Men lose weight more easily than women when they diet.
Alan Greenspan: idiot or savant?
For years, Alan Greenspan was thought to be a genius, responsible for keeping inflation at bay and encouraging our booming economy. He fine-tuned interest rates to make sure all this was going smoothly, and to the best of my recollection he earned resounding praise from almost everyone.
Well, it turns out this emperor had no clothes after all. But when he finally realized something was fishy, somewhere around late 2005, he says there was nothing he could do about it:
“If we [had] tried to suppress the expansion of the subprime market, do you think that would have gone over very well with the Congress?” Mr. Greenspan said. “When it looked as though we were dealing with a major increase in home ownership, which is of unquestioned value to this society—would we have been able to do that? I doubt it.”
Funny thing, I happen to agree with him. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have tried, though. Nor does it excuse the rather shocking disclosure of the limits of his understanding of derivatives and the mortgage market and what it all meant.
One of the most interesting quotes from Greenspan is this:
We could have basically clamped down on the American economy, generated a 10 percent unemployment rate,” he said. “And I will guarantee we would not have had a housing boom, a stock market boom or indeed a particularly good economy either.”
In other words, we could have suffered then instead of suffering now. There is no free lunch; ever hear of it? I wonder if Greenspan has.
When a bubble is created, it must burst at some point, because bubbles are inherently fragile things. But just try telling it to Congress, then or now.
[NOTE: House of Eratosthenes expands on these ideas.]
An “unprecedented” stimulus bill
I certainly haven’t read the stimulus bill. Few have, since it wasn’t posted as promised, and its length is extraordinary.
But here’s a summary of its provisions that makes chilling reading. It illustrates why people (including me) were so incensed about the prospect of “creeping socialism” and “redistribution of income,” and a host of other moves to the left if Obama and a resoundingly Democrat Congress were elected. The stimulus bill certainly seems to fit the bill.
You might say we deserve this, because the people voted for it. I’m not so sure most voters realized that their “throw the bums out” feeling on election day 2008 would result in this sort of thing. But whether we realized it or not, this is what that action hath wrought.
So much of this bill has nothing to do with financial stimulus, and everything to do with extending benefits to liberal Democrats’ traditional constituents. But in order to pass it, several things seem necessary: to keep the American people from knowing the details, to rush it through before they can find out, and to label the whole thing (including the rush) as absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophe.
Obama is very fond of that oh-so-reassuring word “catastrophe.” He also likes to say that what we’re facing now is “unprecedented.” Both create a sense of extreme urgency.
Well, in a sense, every event is new, and different from all those that have preceded it, so in that sense everything is unprecedented. But what’s really so unprecedented about the current crisis?
The sound of silence on Iraq
But who cares, right? Leave it to the historians; maybe they will.
I care, of course. But then, who am I? Just an evil neocon.
[ADDENDUM: There’s bad news, as well. But this sort of thing will continue to occur for some time, and does not negate the widespread progress. It just reminds us of the nature of this particular enemy.]
Sad, and then sadder still: the Continental 3407 crash
After the euphoria of the Hudson River landing, in which all on board were safe when it made an emergency splashdown, the news of last night’s crash fatal for all aboard comes as a special shock.
And this is especially sad: a 9/11 widow who had been active in governmental reforms to try to prevent a repeat has died in the fiery wreckage. Beverly Eckerdt, still grief-striken over the loss of her husband and childhood sweetheart in the WTC attacks, was on the plane.
For those who believe that we are reunited with loved ones after death, it is comforting to think that she is now in a happier place, together with the love of her life. For all of us, the crash is a sad reminder of the unpredictability of life and death.
As for the person who died on the ground, when the plane fell on his/her suburban Buffalo home at 10:20 PM on a Thursday night, he/she probably knew nothing of what fate had in store. The plane seems to have dive-bombed straight down to hit the house as though it were a target—although, miraculously, two other people in the home escaped with only minor injuries. One can only imagine the horror and stunned surprise of the terrible event for them, seemingly safe in their home on a cold winter evening.
