The more I read . . .

. . . the more I like. Even as a Supreme Court newbie, Kagan showed remarkable sophistication and prescience . . .

Drill, baby, drill!

It's all about progress . . .

Fair-reading

Souter speaks . . . finally.

"Time to exchange the winter dirt for some fresh summer dirt in that sandbag she calls a mind"

- taken from a comment on another blog. Pretty infantile, I know, but not as infantile as when the rock star of the Right blames the "greenies" for the BP disaster.

I'm afraid Frank has missed the point

I like Frank Rich - the way he steps back to afford a view of the bigger picture - but this article, as good as it is, fails to call the Obama administration on its more fundamental failure: it's manifest betrayal of the principles it was put in power to advance. For moderates and progressives, Obama's policy initiatives (or lack thereof) have been extremely disappointing - far more a continuation of the previous administration's ruinous course. Instead of throwing down a clear marker signalling a break with the egregious past, Obama only nibbled at the edges of such things as civil rights and torture, especially in his wilful failure to hold perpetrators accountable, and outright embraced certain other Bush-era policies, like offshore drilling - despite the manifest corruption of the Minerals Dept.

In introductory courses on administrative law, budding young lawyer-wannabes learn all about "capture theory", which posits that for a variety of obvious reasons regulatory agencies quickly become "captured" by the industries they regulate. Lack of effective oversight of such agencies becomes, axiomatically, fatal. Obama went to a pretty good law school, and yet we seem to need to experience - catastrophically - this axiom put into practice.

This - thus far - is the signal failure of the Obama presidency and, unlike Bush, he knew better.

Ted Hearts Bison

On balance I think people should lighten up and let Ted continue with this - I think it's pretty cool and should be encouraged. The idea that bison should be confined to the Park and kept entirely off limits as if they are museum relics once they cross the park boundary is ridiculous. Ted is paving the way to acceptance by a paranoid ranching community that just needs to get over the fact that their industry is contracting.

Me like what me see . . .

While some aspects of her oeuvre are not great (e.g., I worry that her rejection of judicial activism won't extend to the masturbatory rantings by nutcases like Scalia since it's become conventional wisdom that conservatives by definition can't be judicial activists, which is completely ridiculous), this is pretty good stuff:

During Ms. Kagan’s confirmation for solicitor general, she was asked whether the president has the authority to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court.

She cited a three-part analysis established by the Supreme Court in a 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, which struck down president Harry S. Truman’s authority to seize the nation’s steel mills in the name of national security. (The Justice Department cited the same analysis in 2006 in justifying President George W. Bush’s power to order the National Security Agency surveillance program, as did Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.) The analysis notes that “when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress,” presidential “power is at its lowest ebb” and these circumstances should be rare.

Obama picks a uniter, not a divider

Interesting track record at Harvard - Obama's tacking to the middle. Not sure she'll be able to do much to forge a consensus among the Supremes when one is a raving lunatic and another may as well be in a coma.

What in the world is the Guardian smoking?

It's so over for Gordon, I don't care what drugs are making the Guardian suggest it isn't.

I, too, recently believed that the Lib-Dems HAD to find a way to make a coalition work with Labour if they wanted any prayer of electoral reform that approximates proportional representation (and basic notions of fairness), but the gap is too wide, and they are going to be screwed by the Tories, plain and simple. The Lib-Dems just don't have the numbers to make it work the way they want. It's going to be a mess here in the UK for the foreseeable future.

This parliament will not "hang" well (cue the porn jokes), anyway you look at it.

True to my investment prowess, the prospect of continued aimless dithering in the UK while Greece burns compelled me to cash out of my money market fund in the U.S. and invest in the markets. Timing is everything! Oh well: Warren Buffet I ain't.

These are starting to resurface

It was the taxi-driver's story that made me sick . . . let's see if Obama's Justice Department continues its campaign to keep justice out of the play-book.

Late update:

Here's a film worth seeing about what happened to that poor taxi-driver, and the inevitable cover-up which followed.

Murdoch unleashes the hounds . . .

The Tory press is going after Clegg, big time.

Why might this be so? From a reliable source:

. . . the Murdoch press to seek favour from a new government policy in reward for electioneering support that will result in a government that is willing to implement policies to diminish the competition poised by both the BBC and the internet. At the beginning of October the Murdoch press accelerated its objective of winning favour amongst the tory party leadership by the Sun publically declaring its backing for the Conservative party some 6 months ahead of the next General Election.

This has been subsequently been followed by favourable policy proposals out of the Conservative party in the commercial interests of News International such as reported in the Independent in response to Peter Mandelson's allegations of the Tory leaders being suspected of having done a deal with Murdoch.

