As we approach Yom Kippur, we are encouraged to examine our lives, perhaps improve them, and ask those whom we may have wronged for forgiveness. This year I thought I'd change my habit, and recognize a few people who performed acts of remarkable good.
We're getting on to two years since I was operated on for removal of a brain tumor. It's a curious experience. When you see the diagnosis on the sheet of paper that you're carrying around from one doctor's office to the next, things become clear. At first, that critical diagnosis block said xxxxoma, or some such. Then, one day, sitting in the neurosurgery clinic at Georgetown University Hospital, my eyes wandered over the latest sheet to be clipped to the outside of my medical record. There, with a clarity that any non-medical person could grasp, was the new term: “brain tumor.” How much easier to comprehend. The term comes with its own particular sets of meanings, family history, and, if I'd been so inclined, fears.
It took months, and a second hospital and surgeon, laboriously located through my wife's intrepid searching, before I came upon the surgeon who was confident that he could actually remove the tumor without doing me in. While the previous doctor had seemed a bit dismayed at the possibility of operating on my tumor, this fellow seemed to view it as routine. He ticked off what could go wrong, but he did it as if just going through formalities. Part of that was inspiring patient confidence, no doubt, but you can't do something really difficult if you don't believe in your ability to do it. And this, my friends, was really, really difficult. He spent nine an a half hours doing it. Later, I asked all three of his residents how much he let them do. The told me that he did it all. His name is Dr. Aaron Dumont. He's THE man, and he's got all the chips he needs on the positive side, as far as I'm concerned. If my wife hadn't found him, I suppose that I'd be dead or paralyzed now, since I probably wouldn't have bothered looking for him myself. If he wants to drop by on little or no notice, with his family, for a cookout, or to learn to tie flies, he shouldn't hesitate. My door is open
Doctors, of course, are in the business of repairing us. What about people who don't actually know you that well, and don't have command of quite so impressive a set of technical skills? When I got home from the hospital, I was in need of near constant care for more than a little while. Two members of our congregation spent hours, or more likely days, at a kitchen facility, cooking meals for us, which they then froze, labeled, and stored in a freezer in one of their garages, where my wife could fetch them, as needed. We're not talking about a few TV dinner-like items. We are talking about full scale, delicious meals – serious productions. It's difficult to express just how welcome something like this is when you require constant attention whenever you are on your feet. We didn't ask these ladies to do this. They just did it. It was a mitzvah that we couldn't measure. That behavior reminded me of my father. He never waited to be asked.
Last year at this time I wasn't able to deal with the mental and physical debris of the operation. My body was still so impacted by the after effects of the operation that I preferred to make every day as close to normal as possible, as if nothing had ever happened, so I didn't give much thought to those who had done so much for me.. It wasn't a very effective strategy, but fortunately, that phase is over. The other day I was digging for something in a corner of my workshop, and came upon a big sheet of heavy foil that I'd saved to use on this year's scare crow. It was a cover from one of those meals that had been prepared for us. I'm not likely to forget the preparers, Diane Dietz and Cindi Reiss, any time soon, either. Nobody asked them. They just did all that cooking.
So, along with considering what we might have to atone for this year, we might consider debts that we owe to others. Those debts frequently can't be repaid, but they should be remembered.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Further Reflection On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt To Break The Gaza Blockade - And The Aftermath
Eventually, the crew of the blockade runner, M/V Marvi Marmara, returned to Turkey. They were met at the airport by... who else, senior members of the Turkish cabinet. There were reportedly tears and hugs all around. The Turkish charity that sponsored the mission is known in Turkey as a government sponsored non-government organization. How curious. The Turkish Islamist government continues to make its bones within the Islamic world. The irony of this same government being a NATO member seems lost on the western press, which is most interested in figuring out how the West can appease Turkey. While Turkish apologists deny it, apparently the Erdogan government is also using wide spread surveillance, including wiretaps, to ensure that no serious opposition develops. The question is, will serious electoral opposition be permitted to develop? That would be un-Islamic.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The G20 Conundrum - Let 10,000 Bloggers Flower
The Blogosphere at large is abuzz with comments and paroxysms over the closing declaration from the recent G20 meeting. Real economists, such as Paul Krugman, and many simple hand wringers, are adamant in stating that the United States must continue to stimulate its economy. President Obama, and his Treasury Secretary, say yes, so I guess the answer must be yes. For most of the other G20 attendees, the answer is no (for now). So except for the U.S., those running large budget deficits will tame those deficits, and do so in the near term. Dr. Krugman is nearly apoplectic at this. He writes in the June 28 New York Times that such a policy will ensure a "third depression." I'm not sure whether Dr. Krugman is a Keynesian or not, but he sure isn't afraid of deficits, or a rapidly growing U.S. sovereign debt.
Obama, Geithner, Krugman, and company don't seem to get a fundamental truth, to wit: the greatest impediment to continued economic stimulation, i.e., continuing to print money, and taking on government debt, is the EXISTING government debt. It's true that Keynesian theory calls for using government debt to stimulate economies, but it also calls for accumulating budget surpluses in prosperous years in order to have funds available to support those lean year deficits. We forgot that the necessary accompaniment to the lean year deficit is the fat year surplus. It's as old as the Book of Exodus.
At this point, stimulation means wholesale printing of money, which typically leads to inflation. We think that, because we haven't experienced inflation since the Vietnam era, we cannot do so again. I've actually heard supposedly credible journalists suggest that inflation has been permanently tamed, as if it were a living thing, instead of a phenomenon based on mathematical and physical factors. Tamed? According to David Einhorn, of Greenlight Capital, "government statistics are about the last place one should look to find inflation, as they are designed to not show much. Over the last 35 years, the government has changed the way it calculates inflation several times. According to the web site Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with about 2 percent in the official statistics today." Inflating the money supply leads to inflation. No matter how you cook the books, eventually it will happen. The only thing holding it back right now may be our hollowed out industrial infrastructure, and the fake figures.
Mr. President, your counterparts in the G20 are telling their people that they aren't going to be able to have cake and ice cream every night anymore. On the other hand, Mr. Obama, and his acolyte, Treasury Secretary Geithner, are saying "yes, yes, we know, no more cake and ice cream, but we can't stop quite yet. In fact, we're not sure when it's safe to stop. We'll get back to you. Trust us." It's quite true that it was George W. Bush and Company that jacked up the deficit over a trillion dollars, insisting that anything less would bring the country to its knees, but Bush is gone, and suddenly we're projecting trillion dollar deficits out as far as there are meaningful budget figures. How did that happen? Was this a "Bush did it, so we should be able to do it too" moment? How did a one year stimulus turn into a permanent expansion of government? More frightening yet is the fact that all this debt doesn't include the coming unfunded Social Security bomb. It's Armageddon, and the bill is no longer going to our kids, it's coming due in OUR lifetimes.
I hear tell that there's an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who is tired of non-economist bloggers writing about economics. OK. Here's the deal. I'll stop writing this stuff as soon as the Fed cleans up its act. Fair is fair.
Peace and love...
Obama, Geithner, Krugman, and company don't seem to get a fundamental truth, to wit: the greatest impediment to continued economic stimulation, i.e., continuing to print money, and taking on government debt, is the EXISTING government debt. It's true that Keynesian theory calls for using government debt to stimulate economies, but it also calls for accumulating budget surpluses in prosperous years in order to have funds available to support those lean year deficits. We forgot that the necessary accompaniment to the lean year deficit is the fat year surplus. It's as old as the Book of Exodus.
At this point, stimulation means wholesale printing of money, which typically leads to inflation. We think that, because we haven't experienced inflation since the Vietnam era, we cannot do so again. I've actually heard supposedly credible journalists suggest that inflation has been permanently tamed, as if it were a living thing, instead of a phenomenon based on mathematical and physical factors. Tamed? According to David Einhorn, of Greenlight Capital, "government statistics are about the last place one should look to find inflation, as they are designed to not show much. Over the last 35 years, the government has changed the way it calculates inflation several times. According to the web site Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with about 2 percent in the official statistics today." Inflating the money supply leads to inflation. No matter how you cook the books, eventually it will happen. The only thing holding it back right now may be our hollowed out industrial infrastructure, and the fake figures.
