Was This a Smear of Obama?

After this column, the right blogosphere was aflame with accusations that Obama had violated the Logan Act, which forbids unauthorized US citizens from intervening into American diplomatic disputes.

Oops. Never mind...

I must say that the right blogosphere hasn't exactly been cluttered with retractions...

The Corner Thinks This is 'Brilliant'?!

Or is Palin starting to believe her own hype?

Gov. Sarah Palin is now talking about "a Palin and McCain administration."

I've also heard her refer to McCain as "my running mate" -- a term I don't recall ever hearing a VP nominee use when discussing the guy at the top of the ticket.

This is the first meaningful negative I've seen about Palin--and it's a big one.

Ambition is healthy. Overweening ambition is dangerous. That applies to Palin every bit as much as it applies to Obama.

The jury remains out, but maybe Krauthammer will get to say "I told you so" after all.

Couple this with McCain's ignorant demagoguery against the SEC Chairman, and you see serious mistakes by a campaign that needs to play a near-perfect game.
**********
Two quibbles about Palin (but quibbles count in a close election):

1. All her photos look more or less the same.
2. When I'm in a bad mood, she looks like a younger version of Harriet Miers.

Award a Point to Obama

"John McCain can't decide whether he's Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich."

Wham! That oughta leave a mark.

(Via Jake Tapper, or see here.)

A Modest Proposal for a Stock Market Regulation

If we're going to regulate, let's regulate effectively:

No common or preferred stock shall be sold in the United States except at a profit to the seller.

This way stocks will only go up!

Embarrassed afterthought. Mea culpa.

If an investor acquired a stock sufficiently under the current price, of course the price can decline while he sells it at a profit.

I don't have this securities-regulation thing down pat yet, but if first you don't succeed...

The correct answer lies in the uptick rule. Don't just reinstate it. Give it teeth!

No common or preferred stock shall be traded in the United States except at a price greater than or equal to the preceding price.

Take that, you unAmerican pessimists!

I'm Not a Fan of Larry Kudlow

Kudlow, one day before the AIG bailout (see here or here):

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is the man of the hour. This weekend he drew a clear line in the sand: no more federal bailouts. Not for Lehman Brothers. Not for Merrill Lynch. Not for anyone, at least as of this writing.

At least he's noticed that we're no longer in the Goldilocks Economy with King Dollar...

Uptick Rule, Again

One of the country's most famous traders, who spurned incredible wealth to heed a call to public service, has advocated--in a laudably measured manner, whether one agrees or not--reexamination of the uptick rule.
*********
Seriously:

Assume for the sake of argument that the market is locked into a downward spiral and a catastrophic crash can only be avoided by external intervention.

Ad hoc, kneejerk regulatory responses are even more transparent attempts at manipulation than what short sellers are allegedly doing. At worst, such responses, coming on the heels of political/bureaucratic incompetence and phony reassurances from Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, et al, will only aggravate the panic. At best, kneejerk regulation is likely to lock in distortions that will impair the competitiveness of US markets going forward.

If the threat is not catastrophic, let the market do its work of creative destruction[1]. If the threat is catastrophic, close the market for a week or two and coordinate a solution with a critical mass of domestic and foreign heavy hitters.
-------------
[1] There is also the alternative of letting the market unwind the mess even if the threat is catastrophic.

Preciousss, We Sstill Hatesss Nasssty Short Sellerss

I keep saying the following. The markets should treat buyers and sellers evenhandedly. To that end, the SEC prefaced its repeal of the uptick rule with a crackdown on naked shorting, and the agency continues to implement that crackdown. I don't favor reimposition of the uptick rule, but if the rule is brought back it should be balanced by a downtick rule on margin purchases.

Dinocrat notes that Jim Cramer has resumed slamming the repeal of the uptick rule. Jim Cramer readily went long-short when he ran a hedge fund but his current customers are retail investors who primarily go long (and his stock is down over 60%). This Jim Cramer:

The last two market tops -- one in the spring of 2000, the other last October, when the Dow pushed through all-time highs -- had little in common...(p)Here's what both market tops did have in common, at least for Cramer: He buried his head under the pillow and pretended logic made no sense. He told investors to discard everything they'd learned over the years as nonsense. He told investors to keep buying stocks just because it felt good. Without peeking, I'm sure you can guess the outcomes.

Cramer is an energetic entrepreneur, but I don't find him credible as a policy wonk. Where were his calls for the uptick rule while the oil price was dropping?

Vodkapundit's Will Collier notices somebody else who is not cut out to be a policy wonk:

Just When I Think It’s Safe To Stop Holding My Nose…McCain goes and says something really, really stupid:

John McCain said in an interview with CNBC Tuesday that...regulators also need to “do a better job in reining in short sellers.”

Unbelievably dumb. Nancy Pelosi dumb. Herbert Hoover dumb.

Yep. Couple that with McCain's sneaky campaigning for immigration amnesty, and I'm glad I restrained my impulse to donate when McCain picked Palin.

Who's Responsible for the Mortgage Mess?

My uninformed guess is that the Democrats started the corruption, but support or acquiescence from key Republicans was essential to keep it going past the danger point.

We know where the buck is supposed to stop[1].

The longer we go without ubiquitous comparisons to Enron and without Congressional calls for prosecutions, the likelier it is that the primary malefactors are Democrats. Nevertheless, the Democrats might succeed in finessing the issue so as to seize the White House and increase their Congressional majorities[2]. Addendum: See here.

Addendum: See here.
*************
[1] The administration has long been aware that the mortgage situation was precarious. Did it back off as a quid pro quo for Congress's going along with George's Excellent Nation Building Adventures?

[2] But they'll fix it once they have power. Sure they will.

The Correct Line of Attack on Palin

Palin mania on the right is nowhere nearly as extreme as the left's Obama mania, but a comparison does come to mind.

The McCain used mockery to counteract Obama mania. IMO direct attacks would not have worked; if anything, they would have boomeranged. I suspect that the Obama campaign was prepared for direct attacks, but derision caught them flat-footed.

So what is the left thinking as it hysterically spews deranged venom at Palin? An element of truth is an essential ingredient of successful mockery. They should be working along the lines of SNL and Lisa Nova.

IMO McCain still has an uphill climb to the Presidency. All the Democrats have to do to win is recover their composure and campaign competently. All they have to do is not be the 1986 Red Sox...but Gore's managing to lose in 2000 is not an encouraging precedent.

Afterthought. As an antiPalin hit piece, the Lisa Nova interview skit is too blatant. The skit's Gibson actually comes off better than the real Gibson did. The perfect touch would have been to make fun of Gibson too while keeping the balance of disadvantage with Palin.

Chinese CPUs

CNET reports that the Chinese are developing their own computer chips:

..."Their motivation is pretty clear. They don't want to be totally dependent on the outside world for something as important as microprocessors," said Tom Halfhill, an analyst at In-Stat. "The most interesting part of the chip is that they're adding about 200 new instructions to assist with x86 compatibility...It won't be an x86 processor. But the 200 instructions will optimize the (Intel) performance...I don't think they're doing this to compete with (Intel) x86 per se (but) If somebody has to run some software that's only available to x86 you can do it."

Halfhill may be indulging in wishful thinking. On the other hand, to date Chinese economic expansion has been based on pricing more than quality. The Chinese may (or may not) find that building something as complex as a CPU is harder than they anticipate.

Gibson vs. Palin

Charles Johnson has posted a ten-minute clip.