"Examples of the apparent tie-in between what News International's boss, James Murdoch, wants, and what David Cameron is ready to promise include the recent decision by the Conservatives to abandon the idea of "top slicing" the BBC licence fee. It had been proposed that part of the money paid to the BBC would be siphoned off to help regional television companies meet the threat from the internet. But this would also have helped them compete more effectively against Sky News, which is part of the Murdoch media empire.

When the policy was abandoned in September, Jeremy Hunt, the shadow Culture Secretary, said that it was because enacting it might make the commercial television companies "focus not on attracting viewers but on attracting subsidies". There was no gain for the BBC in the climb down, because David Cameron had already said that the Tories will freeze the licence fee. What it will mean is that the BBC's income will be capped, without the regional television companies seeing any government help, which will strengthen the market position of Britain's only satellite television company, Sky. "This was done for News International," a Tory insider said yesterday. "Murdoch wants Sky to go head to head with the BBC. He doesn't want the independent companies strengthened.”

In April 2008, James Murdoch complained bitterly about the media regulator Ofcom in his first major speech after taking over as chief executive of News Corporation in Europe and Asia. The following year, David Cameron announced that a Conservative government would cut Ofcom down to size."

Why is it important that we prevent Jimmy-boy from turning his beautiful dream into reality? This is why.

The right war for the right reasons . . .

. . . all done according the manual. Riiiight. On a related note, I'm enjoying Tom Bingham's book, The Rule of Law. As many commentators have noted, the most compelling part of Bingham's book is his chapter on the Iraq war:

"It is not at all clear to me what, if any, legal justification of its action the US government relied on . . . If I am right and the invasion of Iraq . . . was unauthorised by the security council, there was a serious violation of international law and the rule of law . . . It is, as has been said, 'the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante.' "

Some interesting statements here from Tom about the Chilcot inquiry.

She clerked for Thomas . . .

. . . and a member of the Federalist society to boot! Quel surprise.

Two years out of law school and writing memos about the president's limitless power, unconstrained by quaint relics like the constitution.

Outstanding!

I've just decided I won't be retaining Kirkland any time soon.

"Sure"

Why not?

The problems with Yoo's patently ridiculous comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

1) Previous to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, there was no treaty against targeting civilians. So, at the time, it would not have been unlawful for the president to order the "massacre of a civilian village". It would have been wrong, but not unlawful.

2) The means of production of weapons is - sadly - a legitimate target in time of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military staging areas and major industrial centers producing munitions. The only reason targeting them is questioned is because people are squeamish about the use of nuclear weapons. If they had been fire-bombed it would have been just another epic tragedy, no more or less noteworthy than any other firebombing perpetrated by McNamara or Churchill.

The real issue is this: Yoo and his boss told the president he is not bound by U.S. law.

A little more color on the torture memo . . .

Margolis overruled OPR, the bastard.

Late update:

If I have lost my job, and am short on funds, context dictates that I am justified in knocking off the liquor store down the street. I'm sure the authorities will understand. You see, this would be an unprecedented situation never experienced by me before - one which threatens my very survival.

Anything is justified, by Mr. Margolis' reckoning.

National Monuments?

Not sure this is a good idea. Not sure I want to see bus tours to Cedar Mesa . . .

Not sure I want wheel-chair ramps here . . .

So much for Justice . . .

These boys got off light, given the extent to which they betrayed their fundamental obligations as lawyers:

The report said “situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the clients want to hear.”

Sadly, the Obama White House's timidity in the face of so enormous a betrayal of our most basic concepts of justice does not come as a surprise.

And of course, this was the tip of the iceberg - the three detainees involved happened to be bona fide al qaeda. There were also innocents who were caught up in this travesty, who were subsequently released.

Another sad day for lawyers who give a shit about the constitution.

Next up . . .

. . . more good times ahead.

Gotta love our sophisticated risk management models.

Cry me a freakin' river

I'm not ordinarily given to emotional excess but, oh, how this guy gets me going . . . every time I see him now on the tee-vee I feel like Mr. Furious transforming into a "ticking timebomb of fury":

"rage . . . taking over . . ."

Yes, Alastair, the poor dear, has been through a lot - it's a real tragedy how this sensitive soul has been "vilified" those who are only out to "settle scores".

I wonder if Alastair includes the 300,000-600,000 Iraqi dead in that particular calculation. Well, at least he can take comfort that someone will offer a shoulder to cry on - after Dubbya, Dick, Wolfie and Rummy, no one provided a better recruiting tool for al qaeda than Alastair and Tony. It's the least they can do.

Late Update:

This article puts a little more precision around the number of Iraqi dead, which may be of interest to some, though I continue to struggle with who in the west those people who care might actually be. Not very popular dinner party conversation, I guess.

From TPM . . .

The red bars are the accelerating rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars are the decelerating rate of job loss during President Obama's first year of office.

The chart was put together by the House Democratic leadership. Click the graph to see the full image.

Same old story . . .