Mr. President, your counterparts in the G20 are telling their people that they aren't going to be able to have cake and ice cream every night anymore. On the other hand, Mr. Obama, and his acolyte, Treasury Secretary Geithner, are saying "yes, yes, we know, no more cake and ice cream, but we can't stop quite yet. In fact, we're not sure when it's safe to stop. We'll get back to you. Trust us." It's quite true that it was George W. Bush and Company that jacked up the deficit over a trillion dollars, insisting that anything less would bring the country to its knees, but Bush is gone, and suddenly we're projecting trillion dollar deficits out as far as there are meaningful budget figures. How did that happen? Was this a "Bush did it, so we should be able to do it too" moment? How did a one year stimulus turn into a permanent expansion of government? More frightening yet is the fact that all this debt doesn't include the coming unfunded Social Security bomb. It's Armageddon, and the bill is no longer going to our kids, it's coming due in OUR lifetimes.
I hear tell that there's an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who is tired of non-economist bloggers writing about economics. OK. Here's the deal. I'll stop writing this stuff as soon as the Fed cleans up its act. Fair is fair.
Peace and love...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
My Letter To Mr. Thomas Friedman Concerning His 27 June 2010 Column In The New York Times
On Sunday, 27 June, Mr. Thomas Friedman wrote a column in the New York Times titled "War, Timeout, War, Time, ..." The column suggested that it was time for Israel to offer "a daring and assertive political initiative to the Palestinians." While I agree with Mr. Friedman in principle, there are a few wrinkles that the international press could help with. My letter explains.
-------------------------------------
Sir, I read your Sunday column, and heard you reprise it on CNN. It seems to me that there is a fallacy at the core of your assumption about what Israel should do with respect to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. You've given the Palestinians a free pass. Yes, the Palestinian English language media sounds pretty reasonable, but you know what their Arab language media says. I'll bet you know what their text books say (especially their geography books). Do you remember the deal that Arafat walked away from in the late 90's? He said that he had to do it, because he would be assassinated if he took it. What he was essentially saying was that he could only settle for 100 per cent (his chunk of Jerusalem, right of return for everyone, to wherever they said they were uprooted from). If so, then there really isn't any negotiating to be done, is there? We're just waiting for Israel to give the Palestinians everything they want. The amount of negative, anti Israel, and anti Jewish activity on the Palestinian side is extraordinary, but it's only in Arabic, and Israelis appear to be the only ones who know about it. It's not AIPAC or West Banker propaganda, but the West appears afraid to talk about it, for fear of upsetting the Palestinians. Is Palestinian governance that fragile? This behavior runs from the unauthorized, and destructive digs on the Temple Mount, through the blatant Palestinian attempt to "prove" that Jerusalem was never a Jewish city, and right into the hate and bogus history fed to Palestinian school children. In the face of this, how exactly is an Israeli Prime Minister supposed to take on HIS radicals? It would be nice to see a little unbiased, consistent light shined on these items. Could you you stand the heat of writing a series of columns on this subject?
-------------------------------------
Sir, I read your Sunday column, and heard you reprise it on CNN. It seems to me that there is a fallacy at the core of your assumption about what Israel should do with respect to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. You've given the Palestinians a free pass. Yes, the Palestinian English language media sounds pretty reasonable, but you know what their Arab language media says. I'll bet you know what their text books say (especially their geography books). Do you remember the deal that Arafat walked away from in the late 90's? He said that he had to do it, because he would be assassinated if he took it. What he was essentially saying was that he could only settle for 100 per cent (his chunk of Jerusalem, right of return for everyone, to wherever they said they were uprooted from). If so, then there really isn't any negotiating to be done, is there? We're just waiting for Israel to give the Palestinians everything they want. The amount of negative, anti Israel, and anti Jewish activity on the Palestinian side is extraordinary, but it's only in Arabic, and Israelis appear to be the only ones who know about it. It's not AIPAC or West Banker propaganda, but the West appears afraid to talk about it, for fear of upsetting the Palestinians. Is Palestinian governance that fragile? This behavior runs from the unauthorized, and destructive digs on the Temple Mount, through the blatant Palestinian attempt to "prove" that Jerusalem was never a Jewish city, and right into the hate and bogus history fed to Palestinian school children. In the face of this, how exactly is an Israeli Prime Minister supposed to take on HIS radicals? It would be nice to see a little unbiased, consistent light shined on these items. Could you you stand the heat of writing a series of columns on this subject?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
A Short Comment On The Departure of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal
This will be very short. The boy was insubordinate. He had to go. Anything more would be blather. Have a nice day.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Fiddling As
On 15 June 2010, Mr. Thomas Friedman published a column in the New York Times titled “Letter From Istanbul.” Mr. Friedman is worried that we are “losing” Turkey. He places some of the blame on the Christians in the European Union, who apparently haven't made good on their promise to invite Turkey into their midst, after promising to do so, and on weak United States foreign policy. Tom Friedman should be smarter than this, but ever since his “The World is Flat” franchise began to fall flat, his judgment has seemed pretty poor. Let me get this straight, Tom. You went to a country that's actively building an alliance with the barbarians ruling Iran, Syria, and the Hezbollah organization. Turkey is a country led by a prime minister who sponsored a run against the Israeli blockade of Gaza, then stocked the lead vessel with radio coordinated thugs, ready to attack the Israeli borders with pipes and knives, then claim the Israelis brutalized them. Now, you ask this country's prime minister why he's so busy setting up a common command center with all these thugs and international criminals, and the answer is something to the effect that the EU has made it clear that it is for Christians, so Turkey is turning its attention elsewhere. Do you really believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth, Mr. Friedman? What possible reason would an Islamist have for wanting to unite with a Europe that would not want in its midst an Islamist state? Mr. Friedman thinks that Turkey spent the last four years jumping through hoops, trying to qualify for EU membership. Gee, if Mr. Erdogan, the buddy of Iran and Syria, says so, it must be so, but let's try this. Erdogan spent the last four years purging the armed forces of professionals, replacing them with politically reliable Islamists, and otherwise solidifying his party's position.
Mr. Erdogan's Islamist party changed its name to “Justice and Development” after being disqualified from elections under Turkey's secular state laws. It was a name change, only – a sham. Now that he's in power, Mr. Erdogan has invited most of the Muslim world's monsters to Ankara to play, including the criminals running Iran and Sudan. No, Mr. Friedman, nothing the EU could have done would have changed what has happened in Turkey. Nothing. From the moment the Islamists took power, it was clear that Turkey was on the path to an Islamic state. That means that another state might be full of mass murderers, but it can be a good friend of Turkey, simply because it is “Islamic”. How charming. Mr. Friedman can now go back to his laptop, where he can prepare subsequent columns, lecturing us on how we in the West could have prevented Turkey from slipping away into the Islamic camp, if we had only offered it the right enticements, just as, throughout the ages we in the West failed to offer just the right “enticements” to the Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, Palestinians, Iranians, Sudanese, Serbs, and the rest of the butchers whom we've let march through the world because we just didn't give them the one last thing that really would have made them behave. The West always screws up and sets off the bad guys who really wanted to be good.
The day the Justice and Development party won election, Turkey's path into the Islamist camp, with all the radicalism that entails, was set. Q.E.D. Now Mr. Friedman, having gotten a shot at putting Mr. Edrogan on the journalistic couch, can begin writing what western intellectuals write best – why the western democracies are responsible for everything bad that happens. If all international murderers will line up single file on the left, Security Council personnel will be passing out free passes to all who need them.
There's an interesting bit of irony at work in Turkey. Turkish authorities have blocked access to Google and Wikipedia, because it's possible to find information with these sites that is demeaning to Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state. Such information is unlawful in Turkey. Simultaneously, the Turkish government is dissolving the secular state that Atatürk created. These information controls help isolate the population, facilitating the change. China has shared with Iran the software that it uses to isolate it's population from “harmful” Internet content. Perhaps Iran can now share this software with Turkey, to help preserve the facade of he modern Turkish state. Watch this space.