Both by body language and occasional quavers in her voice, Palin seemed nervous. She kept trying to shift into the person-to-person informality in which she is comfortable, but gravitas was needed. Palin did about what might be expected from a first-term governor who has unexpectedly been thrust into a hostile national spotlight. Her insecurity is the counterpart of the teleprompter-less Obama's uh's and um's.

Gibson was a pompous jerk who deserved a cream pie in the face. IMO Palin's objectively best move was to counterattack like George H.W. Bush did during Dan Rather's 1988 ambush interview. She doesn't yet have the experience to be confident about using such a tactic, but it might have worked anyway.

Hostile interviewer Gibson underperformed more badly than Palin did. Most of us have had to endure sessions with smug, arrogant, unfair, entrenched, incompetent authority figures--teachers, bosses, interviewers, reviewers, bureaucrats, etc.--, and that's how Gibson came across. Many voters, women in particular, may get so angry at Gibson that they will overlook Palin's deficiencies. Gibson made a much stronger case for media bias than he made against Palin.

There is considerable merit to Glenn Reynolds' suggestion that candidates bring their own cameramen to interviews. I can't help wondering if the VP debate will be manipulated via preferentially leaked gotcha questions.

The Gibson interview was an early round of a match between a fast-learning rookie and a bunch of know-it-all veterans. Hopefully Palin will correct her deficiencies faster than the MSM correct theirs.

Addendum. My impression is consistent with UPI's Martin Sieff's:

...Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

Never Forget

If life had gotten differently, I might very possibly have been near the top of the Towers that day.

Psychological Threshold?

As I write, for the first time the Intrade odds have shifted to slightly favor McCain (although they are essentially tied).

Clearly McCain has taken the initiative, but he has had no setbacks for quite a while whereas Obama has been stumbling.

The debates are still ahead. The political terrain favors the Democrats, but they can no longer win merely by avoiding mistakes (unless the Republicans make serious ones).
************
Perhaps the worst outcome for the country would be to have Obama eke out a very narrow win: e.g. via the House or the courts, or while losing the popular vote. Coming in a strongly Democratic year, that would delegitimize his Presidency before he ever took office.

A Modest Proposal to Democrats and Republicans

People people...all this squabbling about Obama's and Palin's limited experience...tsk tsk. A little sweet reason is needed here.

Consider that Vladimir Putin was only a field-grade officer, but he became a popular and successful president.

Thank you.

On the Academic Elite

A long time ago somebody said to me, "It doesn't bother me that academia is crazy. My neighbors are crazy, but their quirks tend to cancel each other out. What bothers me is that most academics are crazy the same way."

It's Still Early...

...and a week is an eternity in politics, and there will be setbacks, and I don't want to jinx the McCain-Palin ticket (about which I still haven't fully made up my mind).

It's a real battle now, but the terrain still favors the Democrats.

But if McCain pulls it off, the only comparison that comes to mind is Dewey-Truman.

Nevertheless,...

And the Beat Goes On...

I looked at Yahoo! Finance to check on Fred and Fannie.

There was a headline about the auto industry. Last year an energy bill authorized $25B in loans. I hadn't known that energy independence can be achieved by government subsidies to noncompetitive US automakers...

But that wasn't the headline. The headline was that the industry wants $25B ($50B?) more.

The White House said last week it was talking to members of Congress and the industry about the financing.

Thanks, Dubya! Btw, what's next year's deficit, you fiscally responsible Harvard MBA Republican you? $400B? $500B?
*******************
Twenty years ago we were the last best hope of man. Ten years ago we were the locomotive of the world economy. Ten years from now, will we be a nuclear-armed banana republic?

Assuming we're not one already.

Sarah Palin's Debut

Successful speech. Two thoughts:

1. Her attacks on the Democratic ticket might have seemed excessive if she herself wasn't being attacked so viciously.

2. Afaic Larry Kudlow correctly asked where the emphasis on the economy is.

I've been noting for a while that the S&P 500 is below its value at Bush's inauguration: that is, below its value in a dollar which has itself become debased. The media are starting to notice.

The Palin nomination was a game-changer, but IMO the failure to address the economy (unless McCain's speech does so) leaves the Democrats positioned to pivot to that issue. Note to the Obama brain trust: anyone for 'It's the economy, stupid'?
********************
Dinocrat:

There continues to be something surreal about this year’s presidential campaign...What’s going on that people experience such intensity of feeling about mere politicians?

Part of it might be emotional reaction to the perversion of political discourse begun by Read-My-Lips Bush, continued by the Clinton-era GOP Congress, and consummated by the Bush administration (and by today's Democrats of course). The public knows the country is on the wrong track, but the wise guys have set the system up so adult speech is political suicide.

Addendum 20080925. Not just speech, behavior.

The public knows the country is on the wrong track, but the wise guys have set the system up so adult behavior is political suicide.

McCain and Palin

Dinocrat asks:

Why do so many commentators (enthusiastically, instantly) jump to a conclusion when there is so much evidence yet to be considered?

IMO her enemies want to knock her out before she gets her bearings on the national stage. They have no case for disqualification on the merits, so they have to be fast, sustained, and dirty. Apparently some of the mud is starting to stick.

Palin is competitive and a quick study, but she can’t learn instantaneously.

Once McCain picked her, afaic it became his responsibility to protect her in the early going.
**************
Intrade’s odds that she’ll be withdrawn currently are above 10%.

Currently there is no sign of Palin on the convention front page.
**************
I was about to donate…and then I remembered ‘Read my lips’.

Jack Risko’s call for restraint is spot on. I trust that my unease is groundless.

I trust, but I’ll verify.

Palin Today

The good news is that Obama has been forgotten and Palin/McCain are getting all the publicity.

The bad news is that the publicity is about Palin's 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy[1]--and about Palin lawyering up for Troopergate (documentation is here and here) and being threatened with a subpoena.

I want to believe that McCain is ready for this. It's important that he promptly demonstrate control of the narrative.
*****************
[1] Young Bristol has my sympathy and I hope things work out for her. Perhaps she was foolish or perhaps an accident occurred. If she made a mistake, it seems a youthful and human one. Take care and good luck, young lady.

As for Supermom, maybe she could have spent less time being super and more time being mom.

Why Palin?

Some think that McCain is trying for a blowout win.

I disagree. While I wouldn't go as far as the Politico, IMO McCain realized he had made a fight of it but was still on track to lose. Therefore he took a risk. He increased his chance of winning at the price of increased risk.

My cognition coldly informs me that the Palin thing could fall flat or blow up. Nevertheless, it's been twenty years since I've felt enthusiastic about anything the Republicans have shown me.

This is not the best-known passage from 'The Man in the Arena', but it is a good one:

Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength.

When John McCain introduces himself to Theodore Roosevelt on the Other Side (if there be an Other Side), he can look him in the eye.

Palin

I thought that Palin needed seasoning and that remains a concern--how will she do against Biden abetted by a vicious media?--, but I endorse the decision now that it's made. (The AP's "news report" is chuckle spitting venom: very auspicious sign.)

McCain knows he's running in a heavily Democratic year. He's made a race out of it instead of the Obama runaway that might be expected, but the odds still favor the Democrats. (And they continue to do so even after the Palin pick, but the Democrats' after-convention glow has been cut abruptly short.)

To make it to the Oval Office, McCain must continue to be bold--and he was. Not only have I been a Palin well-wisher, but my assessment of McCain's Presidential quality has climbed sharply.