If the left-wing media lost the Viet Nam war, and etc., how does Pajamas Media explain this?

Guess I'm not the only one

It seems others are also underwhelmed by the Chilcot Posse. I like the Guardian's lead editorial today, except, I'm sorry, this isn't just about Tony's poor judgment. Wrong. If a leader sells a war on a false prospectus to the people, especially with such dire consequences, it's more than about judgement: it's about abuse of process, mendacity and "crimes and misdemeanors". Andrew Rawnsley get much closer to the nub of the problem, and he puts his finger on what may prove to be the most tragic consequence of all:

I am instinctively a liberal interventionist who thought that Tony Blair played a creditable role when British forces saved Sierra Leone from sadistic thugs and did so again when Slobodan Milosevic was stopped from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

One of the many tragedies of the Iraq war is that it will be hugely more difficult for any future British leader to persuade his country that there are times when it is not just right but an obligation to intervene when tyrannical states threaten their neighbours or their own people.

The same might be said of the U.S., only moreso.

David Davis does a good job calling the lie on the core premise of Tony's defense.

The old Rope-a-Dope

Tony, unrepentant. It would be nice if the media actually focused on the real issues instead of allowing unaccountable politicians to dissemble and prevaricate at will.

Mr. Blair's testimony yesterday serves as a reminder that without proper inquiry, complete with penetrating questions and thorough follow-up (i.e., a proper cross-examination), he and others who were responsible for the Iraq travesty will never be held to account for their manifest abuse of the people's trust.

The sad truth is the media has not raised its game, at least not nearly enough. Even today, after all this time, the media continue to dutifully toe the line by framing this as about whether Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush really, truly, crossed-their-hearts-and-hoped-to-die, saw Saddam as an honest-to-goodness threat. Herein lies the central conceit which continues to serve as the foundation of the Big Lie.

As has been repeatedly said by many, including me, no one is seriously questioning Bush/Blair's earnest belief that Saddam was a really bad guy, most likely with really bad intentions (like many other bad guys in the world). Yet the media continue to enthusiastically allow politicians to frame the debate in this way. Witness Peter Hain angrily demanding (at 2:20) whether Chris Huhne is "questioning [his] honesty" on the BBC's Question Time. Have a look.

It's an old politician's trick - a form of misdirection. Simply put, it's all about going on the offensive on an imaginary issue - a slightly more sophisticated version of "when did you stop beating your wife". It forces one's antagonist to fight a battle other than the one you know you're going to lose. The media falls for it every time.

Tony, of course, is a consummate master, and his skills were on full display yesterday. Once again it makes me weep for what might have been had his power to control messaging and dictate the terms of the debate been used for good and not evil.

In any case, by allowing those who would avoid accountability to control the discussion, we allow them to create an impression that any revelation is "old news" and just more fodder for those whose minds are already made up. It's a careful, cynical calculation, calibrated with a precision that befits Alistair Campbell.

It would be nice if we, the People - or our representatives, were permitted to ask some reasonable questions - not about what Tony and Dubbya "believed" - but rather about the process by which they took us to war. After all, the bottom line is this: the process is supposed to serve in the interest of our democracies, not in the interest of what Tony and Dubbya "believe" to be "right" and "true".

To repeat: the problem here was the process: the people - not Mr. Blair (contrary to his assertions yesterday) - were asked to make a judgment based on evidence that proved to be cherry-picked or of highly dubious provenance. There is ample evidence of this. It is difficult to forget about the existence of Dick and Rummey's Office of Special Plans, the "stove-piping" of favourable intelligence to support pre-ordained conclusions, including from a source whose credibility could be guessed at by its codename: "Curveball".

This is the issue. It goes to the core of our democratic principles - a fact that so many in the media fail to recognise.

Chris Matthews is white

What a great post . . . I knew Chris Matthews was a tool, but couldn't quite put my finger on why (probably because I'm white, too). But now I understand.

Two in a row

I hate to admit Calwell may well be right - especially when it's twice in a row. But it's hard not to agree that the Dems have made a catastrophic miscalculation on perceived priorities.

Newsflash

Iraq war illegal!

No shit.

Don't say I didn't warn 'ya

Ruth's earnest concern about Citizens United leaves me shaking my head.

For some time now I've been the guy standing on the street-corner yelling at cars - you know, the one you cross the street to avoid - about the danger to democracy that is Justice Scalia. Here's another example. And another. There are others - I confess I do obsess.

Thanks to Dubbya, in addition to the incredibly useless Clarence Thomas, Scalia now has more like-minded brethren on the Court, and only now other people are finally staring to throw hissy-fits.

Well, it's a little late, damn it, but as I seem to have been ahead of the curve on this all along, I guess I'll be the first to start shouting "impeach the bastards" at the cars.

More seriously, it is an option - which looks to be increasingly likely I think.