Mr. Erdogan's Islamist party changed its name to “Justice and Development” after being disqualified from elections under Turkey's secular state laws. It was a name change, only – a sham. Now that he's in power, Mr. Erdogan has invited most of the Muslim world's monsters to Ankara to play, including the criminals running Iran and Sudan. No, Mr. Friedman, nothing the EU could have done would have changed what has happened in Turkey. Nothing. From the moment the Islamists took power, it was clear that Turkey was on the path to an Islamic state. That means that another state might be full of mass murderers, but it can be a good friend of Turkey, simply because it is “Islamic”. How charming. Mr. Friedman can now go back to his laptop, where he can prepare subsequent columns, lecturing us on how we in the West could have prevented Turkey from slipping away into the Islamic camp, if we had only offered it the right enticements, just as, throughout the ages we in the West failed to offer just the right “enticements” to the Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, Palestinians, Iranians, Sudanese, Serbs, and the rest of the butchers whom we've let march through the world because we just didn't give them the one last thing that really would have made them behave. The West always screws up and sets off the bad guys who really wanted to be good.
The day the Justice and Development party won election, Turkey's path into the Islamist camp, with all the radicalism that entails, was set. Q.E.D. Now Mr. Friedman, having gotten a shot at putting Mr. Edrogan on the journalistic couch, can begin writing what western intellectuals write best – why the western democracies are responsible for everything bad that happens. If all international murderers will line up single file on the left, Security Council personnel will be passing out free passes to all who need them.
There's an interesting bit of irony at work in Turkey. Turkish authorities have blocked access to Google and Wikipedia, because it's possible to find information with these sites that is demeaning to Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state. Such information is unlawful in Turkey. Simultaneously, the Turkish government is dissolving the secular state that Atatürk created. These information controls help isolate the population, facilitating the change. China has shared with Iran the software that it uses to isolate it's population from “harmful” Internet content. Perhaps Iran can now share this software with Turkey, to help preserve the facade of he modern Turkish state. Watch this space.
Freedom, Liberty, Permissiveness
This post is in the form of a quote from Alistair Cooke. At this point in our existence, it is a cautionary note worth considering. We are currently much more interested in fine tuning our rights than our responsibilities. Enjoy:
"As for the rage to believe that we have found the secret of liberty in general permissiveness from the cradle on, this seems to me a disastrous sentimentality, which, whatever liberties it sets loose, loosens also the cement that alone can bind society into a stable compound -- a code of obeyed taboos. I can only recall the saying of a wise Frenchman that `liberty is the luxury of self-discipline.' Historically, those peoples that did not discipline themselves had discipline thrust on them from the outside. That is why the normal cycle in the life and death of great nations has been first a powerful tyranny broken by revolt, the enjoyment of liberty, the abuse of liberty -- and back to tyranny again. As I see it, in this country -- a land of the most persistent idealism and the blandest cynicism -- the race is on between its decadence and its vitality."
-- Alistair Cooke
"As for the rage to believe that we have found the secret of liberty in general permissiveness from the cradle on, this seems to me a disastrous sentimentality, which, whatever liberties it sets loose, loosens also the cement that alone can bind society into a stable compound -- a code of obeyed taboos. I can only recall the saying of a wise Frenchman that `liberty is the luxury of self-discipline.' Historically, those peoples that did not discipline themselves had discipline thrust on them from the outside. That is why the normal cycle in the life and death of great nations has been first a powerful tyranny broken by revolt, the enjoyment of liberty, the abuse of liberty -- and back to tyranny again. As I see it, in this country -- a land of the most persistent idealism and the blandest cynicism -- the race is on between its decadence and its vitality."
-- Alistair Cooke
Sunday, June 13, 2010
China: The Great Irredentist, With Demands Coming To A Border Near You
The northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh has long been claimed, by China, as part of Tibet (although when Tibet was an independent nation a century ago, it agreed that Arunachal Pradesh was part of India). Arunachal Pradesh has a population of about a million people, spread among 84,000 mountainous square kilometers. This is not an area of great apparent value. China and India fought a nasty little war over Arunachal Pradesh in 1962.
Since the conclusion of the Sino-Indian War, India has looked more to Pakistan than China as a threat, but that is rapidly changing. Recently, China began improving the military support infrastructure on its side of the border. Additionally, Chinese troops have crossed the border into Indian territory and built small structures. India is responding accordingly.
Why does China claim this little bit of India? Because it was once part of Tibet, and Tibet was once part of China, and now is again. As far as China is concerned, if any square inch of another country was ever part of China, it must be re-absorbed into China. To ensure there would be no ambiguity in the case of Tibet, China invaded in 1950, and has spent the last sixty years destroying Tibetan culture, primarily by destroying the Tibetan religious infrastructure, and re-settling hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese in Tibet. As in China itself, the Han Chinese are coming to dominate, whether they are in the majority or not. China also spends a great deal of time "proving" that there never really was a Tibetan culture, and that Tibetans are now better off than they ever were before.
The Tibet situation can seem a bit silly (to everyone except Tibetans) when it's pressed before the public by such Hollywood buffoons as Richard Gere, but it is illustrative of a larger issue that the international community will be facing, whether it wants to or not, in the next few decades.
China has major claims to many of its neighbor's territory, and to international maritime territory. While it may attempt to enforce some of these claims via international legal bodies, China will be pleased to enforce its claims by force if it considers the costs low enough. What would the gains be? That may be difficult for westerners to understand. China is one of the great victim cultures of the modern era. She is convinced that the only reason that every bit of territory that was ever hers is not still hers lies in her victimization by western colonial powers. She knows that, no matter what she may do to recover what she believes is hers, the west will eventually accept her conquests if she just holds on long enough. As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, no Chinese misdeed, however grievous, will ever come before that august, if hapless body. There can be no sanctions on China. Where would we get our cell phones and toaster ovens?
Chinese claims are not well understood by most westerners. Online research suggests that, aside from the Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh claims, few westerners are aware of the extent of Chinese claims, many of which rely on ancient history, and conflict with settled international law. Given China's rising military power, lack of respect for the rule of law, status as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, role as primary manufacturer of much of our technical infrastructure, and initiator of several major information warfare attacks on the United States, perhaps we should be a little concerned, no?
Here are a few areas of concern:
Area: Taiwan
Counter Party: Republic of Taiwan
Area: Arunachal Pradesh
Counter Party: India
Area: Koguryo
Counter Party: North Korea
Area:Various
Counter Party: Vietnam (this has been "settled" twice - watch for more)
Area: South China Sea
Counter Party: All Bordering Nations
China essentially claims the entire South China Sea, up to the territorial waters of all other coastal nations. This would contravene current international law and treaties. China claims a long standing historical claim. The British, based on their colonial period, may have a more compelling claim (only kidding).
Good places to search for Chinese territorial claims are maps in current textbooks, and current postage stamps. Both carefully reflect official policy of the one party state.
Since the conclusion of the Sino-Indian War, India has looked more to Pakistan than China as a threat, but that is rapidly changing. Recently, China began improving the military support infrastructure on its side of the border. Additionally, Chinese troops have crossed the border into Indian territory and built small structures. India is responding accordingly.
Why does China claim this little bit of India? Because it was once part of Tibet, and Tibet was once part of China, and now is again. As far as China is concerned, if any square inch of another country was ever part of China, it must be re-absorbed into China. To ensure there would be no ambiguity in the case of Tibet, China invaded in 1950, and has spent the last sixty years destroying Tibetan culture, primarily by destroying the Tibetan religious infrastructure, and re-settling hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese in Tibet. As in China itself, the Han Chinese are coming to dominate, whether they are in the majority or not. China also spends a great deal of time "proving" that there never really was a Tibetan culture, and that Tibetans are now better off than they ever were before.
The Tibet situation can seem a bit silly (to everyone except Tibetans) when it's pressed before the public by such Hollywood buffoons as Richard Gere, but it is illustrative of a larger issue that the international community will be facing, whether it wants to or not, in the next few decades.
China has major claims to many of its neighbor's territory, and to international maritime territory. While it may attempt to enforce some of these claims via international legal bodies, China will be pleased to enforce its claims by force if it considers the costs low enough. What would the gains be? That may be difficult for westerners to understand. China is one of the great victim cultures of the modern era. She is convinced that the only reason that every bit of territory that was ever hers is not still hers lies in her victimization by western colonial powers. She knows that, no matter what she may do to recover what she believes is hers, the west will eventually accept her conquests if she just holds on long enough. As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, no Chinese misdeed, however grievous, will ever come before that august, if hapless body. There can be no sanctions on China. Where would we get our cell phones and toaster ovens?