The Republicans have let me down so often that I'm not going to get carried away, but this might be more than the lesser of two evils. This might be a ticket I can affirmatively support.

Brilliant choice!

Addendum. Charles Johnson reports that Palin is a creationist.

I didn't know that and it probably won't change my vote, but I need clarification before giving the 'affirmative support' mentioned above.

IMO for all his faults, Bill Clinton was trying to look toward the future. One of my many criticisms of Bush is that his America seems like a multiracial version of the 1950s. I've repeatedly posted that today's financial markets tell us that the country's future looks worse than it did when Bush took office.

Our opponents and enemies will progress technologically even if we choose not to.

There's a saying in some circles that 20th-century technology was driven by physics whereas this century's will be driven by biology. That's too glib to be correct, but it has elements of truth.

Sometimes it's correct to stand athwart history yelling Stop!...and sometimes it's not.

Addendum #2. The surge in energy on the right blogosphere is palpable. Instead of chanting their planned exegeses on the holy words of the Obamessiah, the left is diverted to attack Palin.

McCain was likely on track to lose narrowly--quite a feat under the circumstances--, but, per an LGF commenter, the VP pick could be a game-changer.

Even though he's a centrist, with one stroke McCain might be resurrecting the Reagan coalition.


Addendum #3. Apparently Palin favors teaching creationism in public schools. I'm with Althouse commenter Alan:

Why is it when the GOP puts forward a pro-life candidate he or she seems to always carry additional kook baggage?

This is probably a showstopper for me. I'll sleep on it, but I don't think I'll be able to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.

If America wants to turn itself into a backwater--a nuclear-armed backwater, heaven help us--while the rest of the developed and emerging worlds moves into the 21st century, my conscience requires me to speak up but it does not demand more.

Update #4 (20080901). If Charles Johnson, who is at least as adamant against teaching creationism than I am, is mollified, so, for the moment, am I. See also a thread at Chicago Boyz.

The Good Ole Elastic Claws

The NYT reports:

A woman who worked as a part-time booker for the escort service that the authorities say was patronized by Eliot Spitzer pleaded guilty on Monday to a conspiracy charge.

A part-time booker for victimless crimes. From Tanya Hollander's confession:

...by continuing to work for QAT Consulting in this capacity, through to approximately March 6, 2008, I caused to be used facilities in interstate commerce which facilitated the carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely a business enterprise involving prostitution offenses.

Let's repeat:

...I caused to be used facilities in interstate commerce which facilitated the carrying on of...prostitution offenses.

A regular Dillinger, this woman!

Hopefully the judge will have the common sense to give Hollander a slap on the wrist and let her go. Unfortunately, the American Gulag is always looking for bodies. Michael Farkas is Hollander's lawyer:

Mr. Farkas said after court that Ms. Hollander had also offered her assistance, but that prosecutors “did not see fit to offer her a cooperation agreement.”

And there are always prosecutors looking to pad their stats. Of course, it's possible that there is material prejudicial to Hollander that did not make it into the news reports; it's possible that the prosecution recommended a lesser penalty than jail time but the Times did not report it. Nevertheless:

...I caused to be used facilities in interstate commerce which facilitated the carrying on of...prostitution offenses.

Maybe the legislators who are busy manufacturing crimes should create an elastic offense called abuse of prosecutorial discretion (willful or negligent).

Update 20100927. As it happens, Holder did not go to jail. She was put on probation; the prosecution had requested a sentence of six months of home confinement.

Afaik such common sense from the bench and the prosecutors does not always happen.

Another Reason They're Called the Stupid Party?

For a party that is on track to get whacked in the Congressional election, trails slightly in national Presidential polls, and trails significantly in Presidential betting odds, the GOP seems awfully cocky.

I don't mean determined and upbeat. I mean cocky.

Another 'Successful Test' of Missile Defense

Chicagoboyz report and tsk-tsk Obama's opposition.

Twenty-five years after Reagan's speech, they finally discriminate between a warhead and a single penaid.
******************
The Left has global warming. The Right has missile defense.

Concern about global warming might motivate development of geoengineering technologies that can cope with serious climate change if and when it occurs.

SDI was so easy to defeat that for the longest time I couldn't formulate a guess as to why it drove Soviet negotiators berserk. I suppose it's because a technological breakthrough, however unlikely it might seem, would completely tilt the strategic balance. Addendum: Maybe even back in the mid-1980s, the Soviets recognized, in effect if not in so many words, the emerging importance of Moore's Law.

Unfortunately, both global warming and missile defense are heavily influenced by special interests whose agendas are distinct from the ostensible issues.

Barry, Milt and Fred

Obama in Time:

...I was reading Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayak [sic: Time misspells the Nobel Laureate's name], and I was growing up when Ronald Reagan was ascendant. So the political culture of my formative years was much more conservative.

It partly explains why, if you look at not just my politics, but also I think who I am as a person—in some ways, I'm pretty culturally conservative. I was always suspicious of dogma, and the excesses of the left and the right. One of my greatest criticisms of the Republican Party over the last 20 years is that it's not particularly conservative. I can read conservatives from an earlier era—a George Will or a Peggy Noonan—and recognize wisdom, because it has much more to do with respect for tradition and the past and I think skepticism about being able to just take apart a society and put it back together. Because I do think that communities and nations and families aren't subject to that kind of mechanical approach to change. But when I look at Tom DeLay or some of the commentators on Fox these days, there's nothing particularly conservative about them.

Obama plays on libertarian/conservative dejection under the Bush/Rove/DeLay/Lott regime. "They've been playing you for suckers ever since Read-My-Lips Bush," he implies[1], presumably with voter suppression in mind. "Are you going to fall for it again?"

Obama about growing up overseas:

If anything, it has reinforced my belief in American exceptionalism. One of the things that happens when you live overseas is you realize how special America is— our values, our ideals, our Constitution, our rule of law, the idea of equality and opportunity. Those are things that we often take for granted, and it's only when you get out of the country that you see the majority of the world doesn't enjoy those same privileges.

It wasn't an accident that this guy beat the Clinton machine[2].

[1] I'm putting words in his mouth, not quoting.
[2] But I bet that Bill would have taken him.

Georgia on Their Minds

RealClearPolitics has collected Bush's, McCain's and Obama's statements about Georgia. RCP left out the White House correction of Bush's gaffe.

Of the three, McCain is the only one to attempt to present the crisis in terms of America's national interest.

McCain and Obama both support NATO membership for Georgia. That has also been Bush's policy.

If it's not in our interest to help Georgia when it's attacked, what were we thinking when we accepted their troops in Iraq? (IMO it's plausible that we have airlifted aid.)

Georgia on my Mind

In his own way, Zbigniew Brzezinski is as wacko as his former boss Jimmy Carter.

Dinocrat has a series of informative posts here, here, here and here.
****************************
Two rhetorical questions:

1. If we've known for years that Saakashvili is a loose cannon, why was George Bush trying to get Georgia into NATO?

2. As Putin leaves Beijing to direct the Russian onslaught against an American ally, why is George Bush letting himself be photographed with bikini-clad volleyball amazons?

Maybe he knows some tremendously good news of which the rest of us are not yet aware.

That's one possibility. There are others.
*************************
Even thuggish imperialists can have arguable pretexts. Consider how supportive the Enlightened Nations were of Kosovo's secession from Russian ally Serbia.