I can't believe we have to have this discussion all over again

On the one hand, Obama's decision to reinstate some vague notion of the old Glass-Steagall barriers separating commercial banking from investment banking is a disaster that misapprehends the causes of the financial crisis and will lead to higher, not less, systemic risk. On the other hand, while Obama is entirely correct that prop-trading indeed was a cause of the financial crisis, he isn't going nearly far enough and should require banks to spin off their asset management businesses, too.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The fine line between commercial banking and the securities business has always been ever-shifting - but the debate was far more sophisticated thirty years ago. None of this is new.

Okay, joke's over

The Republic surely wouldn't let people like these have lifetime tenure on the highest court in the land, would they? Here's a pretty balanced review of the Citizens' United decision. Here's one that's probably more accurate.

The latest candidate for a special place in hell

. . . step right up, Jack Straw. You lied quite convincingly over the last seven years . . .

It's possible I may hate him more than Dubbya or Tony, since he clearly knew better - sorta like Collin Powell.

God help me . . .

. . . lo, for I have linked approvingly to an article by Christopher Caldwell.

There must be something in the water: it cannot be denied he gets it right by linking to Haldane's paper, citing as follows:

A considerably more disturbing thought, though, was provoked by the Bank of England economists Andrew Haldane and Piergiorgio Alessandri. They noted in an influential paper delivered in Chicago in September that, in the UK at least, higher leverage fully – fully! – accounted for UK banks’ rise in returns on equity until 2007. This will plant a disturbing syllogism in the mind of the average voter: If (a) payment to bankers is based on returns, and if (b) returns in the past decade were due to increased leverage, then (c) bankers, when all is said and done, were being paid to increase risk – not to assess it expertly, just to increase it. In retrospect, the world might have been better off, and richer, if this work hadn’t been undertaken at all. The public may well assess the real value of the work done by investment bankers at zero.

I haven't kicked Scalia around in a while - I wonder if he's said anything stupid lately?

Ah - he always obliges in times of need.

Scalia also said (not noted in the link):

"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead . . . What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"

I have an answer to this that is so crazy, it just might work: how 'bout an American flag?

Why it matters

Neglected to add that the reason why the silliness that Europe is inflicting on itself really matters is because it will accelerate the move to the east: HSBC and certain investment banks have already begun the evacuation to Hong Kong - I can see the CEOs on the roofs of their buildings in Canary Wharf, scrambling for the choppers before the NVA - er, I mean, FSA - overrun the place.

Bad Coffee, Bad Law

For anyone paying attention to the way in which governments and regulators are coming to grips with the financial crisis and its causes, these times continue to be ever so interesting. For those of us who have been in this business for a long time, particularly we who fancy ourselves familiar with prudential and public policy foundations underlying the financial system since the early 1930s, these times are “interesting” in the sense of the old Chinese curse: there is every reason to be frightened by much of what is in the legislative pipeline – especially in the EU.

Let there be no doubt: the assaults unleashed over the past year on the perceived failings of “Anglo-Saxon capitalism” by certain (code for French) continental European governments represent a potential prudential paradigm shift in such elemental questions as who should be incentivised to do what – and bear the associated risk - not just in terms of his or her own private interest, but in terms of the interest of the public and the public purse. Some of this intentional: contrary to subsequent damage control – mainly by Michel Barnier – President Sarkozy meant exactly what he said when he referred to “the triumph of French ideals” which is under way in Brussels, particularly with the new proposed "Alternative Investments Fund Managers Directive" (AIFMD). People – especially Brits – should not delude themselves into thinking the French will be reasonable. They will not: they are bent on nothing less than imposing a French civil law regime affecting property rights across Europe.

If this were just about a French plot, things might be manageable. Unfortunately, the legislative sausage-making process in Brussels is even more chaotic and farcical than it is in Washington – especially when the stakes are high and the facts are as technical and/or highly legalistic as they are here.

The reality is this: beginning with AIFMD, member state civil liability regimes around the nature of your right to the return of your property (i.e., your cash or investments) are going to be irrevocably replaced by how the French feel about this (goodbye, English common law) – albeit at first only in piecemeal fashion affecting investments in funds. The good news is the French think you should never be at risk of losing your investments and a bank responsible for them will be forced to return them immediately. The bad news is – considering the trillions of euros banks will then need to reflect as guarantor risk on their balance sheets – the banks will be forced to either raise fees massively (while massively increasing risk-based capital required to support the risk) or get out of the business altogether. This will massively increase concentration in the financial sector – probably not a great idea in the wake of the crisis – which in turn will ultimately expose taxpayers to new kinds of massive bailouts - possibly more frequently.

Oh, and as a side-note, the legislation as drafted literally prohibits any investment outside of Europe: think of the impact of this on potential return on investment. The European Parliament’s own commissioned report, such as it is, makes for interesting reading: it predicts disaster but, in my view, doesn’t go nearly far enough and misses some crucial elements.

