Oh, Tommy . . .

You really should have kept your trap shut.

You really have nothing to say about Iraq that has any credibility, unless, perhaps, it's an apology.

You now:

As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track? After 9/11, the idea of helping to change the context of Arab politics and address the root causes of Arab state dysfunction and Islamist terrorism — which were identified in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report as a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and a deficit of women’s empowerment — seemed to me to be a legitimate strategic choice.

You then:

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. . . We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth . . .

We're getting closer to the day . . .

. . . when someone actually writes a book about what actually happened during the Bush administration. I hope I live to see it.

Just like ancient Rome

Paul and his whining:

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile".

At least he attracts good readers with interesting things to say - the comments are better:

As an engineer and a one-time scientist I will tell you that all the admininstrations since Nixon have been anti-science. Oh, I forgot Reagan. He was big on defense science. His time was a boom period for those of us in toy development.

Ever since global warming and the end of cheap energy became obvious to scientist, corporations have been threatened by science. The first move to eliminate government funding of basic research began in 1972 under Nixon. This when the first warnings of the end of cheap oil and the effects of over-population and pollution came to light. A Rand Corporation white paper predicted how a rapid growth in population would produce dire consequences for human kind; that was 1969.

Corporations found it easier to turn down the volume by turning down the funding. That way, the average investor can stay fat, dumb and happy. Then, they started buying scientists to spin their own story. So, here we are with pseudo science to match the few who will speak up. Fortunately, there are more social-leaning governments in Europe to speak the truth.

Listen, the cheap oil started running out in 2003 when the Saudis lost one of their big reservoirs (background: Hubbert's Peak-wikapedia). The ACS published results showing that mercury contamination in fish caught in mountain streams match the levels in those raised in farms --- and, that level is near the danger threshhold. The temperature rise we are measuring annually will accelerate once the ice caps are melted year-round and this will happen in only a couple of dozen year --- and, it can't be reversed.

How do the rich benefit if the earth is over-populated, hungry, and in the dark. The rich always benefit. Look at Rome; you just climb higher over the corpses.

Finally . . .

Someone makes the connection:

"If James Murdoch was giving his lecture this year," Thompson writes, "I'd suggest he amended only one word in that final sentence. The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is not profit. Nor who you know. Nor what corners you can cut. It's integrity."

Better late than never.

Best Fiscal Policy Proposal Yet

To end our long-term fiscal crisis I'm with Paul. I, too, believe that our only option is commence sub-orbital hostilities against the invading Venusian space armada.

Go back to law school

Ain't it the truth - commentary on the 11th Circuit travesty from an always-thoughtful commenter on TPM:

I'm a lawyer. It's hard to explain just how outside the mainstream this kind result would have been just 5-10 years ago.

I graduated a top law school in '02. If you had written something like this on your 1L Con Law exam you would have gotten an F, because it's not just a wrong view, it's a view that ignores 60 years of precedent.

To overturn the health care law is to erase the profound turn that the Supreme Court took in 1937 when it rejected the Lochner Era approach and adopted the modern/New Deal era approach to jurisprudence.

The idea that we're even having this conversation - and the Circuit courts are splitting on this question! - suggests just how far we've come in a very, very short time. The movement conservatives have all come out of the closet - even the ones on the federal bench. They smell a final victory: a return to Gilded Age America.

About that debt crisis, what can I say . . .

Obama's people just can't understand what happened.

If only someone warned them!

Save the Fair Maiden

Courtesy of the BBC today, Rupert inform us of his that his top priority is his red-head at the helm, as opposed to fully cooperating with police and getting to the bottom of what went wrong on her watch. Rupert appears not to be very concerned about the people in this country - other than Rebekah, of course - or their institutions.

Meanwhile, sonny-boy shrugs his shoulders:

On Thursday, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, announced the paper would be closing down in the wake of the latest revelations and in its final editorial the paper said: "Quite simply, we lost our way".

News International said James Murdoch had no knowledge of the e-mails that Harbottle & Lewis were asked to review.

Here is a former NoW reporter's description of life in the trenches (also courtesy of the BBC) - an excerpt:

Moral qualms? Rarely. Celebrities, politicians and common-or-garden scumbags were the stock-in-trade and absolutely fair game.