Ice on the wings seems to be implicated in the crash. It’s a problem that more often happens on takeoff, and has caused other crashes. In this case, however, the plane was landing, and if ice was involved we can conclude it probably built up some time during the flight. Certain cloud formations and weather conditions are known to present such a hazard, and those who work in the field of airline safety have been on the case for some time, trying to steer pilots around such situations:
When ice builds up on the wings of an aircraft, it can simultaneously slow velocity and decrease lift, potentially sending a plane into a catastrophic dive…
The challenge for the forecasters is to locate what one might call the “Goldilocks” region, where conditions are just right. A few degrees too warm, and the water drops won’t freeze on the wings of an aircraft; a few degrees too cold, and the water drops will turn into ice crystals or snow instead…
Over the years, the team [investigating the phenomenon] has found that one perfect setup for ice is a large, relatively uniform area of deep stratus or stratocumulus clouds whose tops are a few degrees below freezing (-12 to -5° C or 11 to 23°F)…The Current Icing Potential (CIP) provides pilots with an online display of high-precision maps that identifies areas of potential aircraft icing produced by cloud drops, freezing rain, and drizzle. It draws on surface observations, numerical models, satellite and radar data, lightning observations, and pilot reports.
American aviation has gotten very good at this sort of thing. But it’s not perfect, as last night’s crash amply demonstrated.
Please say a prayer for all the victims and their families.
Whose bipartisanship is it anyway?
On the bipartisan nature of the stimulus (or lack thereof), we have first the New York Times‘ Richard W. Stevenson:
In cobbling together a plan that could get through both the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama prevailed, but not in the way he had hoped. His inability to win over more than a handful of Republicans amounted to a loss of innocence, a reminder that his high-minded calls for change in the practice of governance had been ground up in a matter of weeks by entrenched forces of partisanship and deep, principled differences between left and right.
And then there’s Peter Wehner of Commentary:
It’s not simply that Obama gained no Republican votes in the House for his plan, and got only three in the Senate. It is that Obama himself never made a serious play at bipartisan cooperation. What he did was allow Nancy Pelosi and liberal House Democrats to write the legislation. Republicans were shut out. And once the legislation emerged, Republicans were asked to come on board. They politely but emphatically declined. It turns out spending a few hours with the GOP caucus and hosting a Super Bowl party does not constitute authentic bipartisanship.
Note the differences in the two reports of the same events. The Times sees Obama as a well-intentioned naif, learning the hard way that his dreams of bipartisanship are doomed to be thwarted by the realities of Congress with its “entrenched” partisanship.
Wehner mentions what the Times carefully leaves out: Obama’s “inability to win over more than a handful of Republicans” and the death of his “high-minded calls for change in the practice of government” (both phrases from the Times article) were engineered by none other than—Barack Obama. So far, his bipartisanship exists only as a campaign slogan.
Reaping what the 2008 election sowed: undivided government
In the buildup to last November’s election I wasn’t an Obama fan, as anyone who reads this blog knows. But I was actually less concerned about Obama in the White House than about Obama in the White House plus the probability of a Congress (especially the Senate) becoming so filled with Democrats that the party would be able to pass virtually any legislation it so desired.
The power of the minority in Congress acts as a check on the majority, and this is true whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in the driver’s seat. This state of affairs is not an accident; it’s part of the wisdom of the original plan. It makes Congress a slow and ponderous body, but that’s by design—and it’s generally a good thing, if you look at the composition of that oh-so-august assemblage.
The current imbalance of power is reflected in this stimulus package: the unholy, mad rush to the passage of a bill that is partly a grab-bag of Democrat wishlists of the past decade or more, partly a group of meaty bones thrown to special interest groups, partly a set of economic interventions the consequences of which are poorly understood, and all of it expensive on an almost unimaginable scale that is nearly certain to beggar future generations.
Yes, the Republicans were hardly fiscal conservatives during the Bush years. But no, the Democrats would not be able to muscle this through if their majorities were not so overwhelming.