The impact will be on all – ALL – funds other than retail UCITS: e.g., private equity funds, hedge funds, real estate funds, funds-of-funds, you name it. Despite the supposedly limited scope of the directive, UCITS funds will not, of course, escape: it was announced early on that UCITS will be “revised” in some way along the same lines.

So, put that pension fund liability hole and smoke it.

But don’t worry, if you have concerns, you have until 21^st January to get your amendments in.

I would like to believe that even the French don’t intend to completely destroy Europe’s financial and investment sectors, so I have got to assume that much of what will happen as a result of this crazy legislation is also unintentional. Sadly, unless the possible consequences of these proposed public policy changes are fully addressed in an inclusive and rational debate, the EU and its citizens are likely to rue having allowed their leaders to succumb to political pressures and philosophical inclinations without these being tested under the disinfecting glare of a truly public, inclusive consultation.

Jean-Paul Gauzes, the European Parliament’s Rapporteur who is shepherding through the new legislation, is fond of noting publicly the unprecedented lobbying efforts in Brussels by industry groups and other stakeholders who object to some aspect or other of the directive. This seems to be stated with a relish which only seems to confirm in legislators’ minds that they must be getting something right if so many in the detested financial services industry doth protest so much. At the same time, officials in Brussels bristle at the notion that public consultation on the directive was lacking, citing prior consultations on such topics as short-selling, private placement passports for non-UCITS funds and regulation of hedge fund managers. Selective memory may serve as a political expedient, but in this case it will prove a dangerous misdirection as it is irrefutably true there has never been any public consultation on the most crucial aspects of the legislation.

This state of affairs brings to mind the infamous case in the United States of the woman who sued McDonalds restaurants for serving coffee in a drive-thru that was hot enough to severely burn her lap[1]. The end result has been that it is now impossible to get a decent cup of coffee anywhere in the United States and, to add insult to injury, consumers are subjected to infantile warnings printed on the outside of take-away cups that the contents therein may be hot (when, in fact, they are not).

There is an old lawyers’ saying that bad facts make bad law, and the facts, according to Andrew G Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, Bank of England[2], are that

. . . the scale of intervention to support the banks in the UK, US and the euro-area during the current crisis . . . totals over $14 trillion or almost a quarter of global GDP . . . [i]t dwarfs any previous state support of the banking system.

Alors: we have very bad facts indeed, and they are well on their way to making very bad laws. For this, instead of a lady with the burned lap, we can thank Bernie Madoff and perhaps some risk managers who evidently were unable to assess the meaning of ever-widening spreads in credit default swaps among the major banks throughout 2008.

The governments and regulatory agencies now sifting through the ensuing wreckage can hardly be blamed for reacting politically: indeed, it is the obligation of those of us in the affected industries that ran the ship aground to redouble our efforts to offer sensible prescriptions for patching the hull and getting under way again – and we need to do this thoughtfully and humbly, for we must realise we lack credibility and so will be looked on (not unreasonably) with scepticism if not suspicion.

All investment funds in Europe, UCITS and non-UCITS alike, are facing a fundamental shift in allocation of responsibilities and risks. The possible consequences and risks which may flow from this reallocation cannot be overstated. What regulators and governments urgently need to understand is this is not an issue for the financial services industry alone: it is an issue for the future of Europe as a financial centre and for ordinary citizens as well as pension fund trustees who are struggling to determine how they will plug the holes in their pensions.

---

[1] The jury awarded the 81-year old plaintiff $2.7 million, largely because of McDonald’s allegedly callous behaviour. The award was reduced on appeal to $480,000.

[2] *Andrew Haldane, ‘Banking on the State’, BIS Review 139/2009

"The Buck Stops Here"

Kinda refreshing to have a president who is not afraid to say it . . .

It seemed odd to me that after proclaiming "the grown-ups are in charge" the previous administration never took responsibility for anything: not 9/11, not the Katrina response, not the Iraq intelligence "failures". Nada. I always considered that kind of behavior to be . . . uh . . . childish.

I used to be proud of our legal system . . .

. . . back when I believed our leading jurists took the constitution seriously. They just don't any more.

Bush versus Gore woke me up to the sad, inevitable truth that sooner or later justice is reserved for those with the juice, traction, pull . . . whatever you call this game in which the rules apply differently depending on who you happen to be and who you happen to know. This realization - along with morbid fear of confrontation - is now all that keeps me from knocking off the local liquour store. But if you happen to be in Gitmo, you are about as far from that City on a Hill as it gets. Justice is just not a term that applies any longer.

We used to say in America we are a nation of laws and not men, but since 2000 that idea has become just a joke - and our current President, who went to a pretty good law school if I recall correctly (and who has employed Cass Sunstein of all people!), has perpetuated this farce. A lot of progressive types talk about how disappointed in Obama they are. Here is where I am seriously disappointed.