Who would care about the ethics if you exposed a dodgy politician or a paedophile? Certainly not me.

You could put the fear of God into an MP just by phoning and saying: "Hi, I'm a reporter from the News of the World."

Kind of "ignore me at your peril". Definitely a thrill.

And to be honest, we were onto the next thing so quickly that we didn't have time to reflect on the stories and those involved.

All investigative reporters from any paper or TV channel have to cross boundaries to get the story. The end often justified the means.

And the resources? At 10am on a Tuesday (the start of the working week for us), it was: "Dan, go to Heathrow Airport. Pick up five grand in cash from the Amex desk. Get to Sardinia. Now." Boring? No.

But you were only as good as your last story, and I've heard other former journos describe how your bylines were counted up over the year, to see who would get the sack.

Based on demonstrable evidence to date, is it remotely plausible that News International "lost its way"? The only way in which this might be the case is that - for once - they've been caught red-handed and are on the defensive. But fret not: this, too, shall pass. Rupert's here to save his red-headed lass; he's taken the reins and they'll be on their way before you know it. They know exactly where they're going.

I hate the fact I didn't write this

Yes, News International is a "Good" Empire:

. . . I'm over the moon about that the Culture Secretary is about to make News Corporation an even more colossal media empire than it already was (it owns a third of the British newspaper market), despite heavy criticism leveled at News Corp-owned News of the World this week by the liberal media, who resorted to "facts" and "basic decency" in order to ruin this paper's good name.

Read the rest - someone finally puts their finger on the key to the Murdochs hold over governments:

The LAST thing anyone wants is a plurality of opinion and voices in the media. After all, when I said I heard lots of voices in my head, they called me MAD. This government has made the same decision I made -- pick one of those voices and follow it. No matter how INSANE and EVIL publications like News of the World appear to be -- according to "the facts" -- we can rest easy that this noble empire is about to become a lot more powerful, thanks to Jeremy Hunt.

Profound Insights by James Murdoch

James Murdoch today:

"These allegations are shocking and hugely regrettable."

Yes, James, deleting a murdered school-girl's voice-mails during a frantic search for her is pretty damned regrettable. It's good to know that you see this.

Of course, James fully supports the editor in charge at the time:

"Rebekah [Brooks] and I are absolutely committed, this company is committed, to doing the right thing and what that means is about co-operating and working fully with the police investigations into those alleged practices and into those activities. It's also about putting into place the processes, so that we understand what happened and we have a process in place to make sure these things don't happen again. I'm satisfied that Rebekah, her leadership of this business and her standard of ethics and her standard of conduct throughout her career are very good."

Gotta love the Murdochs. Thank God we can look to them to ensure "the plurality and independence of news provision, which is so important for our democracy."

I wonder when the penny drops . . .

. . . and it occurs to people, the media, the politicians and the police, that if you consider the incremental timeline of events leading up to where we are today in the phone hacking scandal, the pattern practically screams denial, deferral, obfuscation, misdirection and repeated, blatant lying by the most senior officials in the Murdoch machine. Consider, for example, how and when the first phone hacking allegations emerged - how long ago? - about the Royal Family. A relatively innocuous News of the World story about Prince William's knee injury was the first indication something fishy was going on at NoW. That story, published in November 2005, prompted fears that the voicemail messages of those closest to him were being intercepted. A police inquiry began. Any reputable organisation would have conducted a full internal investigation and rooted out any rot elsewhere. What was the outcome? In January 2007, two journalists, Goodman and Mulcaire were jailed for hacking. Then-editor Andy Coulson resigned but claimed he did not know about the practice, after which he was brought into the Prime Minister's cabinet (good judgement there by the PM!). What happened next? It was not until two-and-a-half years later, in July 2009, that the claims resurfaced again. The Guardian newspaper reported that NoW journalists had been involved in the hacking of up to 3,000 celebrities, politicians and sports stars' phones. And the police and the Press Complaints Commission had found no new evidence of phone hacking. So with all of that in mind, consider where we are today and consider why we should believe anything anyone in power or in the media has to say on the matter.

Getting kind of ridiculous now

On the whole, it's probably safe to say that the UK's Press Complaints Commission appears not to have performed up to par. But, what do you expect when you are effectively owned by those you are supposed to regulate?