Cold comfort is better than no comfort. The Russians are paying lip service to the diplomatic process.

Addendum 20080811. Putin has compared Saakashvili to Saddam:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday harshly criticized the United States for airlifting Georgian troops from Iraq back home.

Putin said the U.S. move would hamper efforts to solve Russia's conflict with Georgia over the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

"It's a pity that some of our partners, instead of helping, are in fact trying to get in the way," Putin said at a Cabinet meeting. "I mean among other things the United States airlifting Georgia's military contingent from Iraq effectively into the conflict zone."
...
"Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."

There is still a threadbare reference to due process, but it sounds like Putin may intend to install a puppet government.

I have no problem with throwing Saakashvili to the wolves--to the bear, actually--if that's part of a deal that will prevent that outcome.

Second Addendum 20080811. Bush's recent statement is here. The White House site also has a video.

Wretchard offers his usual clear-eyed insight and, notwithstanding the armchair generalissimos among them, I found his commenters worthwhile. For example, one asks what the US intelligence community was doing during the Russian build-up, which begs the question of what that community is good for going forward.

This is pathetic (see also Bush's gaffe):

Rice spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by telephone yesterday, one of several conversations the two have had since Friday on resolving the crisis, and Khalilzad referenced their exchange in an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council.
...
Lavrov, Khalilzad said, told Rice "that a democratically elected president of Georgia -- and I quote -- must go." And the U.S. ambassador challenged Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin, "Is your government's objective regime change in Georgia, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Georgia?"

"Regime change is an American expression," Churkin countered. And he scolded Khalilzad for revealing the contents of a secret diplomatic discussion.

(Cf. also Bush's gaffe in the statement mentioned above.) It pains me to say this when my country is in a confrontation, but why the devil are our diplomats publicly quoting confidential discussions?! Protocol exists for a reason; some of it is silly and anachronistic, but some of it is important. (Hey, we're the good guys and we're for freedom and stuff. That's alright then. Nevermind.)

The WaPo piece I just linked quotes McCain as calling for revisiting the decision to withhold NATO membership with Georgia. I was unpersuaded because the degree of our national interest is not clear to me. Remarkably, McCain's full statement addresses the point. I'm still unpersuaded, but my opinion of McCain has risen. Even if I don't agree, I can support a President who demonstrates competence and policy coherence.

Infrastructure

Glenn Reynolds links to a StrategyPage post about the Central African Republic:

August 9, 2008: The lights have gone out, literally. Over half a century of poor maintenance and neglect, the power grid of the Central African Republic has collapsed. The capital has gone dark. Two nearby hydroelectric power stations, which provide most of the nation's electricity, have failed from years of neglect. The government is calling on foreign aid donors to fly in generators for hospitals and other essential services. Generators that have been brought in previously have not been maintained, and wear out quickly. This is not an exceptional event, for colonial era infrastructure, from roads to power plants, are collapsing from decades of post-independence neglect. This causes more unrest, as factions battle for a dwindling supply of resources.

He cautions:

In the West, people take the smooth functioning of infrastructure for granted. But it's only through continuous hard work that things work well here. Slack on that, and they go down the tubes pretty fast. But politicians value shiny new things more than unglamorous maintenance here, too. Be warned.

Not only that, but I suspect that the Central African Republic got its independence in a burst of idealism that was shot through and undermined by incompetent opportunists (incompetent, that is, at everything but aggrandizing personal power). Therein lies cautionary note regarding blandishments concerning quality of life, conservation, and sustainable growth--blandishments spoken by idealists and incompetent opportunists (incompetent, that is, at everything but...).

The collapse of the C.A.R.'s physical infrastructure was made possible by its inadequate cognitive infrastructure.

IMO the Western cognitive infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly.

That Didn't Take Long #2

Rumor has it that Jindal will be the keynote speaker at the Republican convention.

Jindal for President Exorcism. Castration. Intelligent Design.

Obama: America's 'Tragic History'

Jack Risko discusses Obama's latest gaffe. A fatigued Obama made a slip that he immediately corrected. The concern is that the tired slip is what he actually meant.

“I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

So is our history itself tragic or is it a history with the tragic elements that all national epics have? Which one is it, Senator?

I'm pretty sure what Obama actually thinks (apparently Michelle was speaking for both Obamas). I'm pretty sure what he'd say if asked directly. I'm pretty sure that his campaign tries to screen out anyone who might ask him.

And isn't part of American exceptionalism the opportunity to transcend those tragic elements? While that's small comfort to the casualties of history, it should not be allowed to blot out the big picture.
*************
The Star Bulletin's Obama quote continues:

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Reparations, eh? By all means let's have an election about reparations.

I felt uneasy back when 'equal opportunity' morphed into 'affirmative action', and am aghast at government sponsorship of 'diversity'. Unfortunately, just because we're approaching a reductio ad absurdum doesn't mean the craziness will stop.

Addendum. Obama has come out against reparations. As is commonplace these days when a politician takes a position, his supporters and his opponents and people on both sides of the issue question whether he means what he says.

To not jump all over Obama's apparent endorsement of reparations was the right move by the McCain campaign. They're not going to win the independent vote by looking like 'mean-spirited' kneejerk obsessives. It's Obama's overall credibility that they have to bring into question. By preemptively addressing the matter, Obama probably made his best available move too. Nevertheless, another flip-flop is on tape, and the McCain campaign can use it as they choose.

Obama Doesn't Visit Wounded Troops at Landstuhl

The Obama people's version is that the military made a last-minute reclassification of the Landstuhl visit as a campaign event; that, because of the ensuing sudden logistical complications, Obama chose to phone the wounded troops at Landstuhl; and that Obama had just visited wounded troops in Iraq.

I don't entirely buy this--my sense is that Obama could have gotten to Landstuhl if he'd really wanted to--, but IMO the situation is not as clearcut as some partisans on the right claim.

I don't know the net impact of this affair on independent voters. This independent voter thought the McCain campaign was hitting its stride with the media-loves-Obama ad (warning: some Web links to the video have been short-lived and this one may be too), but the stridency of Landstuhl criticism strikes me as a step backward.
************
If the Republicans think they'll win this thing with negative campaigning, in all likelihood they are grievously mistaken. The 1988 election was won with negative GOP campaigning, but it followed a successful Republican Presidency.

Afterthought. So what should the Republicans have done? McCain, as quoted by Jack Risko, made a good start:

If I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn’t visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event.

This makes McCain's temper work for him: it implies that President McCain will not be maneuvered by ploys from bureaucrats and other players, but will be President. The McCain people should have contrasted that single statement with all the equivocations from the Obama campaign--but such points should be made with a rapier, not a bludgeon.

Things (Begin to) Fall Apart

Instapundit links Althouse's discussion of this Zogby poll, which finds that 20% of Americans believe that a state has the right to secede from the country. About twice that among Hispanics and blacks.

Zobgy's headline does not mention the last poll, which is the real kicker:

I believe the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections:
Agree 44%
Disagree 53%
Not Sure 3%

This is a natural consequence of identity politics and the elites' dysfunction.

Authoritarian rule crosses my mind from time to time, but I've hesitated to mention it.

Congress: We Don't Need No Steenking Speculators

The WSJ’s ‘An Energy Sarbox’ describes an intrusion into the market that is grosser than the SEC’s favoritism to some institutional short sellers:

…Congress has begun to believe its own demagoguery.

Congress sez: "We'll drive our futures markets offshore. Those people are trading for ewww profit. Let them go to Dubai. Let's broadly expand the CFTC's powers and show these speculators who's boss."

Megan McCardle has more on the energy-trading legislation, which passed its first hurdle 94-0. I salute this commenter's pithy invective:

The legislation reads like an excerpt from a Soviet five-year plan for commodity futures.

And this one's:

How do you even compare the credibility of the two parties? It's like trying to compare the credibility of two 4 year olds when one says his dad is Superman and the other says his dad is a dinosaur.

And if the futures markets move to Dubai, we won't buy any oil! That'll show 'em!

Moon Landing

I have little to add to this, but that little is important.

Prospects are increasing that private parties will return humanity to the moon not long after, or even before, governments do.

The chances are still very small, but they are growing.

This Is a Democratic Year...

...and the Democratic candidate will win the Presidential election.

In fact, the Republicans haven't even nominated one of their own. They've thrown in the towel and put up a center-right Democrat-in-all-but-name who reminds me of John Glenn.

John Glenn would not win the Democratic primary against Barack Obama, but this year the Democratic primary has been moved to the general election.

Stay tuned.

Obama Has a Wide-Open Look at the Basket.Will He Take the Shot?

After printing an op-ed by Obama, the New York Times refused to print a submission by John McCain.

By criticizing the Times' decision, Obama could claim to put the democratic process above his partisan advantage. The impression on undecided voters might be significant; the loss of partisan support would be minimal or none.

Might this be a set-up? I'm not claiming that, but I can't dismiss the thought either.

More on the SEC and Short Selling

Yahoo has some links to commentary.

On the few occasions I've looked at the New York Times recently, its readability has seemed to be improving. Of course, it might be my attitude that's changing. Joe Nocera slammed the SEC on July 16 and twice on July 15.

The Times notes the avoidance of creative destruction in the government response to the crisis, and wonders if we're risking Japanese-style stagnation. As I write the S&P 500 is about 5% below its value--denominated in debased dollars--when Bush took office, so we may be well into such stagnation already.

The Warp Drive: Work is Progressing

The arXiv blog reports that unwrapping compactified dimensions might enable the space-time distortions that allow an Alcubierre warp drive to circumvent the speed of light.

I'm not qualified to assess its theoretical basis, but clearly the concept is highly speculative. As of this writing there is no experimental evidence for compactified dimensions.

Nevertheless, the development reinforces the caveat that it is reckless to shout "HERE WE ARE!!" into the cosmos.

Nasssty Short Sellerss...We Hates Them, Preciousss...

Gee whiz, all this time I've been thinking the market's and dollar's troubles happened because of the Bush Republicans' sleazy fiscal buffoonery (with the Democrats promising to do even worse). Fortunately, nefarious short sellers have been unmasked as the real culprits, and all will be well after America's good and wise government gives the globalized financial markets a stern no-nonsense talking-to.

Forbes reports:

Many hedge fund managers deny naked shorting occurs, but a growing number of company executives, from bigger and bigger companies no less, have complained that short-sellers have used manipulation to drive their shares down. Clearly, the SEC was concerned enough about it (and probably got an earful about it from enough constituents) that it decided emergency action was needed.

Plenty are angry about not being included in the emergency club, however. Patrick Byrne, chief executive of Overstock.com (nasdaq: OSTK - news - people ), who has campaigned for three years for the SEC to tighten the locate requirements for short-sellers, says..."It's the theater of the absurd."

Note the non sequitur in the first paragraph. It's not hedge funds that enable naked shorting; it's the big brokerage firms which are major stock repositories (and whose gross irresponsibility was essential to the housing bubble). Perhaps they're campaigning for regulations that will provide a pretext for new fees on their short-selling clients. As for the second paragraph, some time ago I cut my losses in Byrne's stock.

Forbes continues about the SEC:

...the agency recently extended a comment period on rules that would eliminate option market makers' exemption from the locate requirement. Critics say the option market makers' exemption, together with the SEC's elimination of the uptick rule last year, has exacerbated the downward pressure on heavily shorted stocks.

In effect, apparently the SEC is dragging its feet to accommodate the creation of overpriced leverage. Derivatives are not usually created by individual investors or hedge funds, but by the fine people who brought us the housing bubble, the Internet bubble, the emerging-markets bubble,...

Is this Misconduct Criminal or Merely Squalid?

When all those U.S. Attorneys were fired a while ago, somehow this one was overlooked:

Axion is the latest in a string of aggressive prosecutions brought by Birmingham U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Those prosecutions are marked by convictions overturned and innocent men wronged. Two judges have openly questioned whether she knowingly prosecuted innocent people...

...She has strong ties to the Republican establishment -- her mentor is William Canary, a powerful Republican campaign consultant in Alabama who has close ties to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

Whatever could be the reason?

Keep in mind that Ms. Martin--Attorney Martin, excuuuse me--was put in a tough spot. The really cushy assignments in the Bush administration go to people who are put in place not to do something the government is supposed to be doing. I'm thinking, for example, of Julie Myers heading Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and of the attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court.

SEC Prohibits Naked Shorting of Financial Stocks

IMO buyers and sellers should be treated evenhandedly. I don't see why allowing naked shorting is evenhanded; my concerns with the SEC's move today is primarily with the timing and the limited scope. However, I disfavor the uptick rule; if it is reimposed, it should be balanced with a downtick rule on margin purchases.

IMO the first paragraph of the Journal's "Operation Stocks Go Up Always" is gallows-hilarious; see also the link to portfolio.com:

The most charitable view of this is that the move is political, designed to make it seem like the SEC is Doing Something in the face of all the chaos. But it doesn't look like that: it looks like the SEC is happy signing on to the belief that stocks wouldn't be falling if it weren't for short-sellers. In other words, the Powers That Be don't trust the market, and the SEC has gone from facilitating price discovery to making it harder.

"When people are hurting, the government has got to move."

Hey, fatcats are people too.

55 mph?!

Joseph White, the Wall Street Journal's automotive editor, just helped to float the trial balloon.

Like other commenters on the piece, I have significantly cut back my driving and my speed because of gas prices.

In what is theoretically a free country, I am capable of making choices about my welfare and the public good without the matters being decided for me and enforced by the cops.

There are ever more voices calling for ever increasing intrusion of the government into ever more aspects of my life. I don't need one more from the Wall Street Journal.

If Mr. White had combined his trial balloon a reduced speed limit with a call for all-out development of traditional and nontraditional energy sources, my reaction to his piece would have been mollified. He didn't and it isn't. I have cancelled my renewals for the Journal and Barron's.
**********
Politicians may be giving the EPA a wink and nod to do their dirty work for them. Plausible deniability of an idiotic unpopular measure, more control, more patronage, no accountability. What's not to like?

Howard Berman

This shocked me[1]:

Howard Berman likes to joke that he became a Zionist before he became a Democrat...

Today, as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he's in a position to do more than wave flags and cheer. He has the helm of one of the most powerful bodies shaping US foreign policy, and he says his decision to run for Congress and focus on international relations while in office was intimately connected to his Jewish background and ties to the Jewish state.

"Israel's security and the US-Israeli relationship is for me an issue that shapes my whole agenda [in] Congress, and guides it," he told The Jerusalem Post in a recent interview in his Capitol Hill office.

It shocked me, and I support Israel against its barbarous neighbors.