Chinese claims are not well understood by most westerners. Online research suggests that, aside from the Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh claims, few westerners are aware of the extent of Chinese claims, many of which rely on ancient history, and conflict with settled international law. Given China's rising military power, lack of respect for the rule of law, status as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, role as primary manufacturer of much of our technical infrastructure, and initiator of several major information warfare attacks on the United States, perhaps we should be a little concerned, no?
Here are a few areas of concern:
Area: Taiwan
Counter Party: Republic of Taiwan
Area: Arunachal Pradesh
Counter Party: India
Area: Koguryo
Counter Party: North Korea
Area:Various
Counter Party: Vietnam (this has been "settled" twice - watch for more)
Area: South China Sea
Counter Party: All Bordering Nations
China essentially claims the entire South China Sea, up to the territorial waters of all other coastal nations. This would contravene current international law and treaties. China claims a long standing historical claim. The British, based on their colonial period, may have a more compelling claim (only kidding).
Good places to search for Chinese territorial claims are maps in current textbooks, and current postage stamps. Both carefully reflect official policy of the one party state.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Comment On Abby Sunderland's Attempt to Circumnavigate The World Singlehanded
Sixteen year old Abby Sunderland has been rescued in the Southern Ocean. She failed in her attempt to become the youngest person to sail non-stop, single handed, around the world. Having had to stop in Cape Town for repairs, she decide to complete her voyage, even though she wouldn't be setting any records. In the final analysis, Abby's voyage was a stunt. It's true that people have been sailing, single handed, in the open ocean, for a good long time, but most had a heck of a lot more experience than Abby. The real key to understanding Abby's level of comfort and experience was hearing how unnerved she was when she got up one morning, to find that she couldn't get the engine started to charge the batteries for the auto pilot. Gosh. Maybe that cute little solar panel wasn't up to the task. The most critical emergency skills for any open ocean sailor (aside from pure survival), even for relatively short, point to point voyages, would be alternative rigging and self steering arrangements. It doesn't sound like Abby was too strong in the second area. I suspect that Abby never would have undertaken this voyage before the era of GPS, satellite phones, and SARSAT (oh, and, yes, high tech, low drain auto pilots). Can you imagine this voyage thirty years ago, with her parents anxiously awaiting a phone call from a ship's agent, stating that the S.S. "such and such" had passed Abby's boat, that she was fine, and sent her greetings?
There is no chance that sixteen year old Abby could have accumulated enough off shore sailing experience to have undertaken her voyage safely. That doesn't mean that she couldn't complete her voyage. Two teenagers had recently done so, and Abby was off trying to break their "records", but I'd suggest the following. For the experienced mariner, completing such a voyage, in a small sailboat (rather than a large, ocean going sailing vessel), is probably fifty per cent seamanship, and fifty percent luck. Having spent a career at sea in naval vessels, I've seen too many things, natural and man made, that can do-in a small sailboat (yes, even one of sixty or eighty feet). There are floating containers, lumber, logs, steel construction pilings, other miscellaneous escaped deck cargo, whales, ships with negligent or (apparently) non-existent deck watches, large waves, out of synch waves, and the list goes on. A careful inspection of Abby's boat suggests that, while she may have had seamanship skills, to a great extent, she was presiding over a collection of machinery and technology.
On 25 April, Abby wrote in her blog:
"I have some big news today. It's not necessarily good news, but the way I look at it, it's not bad either. I am going to be pulling into Cape Town for repairs thus ending my non-stop attempt. My whole team and I have been discussing whether or not I need to stop ever since my main auto pilot died. It's one thing to sail across an ocean with one well-working auto pilot, it's another to keep going with one that is not at all reliable. It would be foolish and irresponsible for me to keep going with my equipment not working well. I'm about 10-14 days from Cape Town right now and though my auto pilot is working for now, we're all holding our breath and hoping it will last."
Well, that's just fine. She did get the foolish part correct. Perhaps Dad should have bought her a copy of "Self Steering for Sailboats." How about a series of emergency procedures, one of which begins with "the electrical system shorts out." Perhaps she didn't need these procedures, because each one would say the same thing: "Replace with spare" or "activate emergency beacon." It didn't matter; Abby's voyage came to an end due to a dismasting, not due to a breakdown in technology, but her reliance on technology suggests that she might have needed about eighty percent or more luck in her bag of tricks.
So, Abby and her family were smart enough to get paying sponsors for her voyage, and she was brave enough to go to sea alone, but either not smart enough, or not experienced enough to know that she shouldn't have. She's alive because she went to sea in the twenty-first century. The captain of the ship that rescued her got washed into the water during the rescue. The time to unconsciousness in 40 degree F water is about fifteen minutes, so he got lucky, even in a survival suit. How easy do you think it is to rescue someone thirty foot seas? How easy do you think it is to injure someone while trying to fish a person out of the drink in thirty foot seas? Was Abby worth it? It doesn't matter. No mariner will fail to attempt to rescue another mariner in distress. As for Abby's publicity hungry parents - someone should teach them the wicked hard lesson that they were unwilling to teach their over indulged daughter.
Stunt. Bring on the next publicity seeker.
There is no chance that sixteen year old Abby could have accumulated enough off shore sailing experience to have undertaken her voyage safely. That doesn't mean that she couldn't complete her voyage. Two teenagers had recently done so, and Abby was off trying to break their "records", but I'd suggest the following. For the experienced mariner, completing such a voyage, in a small sailboat (rather than a large, ocean going sailing vessel), is probably fifty per cent seamanship, and fifty percent luck. Having spent a career at sea in naval vessels, I've seen too many things, natural and man made, that can do-in a small sailboat (yes, even one of sixty or eighty feet). There are floating containers, lumber, logs, steel construction pilings, other miscellaneous escaped deck cargo, whales, ships with negligent or (apparently) non-existent deck watches, large waves, out of synch waves, and the list goes on. A careful inspection of Abby's boat suggests that, while she may have had seamanship skills, to a great extent, she was presiding over a collection of machinery and technology.
On 25 April, Abby wrote in her blog:
"I have some big news today. It's not necessarily good news, but the way I look at it, it's not bad either. I am going to be pulling into Cape Town for repairs thus ending my non-stop attempt. My whole team and I have been discussing whether or not I need to stop ever since my main auto pilot died. It's one thing to sail across an ocean with one well-working auto pilot, it's another to keep going with one that is not at all reliable. It would be foolish and irresponsible for me to keep going with my equipment not working well. I'm about 10-14 days from Cape Town right now and though my auto pilot is working for now, we're all holding our breath and hoping it will last."
Well, that's just fine. She did get the foolish part correct. Perhaps Dad should have bought her a copy of "Self Steering for Sailboats." How about a series of emergency procedures, one of which begins with "the electrical system shorts out." Perhaps she didn't need these procedures, because each one would say the same thing: "Replace with spare" or "activate emergency beacon." It didn't matter; Abby's voyage came to an end due to a dismasting, not due to a breakdown in technology, but her reliance on technology suggests that she might have needed about eighty percent or more luck in her bag of tricks.
So, Abby and her family were smart enough to get paying sponsors for her voyage, and she was brave enough to go to sea alone, but either not smart enough, or not experienced enough to know that she shouldn't have. She's alive because she went to sea in the twenty-first century. The captain of the ship that rescued her got washed into the water during the rescue. The time to unconsciousness in 40 degree F water is about fifteen minutes, so he got lucky, even in a survival suit. How easy do you think it is to rescue someone thirty foot seas? How easy do you think it is to injure someone while trying to fish a person out of the drink in thirty foot seas? Was Abby worth it? It doesn't matter. No mariner will fail to attempt to rescue another mariner in distress. As for Abby's publicity hungry parents - someone should teach them the wicked hard lesson that they were unwilling to teach their over indulged daughter.