This thing has descended into farce.

Ideally, it should be game, set, match

And I'm not talking about Wimbledon. I'm talking about the spectacularly ill-advised pending complete takeover of British Sky Broadcasting by Fox and friends at News Corp, which I've previously commented on from . . . time . . . to . . . time.

In a rational world, the latest stomach-churning revelations would be fatal to Rupert Murdoch's dreams of media consolidation in Britain.

But, sadly, Britain is not a rational world:

". . . Business Secretary Vince Cable set the terms of the investigation of the takeover as being exclusively about whether the deal would harm plurality or choice in the media.

"Mr Cable could have specified that there should be a review of whether News Corp is a fit and proper owner, but he chose not to do so. That means, according to my source, that Mr Hunt's hands are tied.

"That said, the media regulator Ofcom is not constrained in this way, according to a government official. Ofcom does have the power to determine whether News Corp is a fit-and-proper owner of all of BSkyB, or even its current holding of 39%.

"However, Ofcom can't make the adjudication until the police have completed their investigation of the extent of hacking and other invasions of people's privacy by the News of the World."

How fortunate for the Murdochs. Funny how that worked out.

The continent, too, wants in on the train wreck

I suspect Keynes isn’t very popular in Germany. For all I know they never heard of him. Angela Merkel appears to be either unimpressed or uninformed as she seeks to find political cover by convincing angry Germans that in return for Germany stumping up a few Euros more, Greece, Ireland and Portugal will sell everything that isn’t nailed down and impose fiscal austerity in ways their respective populations haven’t yet imagined possible. The Germans – and the ECB – will effectively take up residence in these countries’ Ministries of Finance, but this will not go unnoticed in the piazzas outside.

As real austerity begins to kick in, the political situation will become simply untenable.

Yes, fiscal stabilization in Europe is desired at all costs, but the reality of what is entailed to do this – absent adopting other Keynsian solutions in the mix - will without doubt destroy what is left of the EU’s political legitimacy.

I am not an economist and I don’t play one on the tee vee. I freely admit I am supremely unqualified to write or speak intelligently on Europe’s fiscal mess. And yet, perhaps purely by serendipitous coincidence, others have noted Keynes is fatally absent in today’s policy-making circles. Henry Farrell and John Quiggin, the latter the author of the great Zombie Economics, have written in the current edition of Foreign Affairs:

“. . . institutionalizing austerity will badly damage European economies in the short term – and the long-term consequences will be even worse. European politicians worry about the economic consequences if their attempts at fiscal stabilization fail. They should be far more worried about the political consequences.”

After Greece was caught cooking the books and Ireland was caught out as ridiculously profligate, when bondholders ran for the exits, the EU managed to contain the immediate crisis by creating the European Financial Stability Facility. This has the power to issue bonds and raise money to help eurozone states. The Facility stepped in with the International Monetary Fund provide short-term relief.

Beyond the short-term, however, it’s not a pretty picture. Portugal is likely to receive 50-100 billion euros over the next few months. If Spain also requires a bailout, the Facility will fall short. Default is not an option in Europe: the only absolute truth is that so long as a eurozone exists, there will be no Argentinas – at least as long as Germany has anything to say about it. As a result, Germany sees no alternative except making ruthless cuts in government spending. This seems fruitless: bondholders are likely to remain unconvinced in part because they know such cuts will not be politically sustainable.

As the authors point out, the EU is in mortal danger of “compounding its ongoing economic crisis with a political crisis of its own making”.

The only way out is Keynes:

“The short-term solution is clear – even if the European Central Bank, which is still fighting the war against the inflation of the 1980s and 1990s, refuses to recognize it. The solution is a one-off combination of market purchases of bonds and other financial assets, temporarily higher inflation, and fiscal support with the issuance of a common European bond. Quantitative easing, and higher inflation would help ease the pain of adjustment, and a European bond would allow the weaker eurozone states to raise money on international markets. All of this would shore up the euro long enough to allow for further-reaching reforms down the road.”

Everyone would have to make compromises:

“The major euro bondholders would have to bear some of costs – as they should, since they lent excessively during the first years of this century – through either explicit haircuts (in effect a discount of their bonds’ value) or inflation. Germany might not enjoy experiencing temporarily higher inflation, but if this were a one-time cost, it could probably live with the results – as long as it was also reassured that the long-term gain would be stability in the eurozone.”