On the other hand, you have all the people in government on the Saudi payroll (outright, via business relationships, or with the expectation of payback when they retire).

Not to mention other ethnic lobbies.

As Jack Risko is wont to say, how can such a country survive?
***************
[1] Berman seems a real piece of work:

...Berman, a lawyer by training, has served on the Judiciary Committee and headed a subcommittee dealing with intellectual property rights.

Yes, this is the Berman often mentioned in connection with predatory copyright and intellectual property legislation.

Words to Live By

Logic is patriarchy.

A Day Late

Thank you, Founders.

A republic, if you can keep it.

What's Wrong with America?

Among other things, retribalization.

A half-century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, people seem more conscious than ever of their involuntary differences. Good intentions have gone awry--and some nominally good intentions were pretexts. Nondiscrimination is simple justice IMO, but there has been a slippery slope from 'equal opportunity' to 'affirmative action' to grievance-based identity politics.

Obviously things are far better today than they were fifty years ago, but tension is rising. Is the center continuing to hold?

That Didn't Take Long

Exorcism. Castration. Creationism. Jindal for President

Give Bobby credit for honesty. His views probably aren't very different from those of Bush and many of the people behind him.

Give him credit for honesty, but keep him far away from national office.

Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar. That in other respects he is, well, blatantly nuts should be a cautionary note about deferring to the judgment of nominally smart people. Especially when they band together into elites. I'm talking about you, 'reality-based community'.

And, of course, it should be a cautionary note about one's own judgment, especially when the opinion is deeply felt.

Afterthought. Speaking of loopy Rhodes Scholars with an eye on national office, there's also Wesley Clark.

In fairness, the loopy Rhodes Scholar who made it to the Oval Office had a relatively successful presidency--possibly despite himself.

Nowhere to Hide?

Dinocrat notes that money is flowing into commodities:

Becasue they’re so safe, right?

Once upon a time people who didn't like the looks of the stock market would liquidate into bonds or cash and wait for the storm to pass.

Today, is there any stable asset class in which an investor with a global perspective can take refuge? If not, is this the first time in modern history that such has been the case? What are the implications?

Afterthought. It's not just, and maybe not primarily, the instability off assets. Maybe modern transportation and communication make a global perspective more common than it was in the past.

Reynolds the Epigrammatist

In regard to the practice of medicine becoming such a hassle that physicians are demoralized or leave the field:

In this area, as in so many, Atlas, tired of being taken for granted, is quietly shrugging.

Hope and Change are Coming to Oil Markets

Obama has released his plan to curb energy speculation. Oil executives are designated as "independent experts" when their views support Obama's. On the agenda:

*Ensure That U.S. Energy Futures Cannot be Traded on Unregulated Offshore Exchanges

*Work with Other Countries to Coordinate Regulation of Oil Futures Markets

A conscientious regulator's job is difficult because there are legitimate interests pro and con any change in the degree of regulation; moreover, there is a plenitude of domestic and foreign wise guys waiting to pounce on any regulatory misstep. In my inexpert opinion, inadequately regulated markets tend to become rigged or manipulated; in a globalized economy, over-regulated markets tend to move offshore (as IPOs have done because of Sarbanes-Oxley).
**********
The regulatory measures are part of Obama's "comprehensive plan to make America a global energy leader", but I gather that the 'comprehensiveness' does not involve drilling.

Plan A is to regulate and tax. Is Plan B, currently not openly spoken of, to ration? Plan C, to nationalize?

Update. The people who want to sue OPEC are also proposing regulations. From Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.:

Stupak countered by saying the new proposed legislation is "the most comprehensive approach" that has yet been offered. He suggests closing all loopholes, including bilateral out-of-market trades, foreign trades on the InterContinental Exchange, swaps, and hedging exemptions. As a result, he believes excessive speculation will be stopped by complete oversight of the markets.

As I read that paragraph, Stupak is asserting jurisdiction over every single oil transaction in the world.

And if the rest of the world ignores us? Well, we'll just stop buying their oil. That'll show them.

Instead of ignoring us, they might make us a low-priority customer. The American price of oil would thereby become greater than the international price. Accordingly, there would be no reason to express the international price in dollars.
*****************
Opponents of domestic drilling say that it would take ten years for the new oil to come online. (How long would it take "alternative" energy?) It would take much less than ten years to make a bad situation worse.

A cautionary note: historically, the term 'speculators' has been used in an antisemitic context.

Bush's Legacy

Don Cagle has a roundup.

Malthus versus and/or the Singularity

Both scenarios characterize (exponential) compounding as unsustainable[1]. Malthus culminates in calamity and the Singularity in transcendence.

HT to Glen Reynolds, who links to John Tierney's "Malthus v. the Singularity".

Is the Singularity a deus ex machina that descends at the last moment to foil Malthus by snatching us into a higher plane?
*********************
[1] Sherlock Holmes said, "Indeed, I cannot think why the whole bed of the ocean is not one solid mass of oysters, so prolific the creatures seem," but he was feigning delirium. What would he think today? Victorians were optimists and IMO Holmes would wager on the Singularity over Malthus.

In the 90s, Single Men Had Best Wear Natural Fibers. Today, It's...

Green f**king, aka environmentally conscious dating.

In fact, the whole blog is a trove of insights like that.

Supreme Court Power Grab

From the Constitution, Article III:

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Seems pretty clear to me that Congress is intended to be a check on the Court; the Supreme Court is not intended to be a law unto itself.

Yet in the Guantanamo case, Congress passed legislation denying the Court jurisdiction. The Court (blatantly, flagrantly IMO) disregarded it.

Perhaps unnecessarily since an Obama presidency is likelier than not, and McCain wants to close down Guantanamo.

Unnecessarily, that is, except to grab power for themselves.
***************
I'd give more credence to Scalia's dissent if he hadn't produced similar tortured logic to allow the Feds to attack medical marijuana.

"Laura Bush defends Michelle Obama"

Here:

Michelle Obama has a new defender from those who say she isn’t patriotic enough — First Lady Laura Bush. In an interview with ABC News, Bush said that Obama’s February remark that she was proud of the United States “for the first time in my adult life” was misconstrued.

“I think she probably meant ‘I’m more proud.’ That’s what she really meant,” Bush said from Afghanistan.

“You have to be really careful in what you say because everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued,” she said.

Never mind the decades of attendance at Trinity Church. Or will Laura also defend Jeremiah Wright as misconstrued?

Lady, go model a burqa.

The practice could come in handy. If a Democratic administration finds a pretext to throw your husband in the slammer, the Saudis will probably offer the Bushes sanctuary.
*****************
Thanking heaven for miserly favors. Whenever I fear that an Obama administration would be even more inept than the current one, something like the above hits the news.

Bush, Carter, and Obama

Obama's rhetoric indicates that he, like Bush and Carter, has delusions of grandeur. Obama's off-teleprompter performance suggests that he, like Bush and Carter, lacks the gifts and temperament to bring his visions to fruition. Unlike Bush and Carter, Obama has charisma. What kind of a presidency would ensue? We may be about to find out.

Afterthoughts. Obama is Bush with a baritone?

Left-of-center Americans are well inoculated against traditional revivalist rhetoric: they associate it with the religious right. Send them such rhetoric from the left, especially with an African-American flavor, and they swoon.

Also, a smoker's rasp has become so rare among public figures that it may be perceived as a glamorous novelty. It may contribute to Obama's attraction.

(Is it a good sign or a bad sign that Obama has been unable to quit smoking? Better to be a nicotine addict than a dry drunk.)

Every Silver Lining Has a Cloud

Alice Walker:

I made my first white women friends in college; they were women who loved me and were loyal to our friendship, but I understood, as they did, that they were white women and that whiteness mattered. That, for instance, at Sarah Lawrence, where I was speedily inducted into the Board of Trustees practically as soon as I graduated, I made my way to the campus for meetings by train, subway and foot, while the other trustees, women and men, all white, made their way by limo. Because, in our country, with its painful history of unspeakable inequality, this is part of what whiteness means. I loved my school for trying to make me feel I mattered to it, but because of my relative poverty I knew I could not.

There's a grievous, entrenched wrongheadedness about this. Which point is more important: that they're all trustees or that Walker alone takes public transport?

What's next, Harvard Law graduates complaining about their lot? Okay, I'm indulging in hyperbole.

Oops.

My Wake-Up Call for the Election

I've forgotten the details, but some time ago I caught an egregious error of fact by David Frum and I've ignored him since.

It didn't break my heart to read that Limbaugh is criticizing him for 'watering down conservatism'. Frum responded:

It is Rush, not me, who has repeatedly mused that he would prefer to see Republicans lose this election if McCain were nominated. So who is the advocate of "surrender" here? And since Obama has pledged early and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it’s not just an election that Limbaugh equably contemplates losing – it is a war.
[boldface mine--gs]

My instincts are libertarian rather than conservative. My opinion of Bush, the late Republican Congress, and the GOP is harsh, especially in view of the party's blasé reaction to the 2006 election. I believe the Republicans richly deserve to get creamed in November.

But Frum's point stopped me in my tracks and has me thinking twice.

It's not just about an election that a corrupt incompetent political party deserves to lose. It's about America losing a war.
*******************
Addendum. Bill Quick's retort to Frum is valid too:

... the surrender of the GOP to the forces of liberalism and the marginalizing of conservatism as a political force. That is what you, and all the rest of the establishment power-brokers are all about, with your support of John McCain, who no more protects against the loss of Iraq than does your former boss George Bush, who refuses to even attempt to win the War on Islamofascism, and whose failed and feckless policies, which have given us a nuclear North Korea, an entirely untouched terrorist Saudi Arabian regime, a Syria at open war with us and our allies, and will give us a nuclear Iran, are a monumental example of pre-emptive surrender.

The Iraq operation has never made sense to me. If the enemy is Islamofascism, why attack a secular regime? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, wrong enemy.

But IMO losing would gravely compound the error.

The Anchoress and The Second Coming

The Anchoress riffs on the first verse of Yeats' poem. She's a worthier soul than I, and a person of faith, so I didn't want to leave her a negative comment without a clear reason. (But see wgmeisheid's remark that the appropriate image for the current situation is not a gyre but a whirlpool. brr) I'll record my reaction here.

Her post brought this to mind:

Bolt and bar the shutter,
For the foul winds blow:
Our minds are at their best this night,
And I seem to know
That everything outside us is
Mad as the mist and snow.

Horace there by Homer stands,
Plato stands below,
And here is Tully's open page.
How many years ago
Were you and I unlettered lads
Mad as the mist and snow?

You ask what makes me sigh, old friend,
What makes me shudder so?
I shudder and I sigh to think
That even Cicero
And many-minded Homer were
Mad as the mist and snow.

C*ap and Trade

Dinocrat notes the bipartisan support for the cap-and-trade greenhouse scheme scam:

We thought it could never get this bad, politicians willing to hurt the economy, and thus the average citizen, to the tune of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to solve a problem that may well not even exist.

As a means to benefit the nation and public, cap and trade is counterproductive. As a pretext to expand the power and prerogatives of the upper castes, it is serviceable.

When a critical mass of power is localized in a critical mass of unprincipled hypocritical opportunists who perceive a mutual interest, no explicit conspiracy need be articulated.

No populist politician has seized this obvious issue. It would be interesting to identify the obstacles that have been put in place--quite deliberately, I have little doubt--to prevent such a ball from getting rolling.

California ♥s Gay Marriage, Apparently

The latest Field poll indicates that the constitutional amendment forbidding it will not pass. (HT: Volokh.)

It's up to the voters, as it should be. The major danger if the anti-gay-marriage amendment fail is not the outcome in se, but that electoral validation of the court decision would embolden the courts to even more expansive social "leadership".

Since society has an interest in stable relationships, I'm for civil unions but, out of some vague Burkean impulse, I favor retention of the traditional usage of 'marriage'. However, I suspect that 'leaders' on both sides are trying to polarize their supporters and keep the donations coming in; IMO the last thing they want is compromise and civil disagreement[1].

Even better, per a site whose link I didn't save, is to get the state out of marriage and treat the institution as a contractual matter.

Afterthought. Maybe a good source of insight about marriage is people who have succeeded at it. I wonder if marital status correlates with opinions about same-sex marriage. In particular, is there a relationship between quality of voters' marriage experience and their views? (The duration of a marriage is an obvious, but neither the sole nor an infallible, indicator of quality.)

[1] If the amendment fails, La Raza will find Anglo 'immorality' a convenient issue when they start making their moves.

Memorial Day

Thanks to all who served. Deep gratitude to all who sacrificed.

There are times when someone who isn't a warrior has to do a warrior's job. A special tribute to draftees who died while doing their duty to the best of their ability.

America's Post-American President?

To the Huffington Post's satisfaction, Obama has been photographed holding "The Post-American World":

The book makes the point that as power, skill and capacity becomes more distributed around the globe, Washington would do better to encourage this trend and honor it as both a cooperative and motivating factor.

The author puts it as:

At a time when other commentators are warning that the U.S. is on the skids, Zakaria offers a refreshingly upbeat assessment.

``This is a book not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else,'' he writes.

Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, arrived in the U.S. as an 18-year-old student from India in 1982. For him, America remains a land of promise, a nation capable of leading the ``industries of the future,'' such as nanotechnology.

I'm all for improved living standards worldwide. That's tremendous news.

But if America is continuing to lead the world into the future, shouldn't our relative standard of living continue to outpace everybody else's even while the absolute standard rises globally?

Iirc Larry Kudlow made the we're-not-declining-everybody-else-is-improving argument some time ago, and I wasn't convinced then either.

I worry that our elites and special interests are spending the societal capital accumulated since 1776 instead of increasing it. I worry that some pundits on the left and right are, at best, in denial. My instincts are with the majority that believes the country is on the wrong track (which is not to say that any given change would be an improvement).

Addendum September 13, 2008. Our elites are running the country like the Sulzbergers run the New York Times.

Dear Leader Speaks

Dinocrat links the transcript:

We are also, though, going have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy, and pretty soon, if their carpet footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment; we've got to lead by example. If we lead by example -- if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technology that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pain. But keep in mind, you're right. We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK.

You guys go ahead and keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy. Even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not -- that's not leadership. That's not going to happen. And that's, by the way, why, for example, I had this big argument with Senator Clinton and McCain about the gas tax, holiday. Which was an example. That's how Washington works. It's not thinking long term. It's thinking, how do we get through the next election?

And, you know, John McCain, for him to come to Oregon as an environmental president, but his big strategy is to do more drilling and to have a gas tax holiday for three months, that's a phony solution. You know, you can't -- John McCain has consistently been opposed to fuel efficiency standards, raising fuel efficiency standards on cars. How is he going to meet any of these targets? Maybe he's imagining it the way he did imaging getting out of the war in Iraq. You know? We -- we need somebody with a plan. And who is willing to talk to the American people about these difficulties and how we're going to get through these challenges together. All right? OK. All right. OK...

We can't tell them, don't grow, but we can and must reduce or stop our own growth.

In 1984 Mondale campaigned on a pledge to raise taxes, but afaic Obama is the first major presidential candidate to campaign on a pledge to reduce the American standard of living.

Higher taxes, lower living standards, more government intrusion into private lifestyles and the economy...that's change, all right. We can't eat as much as we want.

Has the country gotten so dumbed down that it will fall for this?

An Overlooked Fatal Mistake by Clinton

RealClearPolitics says the Clinton campaign should have dug up the Wright material early in the campaign, but they neglected the due diligence of opposition research because of "laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance."

Perhaps an even worse mistake was not to run in 2004. Considering how close an unlikable candidate like Kerry came to unseating Bush, Hillary would have had a very good shot IMO. I'm sure she knows that.

McCain's Vision Speech

The speech is here.

Is my patriotism suspect for noting that McCain's glorious vision doesn't include lower gas prices?

McCain may get my vote, but not my enthusiasm. IMO he doesn't bring enough to the table to persuade the electorate to overlook years of Republican misgovernment. I'm resigned to a Democratic landslide. It may not be good for the country, but the spit Republicans richly deserve it.
***********************
If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again.

Sincerity as determined by Himself, of course.

I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

Whaaaat?!

The Constitution requires Presidential reports on the state of the union, but I suspect that the Framers deliberately avoided an analogy with parliamentary practice.

Afterthought to my gripe about gas prices: Given the perks of office and their personal wealth, how many energy decision makers in top-level government would personally feel any difference between gas at twenty cents, two dollars, and twenty dollars? Maybe that's part of the problem.

If the run-up in prices had happened a few months earlier, somebody like Huckabee might have made it an issue and found receptive audiences. Americans are accustomed to affordable mobility; therein lies an opportunity for a politician willing to buck the establishment.

To Laugh or Cry?

Bush, to The Politico's Mike Allen:

Popularity is fleeting, Michael. Principles are forever.

Ah, yes. The principles that underlay the grand strategy for the war. The principles that collapsed the dollar. The principles that produced runaway deficits and a metastasizing government.

Afterthought. More Bush:

I talked to Hu Jintao and if he -- I told him if he needs aid he's got it. Thus -- we'd get him some money, but thus far, he feels like he's in pretty good shape.

In other words, Bush volunteered to borrow some money from the Chinese and give it back to them as aid. Tsk. Hu overlooked an arbitrage opportunity there (unless the aid would have consisted of goods purchased from companies with links to the Republican party).

Why Doesn't Clinton Drop Out? Has She One More Card to Play?

Maybe she's got something on Obama.

It might be so noxious that the mere fact of releasing it would taint her too; accordingly, she might be reserving it for a last resort. On the other hand, if it's serious but not devastating, it would have to be released in conjunction with a strong primary showing and, perhaps, a Rezko guilty verdict.

The foregoing is all conjecture, of course. (Cf. Victor Davis Hanson.)

Afterthoughts. Also, cf. this.

Maybe the dirt on Obama will be revealed by the Chicago political establishment (probably not openly) in exchange for a Clinton promise to lift federal legal pressure. Obama has promised not to interfere with the primary federal prosecutor:

On another subject, Obama said he was impressed with the corruption-busting efforts of U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, whose office is prosecuting Obama friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on corruption charges. If elected president, Obama said, he would keep Fitzgerald on the job.

The reliability of such promises (either Clinton's and Obama's) is a separate matter...

Another afterthought. This (pro-Hillary?) site claims that Republicans have video of Michelle Obama ranting against 'whitey' at Wright's church.

Maybe, maybe not; notwithstanding the theme of this post, I'm unconvinced that this alleged smoking gun is real. Why do the Republicans have the tape while the Clintonites do not? Maybe they do have the tape and are sending a covert--in order to minimize the damage to the party--signal to Obama and the superdelegates.

Or maybe they're running a hollow desperate bluff.

Obama and Wright

Jeremiah Wright continues to make speeches that, by traditional standards, are inflammatory. This may be red meat for the extreme left and some (many?) black voters, but presumably the net effect on parishioner Obama's election prospects is negative[1]. What gives?

Conjecture. Mixed-race preppy Ivy Leaguer Barack Obama joined Wright's church to get street cred to kick-start his political career. Obama used Wright.

So why shouldn't Wright use Obama?

Conjecture. Wright doesn't give a hoot about Obama's election prospects. He is taking advantage of the Obama connection to shoot for the big leagues where Sharpton and Jackson operate.
**********
[1] However, give the educational establishment another generation...

Obama Interviewed on Fox

Obama:

...I’m absolutely confident that the American people, what they’re looking for is somebody who can solve their problems.

Had Obama used a term like 'promote the general welfare', that would be fine with me.

I can't speak for the American people, especially given what's been done to the education system after my time in it, but I'm not looking for somebody who can solve my problems.

I'm looking for somebody who will secure my unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mother Gaia is Overrun by Humans and She is Getting Feverish. What to Do, What to Do?

If higher food costs--a euphemism for starvation or famine in the third world--are the price for subsidizing first-world agricultural special interests fighting global warming and the greedy energy companies, political elites in the USA and Europe seem entirely willing to pay it.

These philosopher-kings dare not publicly refer to the global population-control implications, but I wonder how many of their minds the thought crosses.

April 22, 2008 Follow-Up. Instapundit links to this report of shortages, hoarding and retailer-imposed purchase ceilings for rice, flour and oil in the USA.

Presumably this particular instance is not the beginning of full-blown shortages, but it's yet another indicator of how poorly the country is being run.

At some point people will start muttering that we'd be better off with the military running things.

Afterthought. Walter Williams is unimpressed:

...If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
...
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?

Here's an agricultural analysis of the ethanol subsidy's consequences.

Second afterthought. Here's a black-humorous way of expressing something that I couldn't articulate well:

No wonder the environmentalists are pushing ethanol so hard. It *can* save the planet. Ethanol = Starvation = Greener Planet

I wonder how many well-bred first-worlders who are not environmental extremists have the thought, "Distressing, but the planet is overpopulated..."

And never ever acknowledge their reaction or share it with anyone else.

Worth Knowing: Volcker Endorsed Obama

Here, for example.

Volcker recently gave a speech about the mess in the financial markets. Some reports I've seen have interpreted the speech in the most destabilizing way possible. BusinessWeek appears to strive for balance.

Addendum. Volcker's speech is here. Note the dismissal-by-omission of Bush.

Condi for Veep? Gawdhelpus

Rumor has it that she's lobbying to be picked.

The more I learn about Obama & the more I see of Hillary, the more I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for McCain.

But not if he picks Condi--another self-satisfied Bush lightweight.

Mitt is qualified on the economy. Palin and Jindal are promising but may not be ready for prime time.

Could John Engler flip Michigan, attract some Catholic votes, and add economic expertise?

John McCain: El Sid?

Just a thought...

"Pierre Elliot Obama"

The analogy seems apt. I saw it online somewhere before this column appeared in Canada's National Post.

The Quayle Bush administration followed by a Trudeau one? shudder