Stunt. Bring on the next publicity seeker.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Turkish Politics, Israel, and a Little Self Delusion
A recent Wall Street Journal article about Mr. Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, is a nice compliment to my recent comments on Turkish sponsorship of the recent effort to break the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza. I use the term blockade because that is the term in general usage in the international press. I place it in quotes because it seems to me to more resemble a quarantine, since some items are permitted in. Kindly see the article below, noting the following: Turkey is nowhere near as much a western country as Europeans and Americans would like to think. While all countries have national myths, Turkey's may be uniquely powerful, and most significantly, uniquely at odds with the truth. I'll admit my bias - as a child, I knew a survivor of the Armenian genocide (sorry, for all you Turks, it's just the "Joint Turkish-Armenian Misunderstanding).
For the full story, please see: http://www.meforum.org/2668/erdogan-and-the-israel-card
For the full story, please see: http://www.meforum.org/2668/erdogan-and-the-israel-card
Sunday, June 6, 2010
My Take On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt to Break the Israeli Blockade of Gaza
Note: This was slightly revised on 7 June
My Take On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt to Break the Israeli Blockade of Gaza
My take appears to be unique, so I wonder that I might be way off, but I'm throwing it out there, because it smells right, and in the condemnation of Israel I smell a rat. Rather than argue the case in a narrative, I intend to begin by presenting certain facts.
1. The government of Gaza has publicly committed itself to the destruction if Israel. While it is not currently launching rockets at Israel, it has done so in the past, and takes no measures to deter its citizens from doing so now. As such, the government of Gaza constitutes a belligerent.
2. Israel has imposed a blockade against a belligerent that she is facing. Suggesting that the blockade is illegal collective punishment suggests that people are not responsible for the government that they have elected.
3. The sponsorship of the mission to break the Gaza blockade by a Turkish charity with close ties to the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recap Erdogan, is not a coincidence. The current Turkish government has been steadily pushing Turkey into the Islamist camp. Having once been disqualified from running due to its non-secular nature, the current Turkish ruling party (the bJustice and Development Party, or AKP) carefully cleansed itself externally, so as to qualify for the ballot. Having won the election, they began purging the military at the senior and mid grade officer level. Officers at these levels have traditionally seen themselves as guardians of the modern Turkish secular state. The party, having now protected themselves from the guardians of secularism, has moved to permit more overt public expressions of Islam. They are beginning to dismantle the modern Turkish secular state. They also canceled joint military exercises with Israel, and began close military cooperation with Iran and Syria. The sponsorship of the Gaza blockade run was just the most recent effort on the part of Turkey to make its bones in the Islamist world. The fact that people on board the Turkish Ferry Marvi Marmara were able to incite violence (the pipe swinging folks on deck are pretty good evidence, unless the Israelis faked it) just solidified the Turkish position. They now have solid Islamist credentials, and can continue dismantling Ataturk's state.
What does this mean for NATO? A member state is now exchanging military information with two strong supporters of state terrorism. Hey, you be the judge. While you're at it, for extra credit, judge whether NATO itself has a future.
My Take On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt to Break the Israeli Blockade of Gaza
My take appears to be unique, so I wonder that I might be way off, but I'm throwing it out there, because it smells right, and in the condemnation of Israel I smell a rat. Rather than argue the case in a narrative, I intend to begin by presenting certain facts.
1. The government of Gaza has publicly committed itself to the destruction if Israel. While it is not currently launching rockets at Israel, it has done so in the past, and takes no measures to deter its citizens from doing so now. As such, the government of Gaza constitutes a belligerent.
2. Israel has imposed a blockade against a belligerent that she is facing. Suggesting that the blockade is illegal collective punishment suggests that people are not responsible for the government that they have elected.
3. The sponsorship of the mission to break the Gaza blockade by a Turkish charity with close ties to the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recap Erdogan, is not a coincidence. The current Turkish government has been steadily pushing Turkey into the Islamist camp. Having once been disqualified from running due to its non-secular nature, the current Turkish ruling party (the bJustice and Development Party, or AKP) carefully cleansed itself externally, so as to qualify for the ballot. Having won the election, they began purging the military at the senior and mid grade officer level. Officers at these levels have traditionally seen themselves as guardians of the modern Turkish secular state. The party, having now protected themselves from the guardians of secularism, has moved to permit more overt public expressions of Islam. They are beginning to dismantle the modern Turkish secular state. They also canceled joint military exercises with Israel, and began close military cooperation with Iran and Syria. The sponsorship of the Gaza blockade run was just the most recent effort on the part of Turkey to make its bones in the Islamist world. The fact that people on board the Turkish Ferry Marvi Marmara were able to incite violence (the pipe swinging folks on deck are pretty good evidence, unless the Israelis faked it) just solidified the Turkish position. They now have solid Islamist credentials, and can continue dismantling Ataturk's state.
What does this mean for NATO? A member state is now exchanging military information with two strong supporters of state terrorism. Hey, you be the judge. While you're at it, for extra credit, judge whether NATO itself has a future.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Laying in Cider
It's done for the year. After months of fermentation, aging, and a bit of procrastination, the cider is bottled. Honesty requires that I admit that the only reason the task is done is that my wife got me going, then did half the work.
Hard cider isn't much appreciated in most of the country. There is at least one commercial variety available in this area, though you have to look hard for it. Last year I bought a bottle, just to compare the commercial product with my home brew. I was astonished at how much better the home brew product was. Unlike beer, making hard cider requires no cooking, no recipe per se. The most important element is the raw material, the unpasteurized apple cider. The hard cider cannot taste better than this raw material. If your experience with cider is limited to the highly clarified, pasteurized product, sometimes available in the supermarket, then you have no experience with a superior product. This superior product is getting more difficult to find; the federal government is making it more difficult to sell. The feds would prefer to see nothing but pasteurized, highly preserved “cider”, with all hazard to the user engineered out, along with all the flavor. Eventually, either the federal government, or the right product liability lawyer, will probably end commercial cider production altogether. Against that day, I've designed my own cider press. In my opinion, the cider we have in my area of Virginia is as good as any I've ever tasted.
In the family of fine alcoholic beverages, I put cider in the wine class. My first year's production tasted like a very dry apple wine. Given how full flavored my raw material was, I was surprised at how light the final product tasted. It was good enough to prompt a change in method this year. We made four batches, some with extra sugar added, to increase the alcohol content, and two different strains of yeast. Preliminary tasting, at bottling, suggests that the results will surpass last year's.
As with any product that must be fermented, then aged, only time will tell the final quality. We'll get our first real look in about six months, just in time for Thanksgiving.
Hard cider isn't much appreciated in most of the country. There is at least one commercial variety available in this area, though you have to look hard for it. Last year I bought a bottle, just to compare the commercial product with my home brew. I was astonished at how much better the home brew product was. Unlike beer, making hard cider requires no cooking, no recipe per se. The most important element is the raw material, the unpasteurized apple cider. The hard cider cannot taste better than this raw material. If your experience with cider is limited to the highly clarified, pasteurized product, sometimes available in the supermarket, then you have no experience with a superior product. This superior product is getting more difficult to find; the federal government is making it more difficult to sell. The feds would prefer to see nothing but pasteurized, highly preserved “cider”, with all hazard to the user engineered out, along with all the flavor. Eventually, either the federal government, or the right product liability lawyer, will probably end commercial cider production altogether. Against that day, I've designed my own cider press. In my opinion, the cider we have in my area of Virginia is as good as any I've ever tasted.
In the family of fine alcoholic beverages, I put cider in the wine class. My first year's production tasted like a very dry apple wine. Given how full flavored my raw material was, I was surprised at how light the final product tasted. It was good enough to prompt a change in method this year. We made four batches, some with extra sugar added, to increase the alcohol content, and two different strains of yeast. Preliminary tasting, at bottling, suggests that the results will surpass last year's.
As with any product that must be fermented, then aged, only time will tell the final quality. We'll get our first real look in about six months, just in time for Thanksgiving.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Where is The European Economic Crisis Going?
Where is The European Economic Crisis Going? I wish I knew the answer to this question. It would permit me to speculate, and perhaps become rich. The central issue is no longer the Greek economy, or Greece's inability to control its debt and budget deficit. Greece is now merely the light with which the overall crisis is being illuminated. The core issue may be the fact that, given our level of knowledge about the crisis, no one has the slightest idea what the euro is worth. The daily valuations of the euro on world currency markets amount to blind wanderings, and will continue thus until the markets are satisfied that the true depth and breadth of the crisis are known.
Here's a very little history. In the beginning, entry into the European common currency zone was to be restricted to those countries that could keep their annual budget deficits under three percent of GDP. This, plus a lick and a prayer, would be enough to bind together such disparate economies and cultures as Italy and Germany. Italy, where paying taxes is approached with good natured humor, and little compliance; Germany, where taxes are paid, and inflation is considered the ultimate enemy. There seemed to be no question that all EU members would be welcome in the eurozone, even before any had complied with the deficit requirement. We can't, at this point, prove that any eurozone countries weren't in compliance when they adopted the euro. However, we can prove that very few of these countries have kept their deficits under three percent of GDP for more than a year since adoption. It's a similar smoke and mirror routine to that employed in the United States, to disguise the size of the annual budget deficit.
Here's a little current reality. Every time the EU lifts its skirt to show a bit more of the truth, we see just a little more than we were supposed to see. Have Spain and Portugal really “fixed” their deficit problems quite so easily, with so much less unrest than Greece has, and is suffering? We will eventually have to know.
Want a little reinforcement? On 16 May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that (with the bail out fund) “we have done nothing more than to buy time until we have brought order to these competitive differences and to the budget deficits of individual euro countries.” Competitive differences, eh? Who knew that there were competitive differences between the German and Greek economies. I'd like to hear the barest outline of a plan to “bring order” to that.
Until the full extent of he eurozone sovereign debt crisis is understood, there is no way to value the euro. If the crisis, and information deficit, persist for much more than a month, the euro could easily reach parity with the dollar. That would be quite a fall. In fact, it could become a free fall.
Peace and love.
Here's a very little history. In the beginning, entry into the European common currency zone was to be restricted to those countries that could keep their annual budget deficits under three percent of GDP. This, plus a lick and a prayer, would be enough to bind together such disparate economies and cultures as Italy and Germany. Italy, where paying taxes is approached with good natured humor, and little compliance; Germany, where taxes are paid, and inflation is considered the ultimate enemy. There seemed to be no question that all EU members would be welcome in the eurozone, even before any had complied with the deficit requirement. We can't, at this point, prove that any eurozone countries weren't in compliance when they adopted the euro. However, we can prove that very few of these countries have kept their deficits under three percent of GDP for more than a year since adoption. It's a similar smoke and mirror routine to that employed in the United States, to disguise the size of the annual budget deficit.
Here's a little current reality. Every time the EU lifts its skirt to show a bit more of the truth, we see just a little more than we were supposed to see. Have Spain and Portugal really “fixed” their deficit problems quite so easily, with so much less unrest than Greece has, and is suffering? We will eventually have to know.
Want a little reinforcement? On 16 May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that (with the bail out fund) “we have done nothing more than to buy time until we have brought order to these competitive differences and to the budget deficits of individual euro countries.” Competitive differences, eh? Who knew that there were competitive differences between the German and Greek economies. I'd like to hear the barest outline of a plan to “bring order” to that.
Until the full extent of he eurozone sovereign debt crisis is understood, there is no way to value the euro. If the crisis, and information deficit, persist for much more than a month, the euro could easily reach parity with the dollar. That would be quite a fall. In fact, it could become a free fall.
Peace and love.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The End of America's Time
A supposedly smart person recently remarked to me that the United States, in many ways, resembled England after World War II. She spoke of England groaning under her war debt after 1945, and her final realization, during the Suez crisis, that the empire was finished. All this is true, but it may not correspond that well to the United States' current position. All the above is true, but England was really done after World War I. She had a great fleet in being, and a remarkable empire that was at or near its maximum reach. Her traditional enemy, Germany, was prostrate, and on the verge of experiencing revolution and inflation that is still the example of what to most fear in economic policy.
England had crushing war debts, much of it to the United States. She repudiated much of them, which earned her no new friends across the Atlantic. But the final, crushing blow was the League of Nations, whose mandates gave England sway over former Ottoman provinces that were nothing but trouble. Elie Khedouri, in “The Chatham House Version,” describes how England desperately wanted to be free of these mandates well before they were scheduled to expire, for they were costing her dearly, at a time when she could ill afford the cost. One result of England's burden was her inability to rearm in the face of a rearming Germany. In fact, even before Germany began rearming, the British Parliament had passed the secret Ten Years Rule, or Pernicious Law (as its opponents called it). The Ten Years Law stated that England could count on ten years warning for a major war, hence, there was no need to further arm or modernize the military until such warning was received. The law was renewed each year (also in secret), pushing the ten year window one more year into the future. That didn't work out too well for them.
The United States has no mandates such as England had, but we do have active and serious military commitments throughout the world. These commitments are crushing. Additionally, every world wide humanitarian crisis demands US attention, both in terms of direct aid, and broad (and expensive) logistics support. It's possible that most of the world doesn't realize the magnitude of the task to move thousands of tons of supplies, whether munitions or food aid, from one point to another in rapid order. The United States has done this frequently, during humanitarian crises going back to 1947. The expense is immense; the cost comes right out of the defense budget. The great expense of flying large quantities of material is lost on most people, but it's not just a matter of money. You must have the equipment and expertise, as well. Owning and maintaining the equipment to do all this is, in itself, remarkably expensive. Even if we are reimbursed for the costs of transporting such aid, the wear and tear on our transport capability shortens the service life of equipment, creating additional hidden costs.
Given our debts, our hollowed out industrial infrastructure, and our appetite for more and more domestic spending, there will come a point when, even pictures of starving, beaten women and children on the nightly news will be insufficient to bring forth US aid.
Then, who will be the pillar of the free world.
England had crushing war debts, much of it to the United States. She repudiated much of them, which earned her no new friends across the Atlantic. But the final, crushing blow was the League of Nations, whose mandates gave England sway over former Ottoman provinces that were nothing but trouble. Elie Khedouri, in “The Chatham House Version,” describes how England desperately wanted to be free of these mandates well before they were scheduled to expire, for they were costing her dearly, at a time when she could ill afford the cost. One result of England's burden was her inability to rearm in the face of a rearming Germany. In fact, even before Germany began rearming, the British Parliament had passed the secret Ten Years Rule, or Pernicious Law (as its opponents called it). The Ten Years Law stated that England could count on ten years warning for a major war, hence, there was no need to further arm or modernize the military until such warning was received. The law was renewed each year (also in secret), pushing the ten year window one more year into the future. That didn't work out too well for them.
The United States has no mandates such as England had, but we do have active and serious military commitments throughout the world. These commitments are crushing. Additionally, every world wide humanitarian crisis demands US attention, both in terms of direct aid, and broad (and expensive) logistics support. It's possible that most of the world doesn't realize the magnitude of the task to move thousands of tons of supplies, whether munitions or food aid, from one point to another in rapid order. The United States has done this frequently, during humanitarian crises going back to 1947. The expense is immense; the cost comes right out of the defense budget. The great expense of flying large quantities of material is lost on most people, but it's not just a matter of money. You must have the equipment and expertise, as well. Owning and maintaining the equipment to do all this is, in itself, remarkably expensive. Even if we are reimbursed for the costs of transporting such aid, the wear and tear on our transport capability shortens the service life of equipment, creating additional hidden costs.
Given our debts, our hollowed out industrial infrastructure, and our appetite for more and more domestic spending, there will come a point when, even pictures of starving, beaten women and children on the nightly news will be insufficient to bring forth US aid.
Then, who will be the pillar of the free world.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The End of Federalism
Educated observers of the United States like to talk about federalism, that is, the relationship between the Federal Government of the United States and individual states. Many wax poetic about the states as laboratories of the democratic process. Let's end such talk right now. Permanently. There are no more states as meaningful legislative entities. What Lincoln began with the Civil War, and Roosevelt refined with the New Deal, has been finished by the post World War II federal government that has a program for absolutely everything, from child health care to high school homework. The federal government may be broke, but the steady stream of money from the US Treasury to the states continues to flow, even if the feds must keep an extra shift on just to print enough of those phony bucks. The Constitution may limit the power of the federal government, but failure of a state to adhere to even one bizarre federal regulation can mean loss of all federal aid. Since the states are equally broke, but unable to print their own money, they must tow the federal line, or lose the federal aid to which they have become highly addicted. The result? There ain't no states. There are jurisdictions where a local government functions by sufferance of Washington, but the states can no longer do ANYTHING if the feds object.
End of song. End of states. Why bother with the fiction? Have a nice day.
End of song. End of states. Why bother with the fiction? Have a nice day.
The Curse of Political Parity
The period roughly stretching from the early 1950s, though the late 1970s, might be described as a political and legislative golden age in the United States. While there were plenty of rough spots, such as the two Cuban crises, Berlin and Vietnam, much good was done by government. The US successfully anchored NATO, countering a serious Soviet threat, nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba, the space exploration program was begun, and reached the moon. Medicare, and the civil rights, and voting rights acts, were passed and signed into law.
What made these many positive milestones possible? A permanent legislative minority. Republicans formed a “loyal opposition”, one that knew it could not achieve majority status in the near term. It's true that the two parties weren't nearly as far apart ideologically as they are now, but the long term minority status of a single party, in a two party system, led to a significant amount of true bipartisan cooperation. With no near term hope of winning a majority of seats in either house, there was no need for continuous legislative conflict in order to try to gain advantage in the next election.
This situation is long passed. Either party has a reasonable chance of gaining majority status in either house. The result is constant warfare on the part of the minority party, in each house, in an attempt to win a majority of seats in the next election. We see constant, highly charged, partisan guerrilla warfare, with the hope that the majority party will fail to accomplish anything, and can be held up to the electorate as such.
There is no likely cure for this condition. In fact, several factors make it probable that the situation will get worse.
1. The ideological divide between the two parties, and within the politically active electorate, has widened, and is moire likely to widen, rather than narrow. This ideological divide is itself being used to energize politically active supporters; this alone suggests that it will widen.
2. The federal government's involvement in funding and regulating daily activities has increased by several orders of magnitude since the early 1960s. This has created a “bigger pie” of issues over which the parties can fight.
3. The federal government, and many state governments, are rapidly approaching insolvency. Given the magnitude of government's role in the economy at all levels, both parties are heavily occupied with attempting to show how we can solve the fiscal train wrecks without real pain. There is no way. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are so frightened of the consequences of cutting any significant federal program, that Congress wouldn't even agree to form a bipartisan commission to study debt reduction. Such a commission is one of the last great refuges of political cowards, so our senators and congressmen must be really scared.
Where do we go from here? We don't go to any useful place. We keep hurtling toward the fiscal abyss, with the money throttle on high, and no serious possibility of a tax increase. Now, all together now, everyone raise their hand who thinks that Congress would use the proceeds from a tax increase to reduce the deficit, rather than increase spending. Hmmm... thought so.
What made these many positive milestones possible? A permanent legislative minority. Republicans formed a “loyal opposition”, one that knew it could not achieve majority status in the near term. It's true that the two parties weren't nearly as far apart ideologically as they are now, but the long term minority status of a single party, in a two party system, led to a significant amount of true bipartisan cooperation. With no near term hope of winning a majority of seats in either house, there was no need for continuous legislative conflict in order to try to gain advantage in the next election.
This situation is long passed. Either party has a reasonable chance of gaining majority status in either house. The result is constant warfare on the part of the minority party, in each house, in an attempt to win a majority of seats in the next election. We see constant, highly charged, partisan guerrilla warfare, with the hope that the majority party will fail to accomplish anything, and can be held up to the electorate as such.
There is no likely cure for this condition. In fact, several factors make it probable that the situation will get worse.
1. The ideological divide between the two parties, and within the politically active electorate, has widened, and is moire likely to widen, rather than narrow. This ideological divide is itself being used to energize politically active supporters; this alone suggests that it will widen.
2. The federal government's involvement in funding and regulating daily activities has increased by several orders of magnitude since the early 1960s. This has created a “bigger pie” of issues over which the parties can fight.
3. The federal government, and many state governments, are rapidly approaching insolvency. Given the magnitude of government's role in the economy at all levels, both parties are heavily occupied with attempting to show how we can solve the fiscal train wrecks without real pain. There is no way. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are so frightened of the consequences of cutting any significant federal program, that Congress wouldn't even agree to form a bipartisan commission to study debt reduction. Such a commission is one of the last great refuges of political cowards, so our senators and congressmen must be really scared.
Where do we go from here? We don't go to any useful place. We keep hurtling toward the fiscal abyss, with the money throttle on high, and no serious possibility of a tax increase. Now, all together now, everyone raise their hand who thinks that Congress would use the proceeds from a tax increase to reduce the deficit, rather than increase spending. Hmmm... thought so.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Do We Understand Where We've Been in the Last Three Years?
Do we? Our investment banks are still dealing in derivatives, using a 30:1 leverage ratio. You didn't really think that that they could rack up such profits without using other peoples' money, did you? Since Senator Chris Dodd announced his retirement, he has been willing to consider some type of reforms, but given how bland and ineffective the reforms are likely to be, one might imagine that he could have the decency to speak on behalf of the public concerning how little reform we are likely to get, even under the best of circumstances. The Democrats, a clear majority in Congress, seem to be in single minded pursuit of the financial consumer protection agency. This will thoroughly mask the fact that there will be little reform of those elements that nearly brought down our economy. It's not treason, but it is disgusting.
A Note on the Picture
The photo of me appearing on the blog was taken about six years ago. I've not aged well since then.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Rational Market
Justin Fox has written a book called “The Myth of the Rational Market.” As one might imagine, it's carefully aimed at the recent financial ex/implosion. Fox thoroughly describes the theory and history of the rational market, that is, the theory that “markets” will tend toward behavior that will prevent them from collapsing. Fox shows the holes in this theory, but his assumptions and conclusions are only partially correct.
Markets are not homogeneous entities. They operate on multiple levels, with different levels exercising differing degrees of control over market behavior. Those in control of financial markets acted rationally. As financial markets expanded, they required more and more product. Derivatives, specifically those whose value were based on second and third order extensions to sub prime mortgages, filled the need for product. The beauty of these second and third order derivatives was that they required no additional entities of value in order to be created; they were based purely on faith in the value of the mortgages themselves, and on the underlying derivatives that were based on the underling mortgages. Still with me? Those creating these derivatives were well aware of their worthless nature. The goal was to sell the products quickly, getting them off the books, and in the process, generating a sales commission on every transaction. This made the originator of the product wealthy, while removing any responsibility for the product's future value from the originator. The originators had no need for future market health, as they no longer required a stake in the market. The new owners were just typical semi-passive residents of the back end of a speculative bubble. The entire rationale for the market's existence was simply to generate sales commissions, not to serve as a place where derivatives were traded. That trading was just a vehicle. In another time, the same traders might have dealt in precious metals (though they are problematic from a speculative point of view, since they do have some intrinsic value), tulip bulbs, or fictional railroad shares. It doesn't matter what the product is; whatever the product is, it simply has to exist at some existential level.
Ironically, investors in mortgage backed securities had ample opportunity to learn of their lack of worth. While brokers hyped these products, Gretchen Morgenson and Joe Nocera, of the New York Times, were accurately describing them as junk, at least two years before the crash. In another remarkable twist of irony, the banks and brokerage houses ended up caught with billions of dollars worth of these worthless securities (now so appropriately named toxic assets), while many of their own traders walked away with fortunes enough to retire to the French Riviera.
So, here we had the freest of free markets, wholly unregulated, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the investment houses and banks themselves. The investment houses could work with these derivative products in any way they saw fit, short of out and out fraud. The result? A web so tangled, with assets so arcane, that the CEOs of these investment houses couldn't understand them. They do conduct risk management at those brokerages and investment banks, don't they? Well no matter, the criminals who perpetrated this crime-less crime were made whole, their fortunes intact. Those who were sold this crap saw their fortunes, however slim, evaporate. The free market was very free indeed, punishing idiots, while rewarding those who understood the territory. The irony continues. Congressional windbags have had much to say about how bad things were, but they can't agree on regulation to prevent another blow up. The financial lobby still wants an unregulated derivatives market. Now that's the best Congress money can buy, and it's a market that has preserved itself. Caveat emptor? O tempora, o mores!
Markets are not homogeneous entities. They operate on multiple levels, with different levels exercising differing degrees of control over market behavior. Those in control of financial markets acted rationally. As financial markets expanded, they required more and more product. Derivatives, specifically those whose value were based on second and third order extensions to sub prime mortgages, filled the need for product. The beauty of these second and third order derivatives was that they required no additional entities of value in order to be created; they were based purely on faith in the value of the mortgages themselves, and on the underlying derivatives that were based on the underling mortgages. Still with me? Those creating these derivatives were well aware of their worthless nature. The goal was to sell the products quickly, getting them off the books, and in the process, generating a sales commission on every transaction. This made the originator of the product wealthy, while removing any responsibility for the product's future value from the originator. The originators had no need for future market health, as they no longer required a stake in the market. The new owners were just typical semi-passive residents of the back end of a speculative bubble. The entire rationale for the market's existence was simply to generate sales commissions, not to serve as a place where derivatives were traded. That trading was just a vehicle. In another time, the same traders might have dealt in precious metals (though they are problematic from a speculative point of view, since they do have some intrinsic value), tulip bulbs, or fictional railroad shares. It doesn't matter what the product is; whatever the product is, it simply has to exist at some existential level.
Ironically, investors in mortgage backed securities had ample opportunity to learn of their lack of worth. While brokers hyped these products, Gretchen Morgenson and Joe Nocera, of the New York Times, were accurately describing them as junk, at least two years before the crash. In another remarkable twist of irony, the banks and brokerage houses ended up caught with billions of dollars worth of these worthless securities (now so appropriately named toxic assets), while many of their own traders walked away with fortunes enough to retire to the French Riviera.
So, here we had the freest of free markets, wholly unregulated, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the investment houses and banks themselves. The investment houses could work with these derivative products in any way they saw fit, short of out and out fraud. The result? A web so tangled, with assets so arcane, that the CEOs of these investment houses couldn't understand them. They do conduct risk management at those brokerages and investment banks, don't they? Well no matter, the criminals who perpetrated this crime-less crime were made whole, their fortunes intact. Those who were sold this crap saw their fortunes, however slim, evaporate. The free market was very free indeed, punishing idiots, while rewarding those who understood the territory. The irony continues. Congressional windbags have had much to say about how bad things were, but they can't agree on regulation to prevent another blow up. The financial lobby still wants an unregulated derivatives market. Now that's the best Congress money can buy, and it's a market that has preserved itself. Caveat emptor? O tempora, o mores!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Committing National Suicide
According to the Times of London, the Swiss government is planning to crack down on what appears to be an epidemic of suicide tourism. I'm not familiar with the situation, but I suppose people from less enlightened countries, in need of ending their lives, can visit that alpine paradise to get the deed done.
We in the United States, however, needn't worry about raising the air fare from our shrunken pocketbooks. We are in the midst of committing national suicide. I know, know, people have been predicting the end of American civilization as we know it since the New Deal, or perhaps since the Wilson administration. This time the doomsayers maybe on to something, though.
We have adopted a perverse variant of Keynesian economic theory, whereby we run large budget deficits in the good years, and gigantic ones in the bad years. At the same time, economists, or at least those who would be heard, have divorced their theories from any concept of a balance sheet, taking shelter in their particular ideologies. This condition guarantees that the American economy will sooner or later come to a full stop, and to the day when we can no longer find buyers for our debt. Our only alternative to social, economic, and political chaos will be to print money willy nilly, touching off inflation on a scale that will dwarf that of the 1970s. At that point the American emperor, whose "full faith and credit" have been the gold standard, will be shown to have no clothes, and will become the "sick man", just as once the Ottoman Empire did, as it faded away.
We in the United States, however, needn't worry about raising the air fare from our shrunken pocketbooks. We are in the midst of committing national suicide. I know, know, people have been predicting the end of American civilization as we know it since the New Deal, or perhaps since the Wilson administration. This time the doomsayers maybe on to something, though.
We have adopted a perverse variant of Keynesian economic theory, whereby we run large budget deficits in the good years, and gigantic ones in the bad years. At the same time, economists, or at least those who would be heard, have divorced their theories from any concept of a balance sheet, taking shelter in their particular ideologies. This condition guarantees that the American economy will sooner or later come to a full stop, and to the day when we can no longer find buyers for our debt. Our only alternative to social, economic, and political chaos will be to print money willy nilly, touching off inflation on a scale that will dwarf that of the 1970s. At that point the American emperor, whose "full faith and credit" have been the gold standard, will be shown to have no clothes, and will become the "sick man", just as once the Ottoman Empire did, as it faded away.
Monday, January 18, 2010
They Say Our Debt is Ballooning
According to Economist Joseph P. Stiglitz, our national debt is ballooning. Didn't that already happen? Was I otherwise engaged while we ran a bunch of budget surpluses, and paid the debt down to sub-balloon level? I've had attention span issues before. There are enough statistic generators out there, so I'll not review the deficit numbers. I just have one question for our bosses (formerly our elected leaders): At what level will the deficit start to seriously worry you? I don't need to ask whether winning the next election is more precious than the future of the country; you've proven that to be so. Once again... I'm out of here.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A Remembrance of Old Champagne
I'm not much of a wine drinker, but once upon a time I was. As a brand new ensign, I wasn't likely to drink much in the way of really fine wine, but there are occasions when the rule meets its exception. I was flying over seas the next day to meet my first ship. I frequently passed a very fine wine shop near the Boston Public Gardens and while I'd occasionally visited to chat with the salesman, on this day I was a customer. The bottles were arranged on their sides, in hoppers, and above each hopper lay a single display bottle, so that customers could check out the merchandise. I entered, passing the more than ample Bordeaux section without a second look. The champagne section was in the rear, and given the nature of the product, it was the smallest. I didn't have to look far. Right on the corner was a unique bottle. Most champagne bottles were green, but this one had a purplish cast, and an odd shape – Veuve Clicquot - 1961. I'd had a few half bottles of champagne, though never a vintage bottle, and never Veuve Clicquot. It was August, 1975. Fourteen years can be a long time for a cork to hold pressure, so, in a fit of pure insanity, I bought not one, but two bottles. The only wine book I'd ever read said that old champagne could be a delight, or a disappointment.
Each bottle came wrapped in tissue paper; the salesman carefully bagged them, with plenty of padding, and I walked home to chill them. When the time cane, I carefully held the cork, while twisting the bottle. It cane away without a sound, leaving an eighth inch plug in the neck. A cork screw made quick work of the plug. The faintest phht told me that all might not be lost. The champagne gave off just a few bubbles in the long, slim fluted glasses. The surprise was in the drinking. I don't think that it's possible to clearly describe the taste and aroma of old champagne. The closest I could come would be to suggest a light perfume of liquid flowers. All good people should be lucky enough to taste this once in their lifetime.
Each bottle came wrapped in tissue paper; the salesman carefully bagged them, with plenty of padding, and I walked home to chill them. When the time cane, I carefully held the cork, while twisting the bottle. It cane away without a sound, leaving an eighth inch plug in the neck. A cork screw made quick work of the plug. The faintest phht told me that all might not be lost. The champagne gave off just a few bubbles in the long, slim fluted glasses. The surprise was in the drinking. I don't think that it's possible to clearly describe the taste and aroma of old champagne. The closest I could come would be to suggest a light perfume of liquid flowers. All good people should be lucky enough to taste this once in their lifetime.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Fire The Bums
Well, let's start with Mr. Timothy Geithner. Fire him for failing to recognize the train wreck that was the financial collapse. If he claims to have recognized it, but says that he had no portfolio to prevent it, congratulate him, and tell him that he can get his 'safe little bureaucrat' card punched on the way out.
Dr Ben Bernake? Get him in front of the appropriate Congressional committee, then ask him exactly what he thought his job was during the last three years. Give him no peace until he stops obfuscating. We have a right to know.
Dr Ben Bernake? Get him in front of the appropriate Congressional committee, then ask him exactly what he thought his job was during the last three years. Give him no peace until he stops obfuscating. We have a right to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