Either I'm turning into my grandfather or things truly are getting worse. Probably a combination of the two.

Ben comes clean . . .

. . . and admits the obvious - kudos to him, for this admission means the Fed, too, needs to take a long look in the mirror. But, those who want to drown government in the bathtub won't like this kind of talk one bit: like all self-improvement plans, the first step - recognition - leads inexorably to other steps. This is because recognition, while important, does not solve the problem. In order to solve the problem, you gotta actually do something. If regulation is poor, better regulation is the only cure - and this costs money.

Oh, Copenhagen . . .

Yes, China has not acquitted itself well . . . but at times like these, the historian in me speculates what might have been had Bush not been handed the White House by Scalia. One cannot help but lament the undeniable impact of eight precious years and so much credibility going down the drain. Such reveries provide for interesting thought experiments, but it's a depressing way to start the day and profits us little - other than to hope that the species will finally grow to appreciate that it really matters who is put in positions of power.

Sometimes, I think the realisation of such a hope entails another evolutionary step - and we don't have time for that. We as a species are capable of reacting quickly to immediate threats, such as an outbreak of disease or an attack of an animal or enemy. This explains the necessity of Bush and Blair creating a casus belli for the Iraq war which was premised - however mendaciously - on just such an "imminent" threat: portraying Saddam Hussein as a long-term threat was just not going to do it. This is proof that neither Blair nor Bush were stupid people: they understood well what it takes in order to succeed at exhorting human beings to action (in this case, mass violence) when the truth is less compelling.

It is the rest of us who are stupid: an existential threat to the species looms, and we seem powerless to stop it. Happy Christmas, kids!

Tony finally just says it . . .

. . . next stop: The Hague.

In my dreams.

Christmas comes early for the insurance companies

Soooo . . . no public option, and no medicare buy-in. Funny how a little competition from the supposedly bloated, inefficient government became so totally unacceptable. I guess we owe it to those insurance companies who nurture and protect us so lovingly . . .

On the bright side - if you had told me in 2004 that in this decade we'd have a $900 billion bill that would provide subsidies to most of the uninsured, ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, place a cap on premium costs for low-income workers, cap out-of-pocket expenses, cover more preventive services, expand Medicaid, and end gender discrimination in premium charges, all while shrinking the federal deficit... I'd have said you were tripping on mescaline.

I think Martin's got it right . . .

. . . Goldmans should fork over a pile of cash now. A big pile. It would be a mistake to impose punative tax on bonuses over a long period of time: the banks would just dance around that one - most easily by raising salaries.

But going after the bonus pools on a one-off basis? Why not try it? Martin's logic is sound.

For you geeks out there, this article from the BofE's Andrew Haldane puts it all in context:

" . . . the scale of intervention to support the banks in the UK, US and the euro-area during the current crisis . . . totals over $14 trillion or almost a quarter of global GDP. It dwarfs any previous state support of the banking system."

I'm lovin' the 'baggers . . .

. . . so entertaining.

Belated post . . .

. . . linking to a great article written by a Brit trying to explain what the hell is going on with the Right in America.

Respect your children . . .

. . . but that may be too much to ask in Texas.

Paul explains . . .

. . . how they got it so, so wrong.

I guess I really don't like being lectured to by rich kids about the genius of the free market

Here in what the locals like to call “Little Britain”, a nasty spat among the media elite has messily intruded on the public consciousness. The occasion giving rise to the current palaver was a recent speech darkly titled “The Absence of Trust” by none other than James Murdoch at the MacTaggart Series of lectures in Edinburgh on 28^th August. The speech was delivered on the twentieth anniversary of a memorable shot-across-the bow delivered by James’ dad, Rupert, at the same venue in which Murdoch-the-elder portrayed (probably accurately) a calcified British television media slumbering, contented and oblivious, on state subsidies as the digital media age beckoned - with Rupert Murdoch chomping at the bit in its vanguard. It was obvious that a speech on such an occasion by Rupert’s son-and-heir called for something special.

And Murdoch-the-younger delivered. In one sense, his was a tired reprise about the size and scope of the ‘beeb, whom competitors love to loathe as a state-sponsored behemoth stifling competition and distorting markets. But, by invoking Orwell, Mr. Murdoch cranked the debate up a notch. “As Orwell foretold,” he reminded us grimly, “to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion.” This certainly got people’s attention in a nation that takes its Orwell seriously indeed, as was no doubt intended.

It is important to keep in mind that the framework for this discussion – when stripped of all the accompanying sound and fury -- has been utterly upended since dear-old-Dad’s speech of twenty years ago: the debate now must be conducted against a backdrop which recognises the ascendancy of new formats, new media and the “New Media”. The last of these is dominated coincidentally by the Murdoch empire, which today wields enormous power in its own right, seizing market share in Britain, the U.S. and elsewhere, and dominating certain markets (such as television sports). It is for this reason that James Murdoch’s plaintive exhortations to throttle the BBC in order to save democracy ring a wee bit hollow.