And it doesn’t really matter that, at least for now, the Democrats lack the sixty Senators they need for a veto-proof majority, or to prevent a filibuster. First of all, with Obama as President, they don’t really have to fear a veto. Secondly, the Republicans can’t filibuster everything. Thirdly, the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) such as Maine’s Susan Collins, instrumental in negotiations for the current stimulus bill, haven’t received that appellation for nothing (Maine is hardly a Republican state, despite its two Republican senators; it is blue through and through, except in its less-populous rural sections, and a “real” Republican hardly stands a chance of winning a statewide election).
This undivided government was the possibility/probability that concerned me most during the 2008 election. As I wrote then:
…the sort of thing I’m most concerned about this election””what Democrats (or any one party) can do with power. It’s not so much the possibility of an Obama Presidency””although that would be bad enough””but the possibility of an Obama Presidency plus a Congress so strongly Democratic that it might even be filibuster-proof. That combination could do very serious damage indeed…This is the prospect we face: all three branches dominated by the liberal side of the political coin, with no checks on their power but the ability of the people to vote them out next time in two of the branches. Even in the early years of the Bush administration when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, the conservative majority in the Court was very iffy and the breakdown in Congress was very close (at times a tie in the Senate). This time the power of the Democrats is likely to be far greater than that.
The last time so much imbalance occurred was during the Carter years…this was the composition of the Senate:
95th Congress (1977-1979)
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
And this was the composition of the House:
95th Congress (1977-1979)
292 Democrats
143 Republicans
Well, we all know how well those years went. This could be worse.
And I’m not arguing that the same breakdown would be just fine if only Republicans were the party in power. They are quite capable of self-serving politicking, corruption, and wretched excesses—just different ones.
The thinking person’s progressive: Dissenting Justice
I’ve found a new blog that’s well worth taking a look at: Dissenting Justice. It’s written by Darren Lenard Hutchinson, an Ivy-educated law professor at American University.
Hutchinson describes himself thusly:
I am definitely a progressive, but I take pride in having an open mind, provoking debate, and welcoming criticism. In fact, I started this blog because liberals were absolutely uncritical of Obama during the Democratic primaries and unrelentingly harsh and hypocritical towards the Clintons. I believed that it was my responsiblity to try and shake things up, to challenge orthodox thinking, regardless of the candidate I supported. If there’s one thing I hate, it’s a lack of debate and dissent. So, if you want honest and open political and legal discourse — and breaking news and commentary from news media and other blogs — then this is the blog for you.
His description of himself seems to be spot on; although I’ve only read a few things on the blog, they fit his description. Although we disagree on many points, he appears to be that rara avis, a “progressive” who dares to criticize his own party and its hypocrisy, who sometimes gives credit to the Right when he thinks it’s deserved, and who is capable of more than a little bit of critical thinking. Not only that, but he’s a graceful, clear, and fluid writer as well. A refreshing voice on the Left:
You call this “pared?”
Or “tightened and scrubbed?”
Wonderful news from Pelosi: we’re now “pared” down to a lean mean $789 billion.
One of the many things that bother me about this stimulus bill and the earlier bailout bill is the sense of enormous rush. Haste makes waste, does it not? And the combination of “haste” and “Congress” makes for excessive waste.
Obama’s first weeks: who would have done better?
Here’s an apologia for Obama’s first three weeks, from Ruth Marcus.
Her final question:
So if you’re feeling jittery about Obama’s start, ask yourself this: Is there another president in recent memory who would have done better?
It’s an interesting hypothetical. My answer: any previous president in recent memory would have done at least as well, and most would have done better.
Bill Clinton had a similar rocky start, but the country was not in a similar crisis. His early appointees were plagued with undeclared nannies (remember Zoe Baird?) and controversial legal articles (remember Loni Guinier?). He drew ire for beginning his presidency with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” issue of gays in the military, and his big health insurance initiative (headed by wife Hillary) fell with a resounding thud.