Sadly, even if I thought policy-makers appreciated the peril of continuing down our current road to ruin, I’ve yet to see a European politician emerge with the courage and leadership qualities necessary to forge the required consensus.

Which makes my disappointment in Obama – who possesses such qualities – all the more painful.

Too bad he wouldn't listen

He heard, but didn't listen:

"If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we’re going to do it. If somebody has an idea for a tax cut that is better than a tax cut we’ve proposed, we will embrace it . . . Just show me. If you can show me that something is going to work, I will welcome it"

That was in January 2009. Had Obama listened to the Nobel laureate - and others who knew a thing or two about fiscal stimulus - the economic recovery and especially the jobs situation would not be his Achilles Heel going into 2012.

I will never understand why - when Obama had all the political capital he required - he refused to accept the obvious.

Meanwhile, reality is finally staring to intrude on the coalition government and its Chancellor as Britain provides textbook instruction on how to repeat the mistakes of the past, with devastating results. The Guardian predictably piles on, but Hutton, as usual, puts it best:

"It is a tragedy – not only for our own unemployed and millions more whose chances of upward mobility and advancement have been wrecked, but for the character of the international debate. The UK – and the world – deserve better."

As the U.S. follows Britain lemming-like into the abyss, three words ought to haunt our leaders: John Maynard Keynes.

The golden age of comedy

We should be grateful our era has provided so much rich material.

Stephen Colbert To FEC: I Don't Want To Be The 'Chump' Without Unlimited Corporate Cash

Stephen wants a piece of the action that could be coming his way thanks to the Citizens United decision.

In the house of R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming

Without doubt this is the most insightful post about the Royal Wedding that I've seen. That hat deserves special attention. An apt description:

. . . a thing which was little more than a protoplasmic mass, from the body of which tentacles of every length and thickness flailed forth, from the head of which, constantly altering shape from an amorphous bulge to a simulacrum of a man's head, a single malevolent eye appeared.

. . . which also happens to describe a certain ancient unspeakable cosmic horror. Coincidence? I think not.

Remembering Chris Hondros

For me this was the iconic photo of the Iraq debacle. It just said it all.

He was a superior, fearless, possibly reckless photographer. He also had the eye.

Here was a photographer who could attend to the details of composition and lighting, while conveying volumes with elegant simplicity, sometimes under fire and always under circumstances few can comprehend.

Excellent remembrance and photo montage from, of all newspapers, the WSJ.

Late update: the one piece of good news conveyed in the New York Times article about Samar Hassan, the poor unfortunate photographed above, is that the U.S. brass - all the way up to the Joint Chiefs - considered the photo to be a problem. Would like to think there were some sleepless nights in northern Virginia.

Later update: here is the Guardian's retrospective.

Later update: fixed the links.

Justice delayed

The DOJ OPR were prevented from referring this piece of work to the Bar for disciplinary action - she received immunity in return for her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Fortunately, the Virginia State Bar have taken matters into their own hands. It's a start.

Meanwhile, John Yoo is back in the media, yet again, complaining that Obama killed Osama because Obama didn't have the cajones to torture someone whose name rhymes with his own.

And, Yoo's former go-to girl is doing quite nicely, thank you very much, sitting pretty in her appellate practice in a top-end Washington law firm.

No comment necessary

Yes, a tad infantile. Sorry about that - but even Juan Cole posted it, so that makes it okay - speaking of whom, his "informed comment" on the topic is worth reading.

Late update: agree with Juan that the next step for Obama is to get us out of Iraq:

Now that Obama has eliminated the monster Usama Bin Laden and vindicated the capability of the United States to visit retribution on its dire enemies, he can do one other great good for this country abroad. He can get us out of Iraq altogether. The US military presence there is the fruit of a poisonous tree. It will always provoke Iraqi Muslim activists, whether Sunni or Shiite or secular nationalist. And it angers the whole Arab world.

Speak of the Devil

Apropos of the previous post, the man who would advise the president he can slaughter a village is appalled Obama might force disclosure of political donations, except, perhaps . . .

. . . there's no word from Yoo on whether the President has the executive power to torture executives to force them to disclose their political donations.

"Sure"-ly not!

Late update: a TPM commenter feels compelled to make the obvious point:

It goes almost without saying that Yoo is lying. The small businesswoman, acting as an individual, can give as much money as she wants without disclosing it. Only when she signs a check to a political organization on an account belonging to the business does this rule come into play.

Poli-Sci 101

So the Gitmo Papers are out - and while they caused barely a ripple in the news cycle - what with the Royal Wedding coming up and all - it's interesting to reflect that everything some of us learned in American History, high school civics classes, Poli-Sci classes in university and Con Law in law school went right out the window at the first opportunity:

Innocent men were picked up on the basis of scant or nonexistent evidence and subjected to lengthy detention and often to abuse and torture. Some people were released who later acted against the United States. Inmates who committed suicide were regarded only as a public relations problem. There are seriously dangerous prisoners at Guantánamo who cannot be released but may never get a real trial because the evidence is so tainted.

While Mr. Obama did stop the torture and perhaps (we think? we hope?) the renditions, he didn't put an end for once and for all to the enduring blight - the existence of Guantanamo - on everything we were supposed to stand for.

Worse, he let the bastards who definitely knew better - the lawyers - get away with it. And . . . not only did they get away with it, they flourished.

Not to put to fine a point on it, here is the previous administration's chief lawyer's vision of executive power. Here is why this vision as articulated is really just another misdirection not to be taken remotely seriously, assuming of course anyone has cared enough to pay attention.

So - off to the liquour store I go.

Obama finally kicks it in gear

Krugman's assessment - good to see the Bush tax cuts expire. Love the use of the Stockman quote.

Couldn't agree more with Marshall:

President Obama's core angle in this speech seems to be to focus on the fact that country got deficits under control in late 90s under Clinton and then went off the deep-end again with the Bush binge. Hard to beat the truth.

If Marx was a great historian but a lousy economist, Caldwell sucks at both

The execrable Caldwell: so pathetic, if well read:

The high point in The Gallery of Antiquities, Balzac’s great novel of debt, comes when gendarmes are arresting the young Count d’Esgrignons for a forgery committed to cover his borrowing. The loyal notary Chesnel, attached to the d’Esgrignons family by generations of service, has already spent his own modest fortune to get the young count out of such scrapes, but he is at the end of his resources. “If I don’t manage to smother this story,” he tells the count matter-of-factly, “you’ll have to kill yourself before the indictment is read out.” The count realises in a flash that people have lent him money not because they have more than they know what to do with, or because he’s a nice guy, or because his privileges are the natural order of things. They have lent him money because they have made certain assumptions about his honour – misplaced assumptions, as it turns out.

The great irony of Caldwell's literary allusion is that - while evidently trying to impress with his grasp of eternal truths about debt and honour (or something like that) - he succeeds only in impressing us with his utter cluelessness about any economic history that might be considered actually relevant to the dire situation facing us now. More telling, perhaps, is the fact that he has looked to an unrepentant reactionary and royalist (Balzac) for inspiration.

Sadly, Caldwell's brand of simple-mindedness is holding policy-making sway in Washington and London. Will Hutton, in today's Observer, is distraught, and rightly so:

In Washington, a resurgent Republican party took the American government to within two hours of being closed down for lack of politically authorised funds as it battled for swingeing cuts in federal spending. Across the Atlantic, an army of hedge funds and investment banks forced a lame-duck Portuguese government to turn to the IMF and European Union for a multibillion euro bail out. In Britain, George Osborne championed the breathtaking speed of his budget reduction plan by saying he would not play Russian roulette with British economic sovereignty. Everywhere are the echoes of the language Keynes tried to dispel at Bretton Woods.

Keynes: he always looms large in times like these. As Hutton observes, it is the spectre of Keynes who should be haunting us now, not some count in a Balzac novel.

At this critical juncture, it is worth remembering that today's red-faced crusaders for fiscal austerity were yesterday's sudden converts to Keynes (albeit without bothering trying to grasp what Keynes had actually intended) when Bush busily squandered U.S. budget surpluses on tax cuts and wars. These are many of the same people who are now (conveniently) rounding on America's supposedly bloated entitlements programs as the main deficit culprits. Keeping this kind of a scorecard is helpful when trying to decide who should be taken seriously when the chips are down, and who should not be.

This is not to say, of course, that long-term fiscal imbalances need not be redressed. Of course they do. The question is when, and how. William Keegan explains:

. . . having worked at a central bank myself, I am aware of that institutional desire to act "pre-emptively", in the words of a former head of the US Federal Reserve (not Alan Greenspan); that it is important to take the punchbowl away once the party gets going.

But the party has not got going in the UK.

The same might be said of the U.S. The current mess is a classic Keynes moment. Now is when we should be dusting off the manual, not talking about Balzac. Keegan points out:

Every day we read of the consequences of excessive austerity in countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

These would be the consequences that Keynes was trying to avoid. The fact that we seem to need to repeat past mistakes, including in the U.S. and the UK, is somewhat depressing.

Hutton concludes:

Economists and business leaders should not let the chancellor get away with Tea party-style statements about Britain risking bankruptcy and having no choices but to suffer. Keynes dedicated his life to challenge that thinking and for some years kept it at bay. The bad news is that it may only be disasters, like the one Keynes lived through, that will make people change their minds. The good news is that there are a lot of a very good and iconoclastic economists – many here – from many countries who want to take up the fight again. It's a race against conventional thinking – and time.

It's nice to see the police do their job . . .

. . . even if it happens after Murdoch already got what he wanted. Still, beggars can't be choosy. I had feared this one might go down the memory hole.

Late update: The FT weighs in - this scandal has legs: it may be the kind that causes governments to fall and applications for media domination (all part of the Murdoch plan to ensure the "plurality and independence of news provision") to be rejected faster than a police chief's dinner.

The big fish just need to be reeled in.

Later update: It's today's headline in the Observer. Hard to believe James Murdoch would be quite so stupid as to brag about "putting this problem in a box." Funny, I was reading about how Madoff only was able to carry on for so long only by compartmentalising, too. In any case, the chorus is growing louder: the Murdochs are not to be trusted with power.

Ben Bernanke . . .

. . . hot or not?

It figures

From judicial train-wrecks to literal car-wrecks. Next thing we'll hear he's on the lam, holed up in some fleabag Arizona motel.

There he goes again

Oh, shut up already, Mr. Smarty-Pants!

"And then there’s the British experience. Like America, Britain is still perceived as solvent by financial markets, giving it room to pursue a strategy of jobs first, deficits later. But the government of Prime Minister David Cameron chose instead to move to immediate, unforced austerity, in the belief that private spending would more than make up for the government’s pullback. As I like to put it, the Cameron plan was based on belief that the confidence fairy would make everything all right.

"But she hasn’t: British growth has stalled, and the government has marked up its deficit projections as a result.

"Which brings me back to what passes for budget debate in Washington these days.

"A serious fiscal plan for America would address the long-run drivers of spending, above all health care costs, and it would almost certainly include some kind of tax increase. But we’re not serious: any talk of using Medicare funds effectively is met with shrieks of “death panels,” and the official G.O.P. position — barely challenged by Democrats — appears to be that nobody should ever pay higher taxes. Instead, all the talk is about short-run spending cuts."

Perhaps Krugman should try a different tactic: perhaps he should advise in favour of the opposite of what he really thinks should be done. Maybe that's where he's going wrong.

A helpful flowchart

It may not help you understand what to do about Libya, but it will help you understand . . . Republicans.

Does not compute

If there is one thing I understand less than people who lie to get us into a war it's the wilful delusion of those who are determined to keep us out of one.

I've lost count of the number of lefty-types on my tee-vee who just don't seem to give a shit what would have happened to the people of Benghazi had we not intervened. Strike that - I might understand if they just admitted they didn't give a shit - but it's worse than that: they continue to insist the people of Benghazi would have been better off without us.

One guy on 'beeb recommended we should leave Libyans to get on with their demonstratin' and remonstratin' unencumbered by our no-fly zone. I can only assume this is so they might present easier targets for Gaddafi's goons.

Makes my head spin.

Hitting bottom

I've seen little point in blathering about Japan. Anything I might say would be redundant, reductive or derivative.

Until now.

Certain aspects of the wall-to-wall media hysteria did have me wondering if predictions of the impending nuclear apocalypse were over-hyped. Now that the crisis seems to be have been rationalised, with nuclear genie back in the bottle, a little hindsight clearly shows that the western media seems to have performed as expected: woefully. From a TPM reader and putative "student of Japan":

"Of course fear sells newspapers, but in unfortunate cases, the coverage is rooted in long-standing prejudices held by some Westerners against the non-West: for instance, a superiority complex that feels only the West and its media have real access to the truth, which led to a downplaying of Japanese media reports. In the worst cases, there has been simple racism, as some reporters when viewing how calm the Japanese are, seem to think the Japanese are mere robots who cannot grasp the immensity of the crisis or, as one colleague reports when a Spanish reporter interviewed her, think that the Japanese are genetically tuned to accept disaster. It is ironic that such reports assume such an attitude when, at the same time through their own inaccuracies, they show how much better the Japanese coverage is."

I would prefer to be wrong

But I fear I won't be. It's already looking perilously late to get our collective asses, whom the Guardian is correctly exhorting to action, in gear.

Rawnsley is more pointed about the west's predicament:

Some of these dilations are a legacy of the Iraq war. Eight years on from the invasion, the calamitous errors after the toppling of Saddam continue to poison the cause of liberal interventionism. The shadow of Iraq makes it harder to win the argument that both self-interest and our moral values demand a response when a dictator is brutalising his people on our doorstep. In fear of another Iraq, the west risks repeating a different, earlier mistake: the divided and impotent European response to the slaughter in the Balkans in the 1990s.

If it weren't for Iraq, we would have been in there by now.

The process is what was supposed to protect us. The abasement of our former leaders becomes our abasement, and others will suffer and die needlessly as a result.

The circle is complete.

The hits keep coming

Whatever one thinks of whatever political philosophy he seems to think he espouses, you can't deny the fact that Scalia is a mean-spirited prick. This provides meaningful insight on the quality of his writing.

Late update: From a commenter -

. . . having read many Scalia decisions, I am not as convinced of his supposed 'brilliance' as generally claimed. His opinions were clearly unprincipled, results driven, and often overturned even recent S.Ct precedent. He is one of the most hypocritical on the big bench; when he likes precedent, he waxes on about stability and precedent. When he wants to advance his political agenda - he bulldoze over decades of established precedent.

I remain completely unimpressed by his principles and his mind.

Not such an Inside Job?

Following up on an earlier post, after the Oscars comes the inevitable nitpickers. They have a point: the film is simplistic. Yes, lots of blame to go around. No, it wasn't just the bankers.

It's probably true that perfidy and greed distributed across a broad enough spectrum will have a dilutive effect on accountability with a net result that no one is guilty. Not sure we still shouldn't try to determine who was naughty and who was nice.

Obama needs to rethink this

From the former chief prosecutor at Gitmo. I wonder if he has to resort to finding some inches in a UK paper because U.S. papers still don't give a damn. Pithy statements like this tend not to go over well in the Homeland:

The United States cannot stand up for justice and the rule of law when it sits idly on its own record of torture. It diminishes the weight of its moral authority to influence others around the world when it treats its binding legal obligations as options it can choose to exercise or ignore. If President Obama is sincere about standing up for fundamental values, then America's actions must live up to its rhetoric.

The specific examples of torture referenced by Davis of course are the tip of the iceberg and don't even include our outsourcing of torture under the rendition programme.

Trying to summon the eloquence appropriate to the occasion . . .

This guy is such a dick.

How will we know when to vote Republican?

I just noticed the terrorists have won. The DHS has decided to scrap the colour-coded alert scheme, effective 27th April. It's a good thing for me because I always confused it with London Underground status updates:

BTW, we never did get to the bottom of the conspiracy.

Annoying

He's really pissing me off - being right the way he is all the time:

"The clear and present danger to recovery, however, comes from politics — specifically, the demand from House Republicans that the government immediately slash spending on infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more. Quite aside from their negative long-run consequences, these cuts would lead, directly and indirectly, to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs — and this could short-circuit the virtuous circle of rising incomes and improving finances."

Annoying. Of course, this doesn't mean Republicans will listen. If anything, you can bet on the opposite

Chicken

Things looking to turn ugly in Libya. The west's powerlessness to do anything - even as little as impose a no-fly zone with or without U.N. backing - is an emasculation of will, borne of choices made in Iraq and not made in Palestine. The chickens are coming home to roost - with unfortunate consequences for the people of Libya.

Had the responsible parties been held accountable, had we not allowed them to prevaricate at will, we might not be in this place.

Late update: Really ugly.

Great news!

. . . for Rupert Murdoch. Soon he can put all that unpleasantness behind him.

The "plurality and independence of news provision" is assured!

Late update: looks like the Sky News spin-off might actually prevent total consolidation of independent news under the great god Murdoch. Maybe I'm naive but it's possible someone's heart is in the right place on this. We can only hope.

Later update: damn funny post from the Daily Mash. Yes, in a way I will be disappointed if Murdoch actually and truly divests himself of SkyNews so that Britain is spared the Fox Effect. And, yes, I do believe Murdoch is the avatar for Sauron so this must be just a ruse to trick us into laying down our arms to embrace the Orcs. Must be the PTSDs. Guilty as charged.

Even Later update: not so sure it's quite this bad.

Even LATER update: what, us worry?

The Realpolitik of Naïve

Okay – I really don’t know how sensible or horrible the “Deal in the Desert” was. Maybe on some level it made sense at the time. For the sake of argument we might grant Tony Blair this much. Its crude realpolitik sensibility made you grudgingly accept it for what it was. There was an odd dignity to Tony's unflinching prostitution: he was better playing the honest whore than the sancitmonious crusader.

Even if you accept that people in the west generally understood it was always really about the oil and just fuck the rest, it is striking how quickly we convinced ourselves - or allowed ourselves to be convinced - that 9/11 made for some kind of post-realpolitik paradigm, which our minders in government exploited to the fullest to launch their wars unhindered and unquestioned. Maybe Atrios is right: maybe Egypt has reintroduced us back to reality.

In any case, it seems likely the clock has long since run out for any distinction that would make a difference.

How it's done

An excellent dissection on a random day of how NewSpeak works.

It's a time-honoured tradition.

If you haven't, you should book-mark David Niewart: the man is a saint.

Finance is too important to be left to the financiers

An excellent film - a must see.

By and large, Inside Job accurately portrays the conflicts of interest inherent in the political, academic and financial regulatory systems. It should make anyone with a soul angry: it is especially aggravating, bordering on hilarious, to watch some high-falutin' academic-types squirm heroically, even become angry, as their whorin' ways are laid bare for all to see.

My own two cents: there was a time when the SEC listed as its core responsibilities ensuring market integrity and investor protection. If you check the SEC's current mission statement, these seems downplayed.

It used to be recognised that market integrity was important not only to facilitate the free flow of capital, but also to maintain confidence in the U.S. securities markets. It's as if there was recognition that the country's strength was tied to its reputation for observance of the rules - the rule of law. There was a geo-strategic dimension to America's reputation for the probity of its markets - sort of like respect for human rights (again - the rule of law).

It might just be a coincidence that both of these priorities - market integrity and human rights - began to founder contemporaneously on the rocks of the Reagan revolution. Perhaps it's just an accident that both culminated roughly contemporaneously with the financial crisis and Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

As for investor protection, the following is now emphasised on the SEC's website:

The world of investing is fascinating and complex, and it can be very fruitful. But unlike the banking world, where deposits are guaranteed by the federal government, stocks, bonds and other securities can lose value. There are no guarantees. That's why investing is not a spectator sport. By far the best way for investors to protect the money they put into the securities markets is to do research and ask questions.

You know what that means!

The Fed, meanwhile, seems to give a shit about the public - well, officially, at least. Their mission statement is slightly more reassuring. Among other things, they emote:

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas[, among them]:

• . . . supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
• maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets . . .

That's more like it!

But this guy, a self-professed acolyte of Ayn Rand, was at the helm:

"Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtue, not vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear."

I blame Ayn Rand!

Meanwhile, Obama shows no signs of doing anything meaningful about any of the above.

Late update: as Artios notes, this just in: no indictments forthcoming. It seems, so sayeth the good Professor Coffee, there are simply too many un-indicted co-conspirators.