Meanwhile, we Americans living in the UK can only shake our heads in admiration or disbelief at the chutzpah of the son of Rupert Murdoch lambasting the BBC as a “state-sponsored” Orwellian threat to the “plurality and independence of news provision, which is so important for our democracy”.

In calling for “genuine independence” in the news media, Mr. Murdoch is to be applauded, but his prescription for ensuring such noble aims errs in one crucial respect: it fails to take account a little thing called irony. When the premise of one’s thesis also happens to be utterly self-serving, irony may have an unfortunate cancelling effect. We can only take Mr. Murdoch’s earnestness at face value, which make the passages from Mr. Murdoch’s speech priceless examples of apparent complete lack of self-awareness, among them: “. . . people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus,” which is an “inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.”

“A better society”? Is this what the Fox Networks aspire to?

Even strident detractors grudgingly admire the discipline with which Fox News eradicates the very plurality and independence that James Murdoch now claims to champion. The reason Fox does this inevitably results from the very profit motive Mr. Murdoch claims ensures the opposite for example, there was money to be made in beating the drums of the Iraq war. When considering the alternative - providing thoughtful reporting and nuanced analysis – it was no contest. War sells, nuance doesn’t – especially in an America where attention spans grow ever more diminished. Slick graphics consisting of gauzy American flags ceaselessly waiving and jet fighters zooming across the screen between segments always help.

Can any serious observer say Fox News has elevated the level of debate over the past fifteen years? Fox News and the rest of the right-wing scream-machine have all but ensured the impossibility of any meaningful or productive debate in the United States about anything important. Fox’s fingerprints have been all over the “astro-turfed” “Tea-Baggers” masquerading as genuine “grass roots” citizen uprisings and the farcical town hall meetings that were supposed to be about health care reform, but which instead will be remembered for raising the prospect of having a president in the White House who is a Nazi.

If only we in the U.S. during the lead-up to the Iraq war had the equivalent of a BBC, which, of course, did not transcribe for public consumption White House or Downing Street diktat quite as dutifully as Fox News did. In fact, as Alistair Campbell memorably discovered, and amply demonstrated, the BBC turned out to be quite a thorn in the side of the British government. One can only wonder if Murdochs’ SkyNews in the UK has thus far stopped short of the outrageous excesses of Fox News in the U.S. as a result of being held in check by a rival state-sponsored news organization less motivated by profit. This contrasts alarmingly with the situation in the United States, where rival privately-owned news organizations fell quickly into line for fear of losing more market-share and even PBS, the once-independently minded Public Broadcast System, ran scared as Republicans cut off meaningful public funding. One can only wonder if changing this dynamic is what James Murdoch really wants to achieve. After all, as he so bombastically concluded at the end of his speech in Edinburgh (“[t]he only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit”), its all about profit.

James Murdoch’s earnest invocation of Orwell is ironic on levels too many to count: one might say it’s Orwellian.

This guy . . .

. . . is such a tool. You gotta wonder if this person's brain is capable of grasping the enormity of the irony bound up in the concept of an idiot child of a scion of yellow journalism preaching the virtues of unfettered free markets. Probably not . . . oh well, the rich are not like you and me. Sigh.

I'm lovin' Glen Beck . . .

. . . he's just the best.

Sometimes . . .

. . . I really don't miss living in that country . . . and, for the record, the NHS in the UK is far from perfect, but less not-perfect than the insane healthcare system (if one can call it that) in the U.S.

Been travellin' . . .

. . . and I admit to succumbing to temptation. Lo, to my shame I have bought The Economist. Twice. And I enjoyed it.

On economics, I've never had a problem with The Economist, but their commentary on American politics and culture seemed appallingly ignorant. In the past I attributed this to a craven desire to appeal to a certain readership who coincidentally believe everything they are subjected to on Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages . . .

In my defence, The Economist have had a new editor for some time now. Perhaps this explains why they have injected a bit more of a measured approach which I find bordering on readable. As I have waxed at length in the past, the previous editor is not on my list of best friends.

Advice and consultation would be welcome: should I feel dirty and foreswear further transgressions, or give in to tempatation and renew my subscription?

I'd like to say he's thinking what I'm thinking . . .

. . . but, as usual, he's ahead of me. Living in the UK as a dual national, the irony of the Labour Party's unfortunate predicament certainly has not escaped me. Brits look at me funny when I say the current crisis, really, can be laid at the now buried feet of Ronald Reagan (and those of Thatcher, I suppose). Unfettered dergulation and subsequent unceasing degradation of government capacity to regulate effectively inevitably led to massive consolidated financial services firms maximising profit and senior executive pay at the expense of meaningful risk management. The fact that New Labour and Clintonites bought into the charade hook, line and sinker only testifies to the power of the cultural shift that took place in the early '80s . . . as well as to the power of cynical political calculation, delusion and the willing collaboration of a sycophantic, incompetent and conflicted newsmedia.

As we and our children pony up to pay for this mess, don't ever forget these simple facts.

Clash of the Titans?

Krugman versus Ferguson: the Battle Royale.   My money is with the Nobel laureate, not just because he's more qualified as a proper economist, but because I feel obligated to him since I am the source of his inspiration, his muse, if you will.

Economists have sucked lately

 . . . a plausible explanation . . . 

What Matt says . . .

. . . so simple, so true:

You know, Newt Gingrich knows a lot about saying stupid things and being forced out of the job as Speaker. … But one way or the other — I mean, I wasn’t in the room, you weren’t in the room, Newt Gingrich wasn’t in the room. None of us know exactly what happened there. But whatever it is Nancy Pelosi knew about, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, they knew more. And ultimately, when we have a thorough investigation of what happened, the bulk of the blame has to lie with the architects of the policy, not with a member of the opposition party.

The GOP playbook hasn't changed a bit: destract, deny, project.  And their demographic keeps on shrinking.

Getting silly now

I really wish Dick and daughter would just let us put this whole torture thing behind us . . . 

Really gotta wonder what they are on about . . . the more they jabber the more ridiculous they look.  And the more ridiculous they look, the idea we can keep looking away-nothing-to-see-here ever less and less tenable.  I want the lawyers' heads on pikes - for starters.  I don't care what Pres. Obama says.  It's a matter of professionalism and standards . . .   

And he, too, shall be judged . . .

. . . not sure why the rats are scurrying now - the ship sank a long time ago. 

Teabagging Michelle Malkin

Love this post - good on substance, too . . .

Here's a choice excerpt at the end - really puts the empty rhetoric and paint-by-numbers faux rage of the rudderless right in perspective:

yeah, government waste sucks, it’s rampant at every level, and taxes are a vicious racket, and everyone should be pissed off . What’s hilarious about the teabaggers, though, is how they never squawk about waste until the spending actually has a chance of benefiting them. You will never hear of a teabagger crying about OPIC giving $50 million in free insurance to some mining company so that they can dig for silver in rural Bolivia. You won’t hear of a teabagger protesting the $2.5 billion in Ex-Im loans we gave to GE through the early part of this decade, even as GE was moving nearly a hundred thousand jobs overseas over the course of ten years. And Michelle Malkin’s readers didn’t seem to mind giving IBM millions in Ex-IM and ATP loans at the same time it was giving its former CEO, Lou Gerstner, $260 million in stock options.

In other words teabaggers don’t mind paying taxes to fund the salaries of Bolivian miners, Lou Gerstner’s stock options, deliveries of “sailboat fuel,” the Hermes scarves on Sandy Weill’s jet pillows, or even the export of their own goddamn jobs. But they do hate it when someone tries to re-asphalt their roads, or help bail their slob neighbor out of foreclosure. And God forbid someone propose a health care program, or increased financial aid for college. Hell, that’s like offering to share your turkey with the other Pilgrims! That’s not what America is all about! America is every Pilgrim for himself, dammit! Raise your own motherfucking turkey!

Yeah - What about a "Bill of Obligations" . . . ?

It's an excellent point, if one can forgive a sitting Supreme Court Justice for apparently having not a clue about the entire basis for our form of goverment.  

Can you believe this guy hasn't asked a single question from the bench since early 2006?  Sorry, that can't be normal.

Obama won't look into Medvedev's Soul!!!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/breakthrough-on.html

Deleted Post

Took too much space

I wouldn't bet on the dollar . . .

. . . at least not in the long run.  I bid you welcome, my Chinese masters . . . (apologies for the free registration filter, but reading the FT is worth it, so just do it)

Never been a better trainwreck . . .

. . . back behind the woodshed.  

Gotta love how Stewart just eviscerates this guy . . . even if Stewart doesn't seem to understand the first thing about short-selling, hedge funds, CDS's or how any of them have anything to do with our pension plans . . . 

The state of our media

Not sure whether to laugh or cry . . . 

Being treated like grown-ups

Obama explicitly rejected some of the more egregious budgeting practices of his immediate predecessor. President Bush never included the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets, for instance, opting instead to treat those military campaigns as emergencies and fund them off the books. He took a similar approach with the entirely predictable $60 billion it cost the Treasury for each year that Congress spared 20 million taxpayers the expensive bite of the alternative minimum tax. Bush also budgeted nothing for federal disaster response, though natural disasters invariably occur. Obama included all three things in his 10-year budget.

Read the remainder -- a new era.