But Clinton seemed to learn from his experiences; perhaps Obama will, too. However, he has less time to do so, because of the magnitude of the problems facing him.
Carter struggled with Congress the first year of his presidency and never quite took hold. Maybe he should be placed in the category of “at least as well” as Obama; no better.
But all the rest would have done better. Has any president in recent memory showed the same combination of careless vetting of appointees, plus letting Congress have its way with a bill so important and far-reaching as the current stimulus bill? Has any been so relentless in panic-inducing gloom (with the possible exception of Carter?). Reagan, for example, came to office in a time of economic turmoil, but managed to get his programs implemented while remaining upbeat.
Congress is a huge part of the problem. The American people don’t trust Congress, and rightly so. Its approval rating is in the cellar, and has been for quite some time. So why does Obama? And why did he delegate the writing of the bill to the dreadful (and dreadfully unpopular) Pelosi?
The answer, I believe is leadership. Obama doesn’t have it, despite his rhetoric. And it’s very important—even vital—in times of crisis.
Over three years ago I wrote a post on the subject of leadership, and I’m going to quote something I said back then:
A leader has to give off an aura of trustworthiness and strength, and I don’t know exactly how that’s done. Eloquence can certainly be part of it, although it can also deceive. And of course, words have to reflect more than the aura of strength and trustworthiness, it has to be the real deal. When you listen to a recording of Roosevelt actually speaking those famous words “The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself!” you can hear his own buoyant optimism come through loud and clear in his voice, and it lifts you up. Like a good parent (or leader), he comforts and reassures when it’s needed the most.
It may seem as though I’m repeating myself, since I’ve written a great deal lately about Obama’s pessimism. But more and more it seems to be the key factor in what’s going on right now. This lack of leadership—the inability to convey the idea that there’s a firm hand on the helm—is a goodly part of the reason the markets continue jittery, despite all the bailouts.
Is this what Cloward-Piven looks like?
Are we seeing the Cloward-Piven strategy in action?
If not, why is Obama accelerating his drive to stir up “fear itself?”
President Barack Obama used his first prime-time news conference to paint an extraordinarily bleak picture of America’s future if Congress fails to move quickly to pass stimulus legislation, warning that inaction “could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.”
He told Americans not yet suffering from the economic downturn that they could soon face the same fate as the down and out in Elkhart, Ind, a city he visited today as part of a campaign aimed at convincing Americans to press Congress to pass the recovery legislation.
Obama may not be especially consistent. But this is one topic on which he’s been exactly that, sounding a single depressing note from the very beginning of the financial crisis till the present time. Back on September 16, 2008, I wrote:
Obama’s response has not only been more partisan [than McCain’s], it is also more alarmist. Felix Salmon of Finance Blog compares and contrasts the candidates’ statements on the crisis, and Obama’s comes up short in more departments, including one area I had also noticed: Obama has publicly labeled it “the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
So far it isn’t. But if Obama keeps talking like this, he might do his bit to contribute to its ultimately fitting that definition…Obama is reckless to speak as though a such a catastrophe has already occurred, drumming up fear rather than attempting to calm it through a realistic appraisal of what we are facing right now.
Of course, Obama supporters will say he was merely prescient.
Sometimes…
…I just get a yen to look at some ugly dresses.
This particular bunch were featured at this year’s Grammys. Feast your eyes, and ponder how it was that these women came to choose these particular duds.
First up, Phoebe Price—and the Price isn’t right. Who is Price, you might ask? Her major claim to fame seems to be showing up in outrageous outfits at red carpet events. It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to do it, and Ms. Price seems up to the task:
But we’re just warming up. Next we have the supposedly multitalented M.I.A., an artist previously unknown to me. She’s pregnant here, but that doesn’t go very far towards explaining the following:
And lastly we have Bai Ling, an actress also previously unknown to me (that’s a fairly large set). The following dress would have been somewhat unattractive even without the bow. But that embellishment happily and resoundingly catapults it into the category of the deeply and spectacularly silly:
