Can You Trust This Man?

In medical jurisprudence the term res ipsa loquitur refers to a circumstance of malpractice that is so glaringly obvious that no other explanation is necessary, with the classic example being a sponge left in the abdomen after surgery. Write the check, as they say.

The recent bailout bill proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson speaks for itself:

Section 8:"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Yeah, right. I realize that Paulson's resume is supposedly unimpeachable, having been the CEO of Goldman Sachs, having sold his half billion dollar stash of stock upon leaving his post for the government... this guy knows money. We should all feel fortunate that individuals of this caliber are willing to serve in the government.

But let's review what Secretary Paulson has told us about housing since he took office a couple years ago:

12/25/06: "I don't know whether [housing] has bottomed out... [Whether housing] has bottomed out, not quite bottomed out, or is going to take a quarter or two longer, the thing that we've seen is that other parts of the economy are doing so well that we're just powering through this."

3/13/07: "It's too early to tell whether [Housing Market] has bottomed. I believe it has. We'll know more in the next month or two."

4/20/07: "All the signs I look at [show] the housing market is at or near the bottom."

6/20/07: "We have had a major housing correction in this country. I do believe we are at or near the bottom."

7/2/07: "In terms of looking at housing, most of us believe that it's at or near the bottom. It's had a significant impact on the economy. No one is forecasting when, with any degree of clarity, that the upturn is going to come other than it's at or near the bottom."

7/23/07: U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Monday the U.S. housing market correction was "at or near the bottom".

8/2/07: Secretary Paulson: "No. ... let me be pretty clear about what I've said before. When I said... that there had been a major correction and the housing market was at or near the bottom, I also have said that I thought this would not resolve itself any time soon, and that it would take a reasonably good period of time for the sub-prime issues to move through the economy as mortgages reset. But that as, even though this, and it is a cause of concern, the impact on individual homeowners, and we care a lot about that, but I said as an economic matter I believe this was largely contained because we have a diverse and healthy economy."

In other words, he's been wrong. Not just "a little off", but stunningly and repeatedly wrong. Wrong when others have been shouting from the rooftops that the housing market and subprime lending and creative Wall Street products are going to take down the economy.  What Paulson has told has been wrong, and I don't think it's an accident.  He's a white guy in a suit, so you know there's a better than even chance he's lying.

Now, in the final months of the Cheney administration, an administration that has already taken unprecedented latitude in the assumption of political and military power, the final act will be to skate off with $1 trillion, no questions allowed.

As Glenn Greenwald has summarized:

The [Cheney] administration's central strategy has been repeatedly to tell courts that they have no right to review the Leader's decisions. The Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and the Patriot Act all provide, to one degree or another, the exact same absolute executive discretion and prohibition on judicial review that the Paulson Plan provides, and in doing so, allows the President to decide which individuals -- including Americans -- are spied on, arrested, detained, rendered, and subjected to all sorts of interrogation methods without any review at all. The administration repeatedly told Congress and courts that what they did -- in general -- was far too secret to allow any oversight or review of any kind.  

And now they want whatever tax revenue they can shake out of your pocket on their way out the door.  

In a word, "No fucking way."

And don't even start with the panic talk.  Reasonable ideas exist to get a handle on the Global Economic Crisis (TM), and none of them need inclusion of a blank check to one of Cheney's acolytes.  Res ipsa loquitur, baby.

Another McCain endorsement: "It's gettin' down to the nut cut."

I work with guys like this (is this you, Kevin?):

[Note: Turn the music off on the right before watching videos on the blog.]






This is not an actor. Yes, despite the zillions of public dollars spent on education, libraries, and media there really are people this piss ignorant.... and, more frightening, THEY VOTE!

We're fucked. But the video is funny (especially 2:02 to 2:08 and 3:04 to 3:21). Great entertainment, like watching the stand-up comic on the deck of the Titanic as the women and children board the lifeboats.

"Osama bin Obama. What the hell are you people thinkin'?!"

McCain/ Palin will win in a walk

This election is over.

John McCain, in a masterstroke, has chosen the perfect candidate that will complement his presidential ticket. Barack Obama with his transcendent quest of hope and change has been beaten. A couple weeks ago I would have predicted another nail-biter to be decided on election night by a couple teetering counties, but not anymore. It’s McCain/Palin in a walk. Here are the reasons.

Warrior Ethos.

An unlikely source recently pointed out that in nearly every general election for president, the candidate who more embodies the warrior has won. Brent Steenberger , on his trading website, recognized that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush have all been characterized as the "manly" man, either younger, taller or swarthier, in the election and each have won. I would add that John Kerry's warrior persona, the decorated hero, necessarily had to be attacked and discredited for him to lose, and it was. This attraction to the fighter may be a universal trait for all cultures with the warrior held in high regard either on an overtly conscious level or a subconscious reptilian level. George W. Bush landing on the air deck in his flight suit, while silly in the extreme, achieved a lasting emotional impression of the warrior. And this phenomenon transcends gender: Margaret Thatcher, a woman, would have certainly been considered the more "manly" of the candidates in her day.

Located deep in our primitive mid brain the fight or flight response is sequestered, and it comes to the fore in times of great importance-- such as crisis, or an election. Such basic impulses of tribal preservation will short-circuit the higher cerebral functions every time. McCain is the consummate warrior whose life story exudes the ethos of sacrifice for the sake of comrades and country. Someone will be quick to ask why, then, did John McCain lose to the draft dodger Bush in the Republican primary of 2000? The warrior ethos principle only works in the general election. When the average voter gets down to the "nut cut" and is alone in that booth for the general election, a transformation takes place. The primaries are all about vague ideas of hope and transcendence; the general is about our very survival.

The interesting thing that the John McCain saga demonstrates is the self-replicating nature of the warrior ethos. McCain was the son and grandson of military academy-trained career warriors. He fought in a war that was unnecessary, ill-conceived, probably illegal, and escalated by a testosterone-addled Southerner (LBJ) not unlike the current Iraqi incursion. The Vietnam war produced the POW hero McCain who then called for and supported another unnecessary, ill-conceived, and probably illegal war. And now his career is about to be advanced because of the similarly poor prosecution of said war. What if the Vietnam war had never occurred, or at least had never been escalated? Answer: There would have been no POW McCain, no celebrity status, no Senate career, no presidential run. Lt. John McCain, who graduated in the bottom 2% of his class, would have finished out his career in Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, pickling his brain with gin and lathering his genitalia with trollops. McCain's career has been part and parcel the self-perpetuation of the warrior ethos.

George Lakoff:

Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image.

Sarah Palin is a self-described pit bull who is unashamed in espousing her unblinking desire to take on the entrenched powers in Washington, stare done the Russians and tackle the daunting economic crises. This will be looked upon very favorably by right wing social conservatives who see her as the point person in the war against the liberal valueless society. Also, she will be viewed positively by white suburban and small town mothers, actual knowledge and experience are far less important. Palin's life story is compelling and this was slammed home to me a few days ago at work. Three female co-workers of mine, all mothers and one a grandmother, are very favorably inclined to Sarah Palin as vice-president, and I know for a fact that two of these women are quite liberal socially. One said, "I like that she's a hockey mom like me." When I asked how hockey moms are viewed versus soccer moms, she kidded that, well, soccer kids are derogatorily called "foot fairies" by the "brick headed" hockey kids. Warrior ethos, baby. Obama's soccer moms don't stand a chance. Another remarked, "Yeah, I think she [Palin] would kick ass, which is what they [whoever "they" is] all need." All three of these women would have "no problem" with her as vice-president or even president, as a half-smile erupted over each of their faces.

Furthermore, these arguments, if they can even be called arguments, were made midweek, before we knew anything substantive about Sarah Palin. This is a gut emotional reaction, and it's not just favorable-- it very favorable. Senator Obama, whether he likes it or not, has been cast as the pointy-headed east coast liberal, and this is a tough persona to shake. Joe Biden, while he has extensive experience in foreign policy, is equated with the entrenched Washington elite and is strongly associated with the status quo. This is my impression, but I'll stand by it and it's no wonder to me that Obama/Biden have lost their poll advantage to McCain/Palin.

Emotion versus Substance.

Issues are lost on the vast majority of voters, and elections are decided on the emotional power manifested in the candidate, not the substance of the issue. Voters are famous for voting against their own best interests time and time again. Let's take taxes as an example. The two candidates have presented tax revisions that are fairly equal for the great mass of taxpayers, not that there is any chance that either plan would pass unchanged into law, but let's consider them.

Obama's plan will lower income taxes for the great majority of taxpayers, but will raise taxes for those making over $200,000 and will raise total tax revenues. McCain's plan lowers taxes across the board and will likely lower total tax revenues paid into the treasury, notwithstanding Arthur Laffer's curve. A colleague of mine who is certainly in my tax bracket and hovers around the upper 5% income earners has voiced unconditional support for McCain because, "if Democrats get elected, they'll raise my taxes and my family will be living in a cardboard house." When I pointed out that, according to a rundown the two plans, our income taxes would likely be unchanged, she was unconvinced. I further argued that the wars started and mismanaged by the current Republican leadership are the main reason we are wallowing in such budget debt now, which is necessitating oppressive taxation in the future.  No dice.  The emotional trigger is that Democrats are associated with higher taxes, nobody wants to pay taxes, so there is no way someone in a higher bracket is going to vote for a Democrat-- even if there is substantively no difference to their bank account.

Even on issues that do represent significant differences between candidates, the voters will ignore their own preferences.  Health care is persistently at the top of peoples' lists of probelms that need solving, and when presented various solutions, they usually prefer the universal health option over the fee-for-service employer based model.  Regardless, voters do not vote in their best interests when it comes to president. 

Another item: voters that I have come in contact with have offered an emotional defense in deference to Sarah Palin when issues of experience and education are broached. One colleague noted that she herself, like most of us on the medical staff, went to a state medical school which would not be considered "elite" by Obama's Harvard credentials, yet she considered herself an excellent physician, and furthermore, she knew one student in her med school class who was "an idiot" and "he came from Harvard." Palin's University of Idaho communications degree after attending four nameless schools in four years goes unquestioned because to do so would also put her own state school credentials in question. See, smart people can certainly come from state schools, so there, and it follows that Sarah Palin must be one of those smart people.

Along these same lines is an emotional anti-intellectual sentiment which is very alive in the hinterlands. In fact, staunch rural Bush acolytes who support the Iraq war, the global war on terror, guns, god and abortion restrictions, have all but blamed Bush's east coast education for the general lack of success in his presidency and certainly the specific sub par prosecution of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. McCain and Palin, neither with an advanced university degree, are viewed as change agents from the status quo, a concept which acts in their favor. Obama, after all, went to the same school as Bush, so why should we believe that he'll perform any better than Bush did? And Biden, the lawyer? Please. What we need is the PTA mom and the POW who know how to get things done, dammit.  Never mind that the POW owns several houses whose net worth is hundreds of millions of dollars while the supposed "elitist snob" was raised by a single mother on food stamps.  Substance matters not.

Sarah Palin stated in her interview with Charlie Gibson that her foreign policy credentials are burnished partly because (and I'm not making his up): "you can see Russia from Alaska." Now, I can see the moon from my kitchen, does that make me an astronaut? While Palin is technically correct that Russia's possession, Big Diomede island, is visible is from Alaska's Little Diomede island in the Baring Strait, the argument is just one drop of silliness in an entire ocean of silliness represented by the Charlie Gibson-Sarah Palin interview (everyone should watch it in it's entirety.)  While Palin's argument is substantively bankrupt, the emotional power of some isolated US island staring down the Russian goliath is powerful.

Other emotional issues are guns (will Democrats really take away my guns?); abortion (overturning Roe vs. Wade would likely not prevent one abortion); gays (call it a civil union, equate it with marriage, and move on); God (doesn't even deserve a comment in this context.) Sure, Democrats may vote their emotions on these issues, but the Republican spin-meisters have been masterful in turning each and every one of these issues to their favor.

Attitude versus Veracity

Sarah Palin gave a rousing acceptance speech, spewing half-truths and lies off the tele-prompter; she never stopped smiling and won acclaim by every talking head on television. She showed that spunky attitude we all love! My take is that the media literati were so surprised that a rube governor from the Arctic could string together more than a few sentences that they immediately became enamored with the personality of Sarah Palin, forgetting the vile substance of her "speech", and that affection was quickly transferred to the viewers at home. In a tremendous tactic by the campaign, Palin was then sequestered behind the rhetoric, repeating talking points by day and learning more talking points by night, certainly under the tutelage of a Rovian lieutenant.

Obama and Biden have been back on their heels, unable and unwilling to attack for fear of being perceived uncouth. When Obama uttered a cliche about "lipstick on a pig" a few days later, referring to Republican policies, McCain himself came out and chivalrously demanded an apology for his lady running mate and the campaign ran an ad chastising Obama for the remark, even though Obama never mentioned Palin his entire speech in question and the always gracious Obama obviously had no ill intent. Senator McCain, on the View later in the week, disingenuously and categorically stated "Senator Obama always chooses his words carefully and I know what he meant." Really?  We all knew McCain was full of shit, but the image-- the attitude-- of the paternal senior statesman standing up for his vulnerable female partner was priceless, and even the liberal leaning women on the View gave him a pass.

This is about the time most voters' eyes glaze over in apathy with the false determination that "ah, they're all the same; both sides lie to benefit themselves.  It's all just BS."  This could not be further from the truth, and has been promoted with Obama's relatively polite campaign contrasted with the festival of lies that is popularly known as the Republican Convention.  The same was true with the 2000 Al Gore character assasination that went unanswered and the 2004 Swiftboating of John Kerry.  Neither of these men showed enough  deference to even defend themselves from salacious lies and the voters see this as either weakness, inattention or apathy, any of which is a death sentence for a candidate.   The venom from the Democrats pales in comparison to that from the GOP.  I believe Democratic voters hold their candidates to a higher standard as evidenced by the defeat of the less than credible, but certainly more venomous, Hillary Clinton.

I would have liked to hear Obama exert more attitude on the issue, and I think it would have served him well with voters. In other words, get pissed my man. What he should have said was, "Listen, I never engage in childish veiled name-calling, that's never been my style, and when the time comes that I call my opponent a pig, they'll definitely know it." Instead, Obama tried to take the high road and muttered some polite musings about the proper decorum of a campaign, or some such rubbish. Where's the warrior ethos? Where's the attitude? Doesn't he know that if the meek are going to inherit the earth, they're going to have to kick ass for it?

The other controversy this week was the McCain campaign advertisement stating that Barack Obama wants to teach explicit sex education to kindergartners. This was a canard first presented by the wild-eyed Alan Keyes in his failed US Senate race against Obama and is based on a bill Obama had presented and passed in the Illinois state senate regarding K-12 education. The bill required age-appropriate education and called for 5 and 6 year-olds to learn about inappropriate touching in order to protect them from sexual predators. What kind of a deviant would try to turn this into a campaign issue? Obama, instead of showing the proper outrage, let the controversy die a slow death-- but the damage is done in the eyes of the voters-- and I can just see his legion of stalwart campaign workers gasping for air as they march door to door with the image of their withering beacon of hope in tatters.

Again, I would have liked to hear Obama show a little more attitude. What he should have said was, "I don't know what kind of cretin could write a commercial like this, but I need to know who wrote this script. I am stating right now that I require the script writer and the narrator to take the stage with John McCain during a prime time televised event to explain the text of this ad. I will not debate Mr. McCain until I personally settle this matter in front of the public." This would immediately catch fire in the media and the raging inferno would live longer than the usual nanosecond spark of most issues, thus exposing the McCain campaign for the charlatans that they are. Every day, the media whores who live for the red meat of the debates would fear the loss of the ad revenue, and they would ask if it were true that the debate will be canceled, and every day Obama would steadfastly say, "Yes, unless and until the morons who wrote and recited this crap come forward and face me like men (or women) and take personal responsibility, I will not participate in this charade.  How can John McCain consider this egregious lie honorable?" 

Check and mate, motherfuckers.

Conclusion

Perhaps Democrats are biologically unable to project the necessary attitude, emotion and warrior ethos to win national elections, a conclusion presented by Jason Rosenhouse who happens to be an evolutionary biologist, so he should know. Republicans are hard-wired, as Sarah Palin characterized it, to take on these challenges without blinking. And blinklessly they will march out and dictate our foreign policy across the Baring Strait and bail out more banks and brokerages as our economy fragments further. Onward!

In my next post, I'll explain that while many may find this thesis disconcerting, a McCain/Palin administration would not be predictably better or worse than an Obama/Biden presidency. In as much as we can predict the defining events and issues of the next four years (we usually cannot), knowing a priori how a president will perform is nearly impossible (except, I would argue, in the case of Bush/Cheney, who were predictably an unmitigated disaster.)

Most of my current coterie of friends and co-workers view me as a knee-jerk Democrat and they may be surprised at some of the opinions I have in the follow-up piece. The fact is that I have cast ballots for both Republicans and Democrats in my nearly 30 years as a voter. My recent persona, however, is shaped by my rabid negative sentiment towards George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, who I view as immensely stupid (or, in my more compassionate moments, demented ) and evil, respectively.

The current election has many of the same themes as previous ones, but it's always different this time. Even so, given the reasons outlined above, the Republicans are a lock to win it. If Bush/Cheney can win twice, then McCain/Palin, using the same tactics, will win walking away.

The only caveat:  My cynical opinion that the media despise landslides and they will make every effort to have this election as close as possible. If the Republican ticket gains too much advantage, the media powers will likely attempt to even the field. In the end, however, the McCain/Palin juggernaut will prevail.

Steve Greenberg: Tool of the Week

With Jay Mariotti thankfully going into self-imposed exile, we have been scouring the landscape for the next brainless tool to pummel, and what ho! We have a winner!

Steve Greenberg (at left), the supposed football expert for the Sporting News, in his latest column, seems to be hiding his knowledge of football extremely well. After the Chicago Bears dismantled the vaunted Indianapolis Colts who broke the seal on their brand new stadium on national television with an embarassing loss, Steve Greenberg had to caution us not the "overrate" the Bears or "underrate" the Colts. Huh?

His first point was that "the Bears did not attack the deep middle of the Colts' secondary even once. There were no gimmicky plays." I'm no football expert, but I believe football is a game of scrimmage line control, not "gimmicky plays." He continues:

That sounds good on the surface--line up and whup 'em--but it will not be difficult for most defenses to force the Bears to grind it out between the 20s and kick field goals. Orton is an average-at-best starting quarterback (although his career record as a starter--13-6--is pretty terrific.) Chicago's offensive line is an injury away from train-wreck status. And rookie running back Matt Forte, though he opened eyes across the nation Sunday night, probably isn't the next Adrian Peterson.

WTF is he talking about? Football is exactly about "line up and whup 'em", and why would any other team enjoy more success than the Colts who have one of the most feared defensive lines in the business? The game I saw showed Orton and Forte grabbing first downs at will all night. As far as Forte not being Adrian Petersen, I'm no "football expert" but if my memory serves, the last several Super Bowl winners did not have Adrian Petersen in the back field. Imagine that. Greenberg is correct to opine that the Bears should not be considered the "co-favorite" to win their division-- they are now the favorite, my friend.

His second point is that Peyton Manning was "rusty" and he may have a small point. But then he dissonantly asks, "You don't think the Patriots would love to trade places with the Colts right now--to be 0-1 but with their superstar quarterback on two feet? The Jaguars lost their opener, as did the Texans."

OK, so the fact that Brady is injured makes King Peyton's performance that much better? Finishing a game with an intact ACL now somehow merits a badge of honor? The fact is that Peyton Manning was schooled because he (finally) had pressure on him all night and he was unable to read the defense. Time-outs were used injudiciously and the Colts offense looked sloppy which is all evidence that the Colts were outplayed.

Thirdly, Greenberg feels that the Bears "will run Forte til he drops" and this is somehow a disadvantage. Forte had 23 carries for 123 yards and took a few good hits. I hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Greenberg, but I'm not sure the Colts put that much hurt on him. He seemed to be able to scamper into the Colts' backfield any time he wanted. The hit you seemed to think was so devastating was inflicted by a safety, not the defensive line.

Greenberg's fourth point was just a sonnet about his apparent man-crush on the Colts' Dwight Freeney:

Dwight Freeney is back. Not to worry about the foot injury that ended the Colts' Pro Bowl defensive end's season in 2007.

A three-play sequence in the second quarter showed why Freeney is such a dominant player. He jumped offside, giving the Bears a first down in Colts territory. On the next play, Freeney powered through left tackle John St. Clair for an 8-yard sack. Then he fought off two blockers to tackle Forte after a 3-yard gain.

The Bears threw too many quick passes for Freeney to be a major factor, but he looked very good.

Freeney "looked very good"?!! OK, let's run this down. Freeney jumps offside and is a non-factor the entire game but, golly, he would have been better if only those nasty Bears would only have thrown the ball to him, and after all "he looked very good." Listen, I know love is blind and Freeney does have a pleasant enough smile and I have no problem with anyone's personal lifestyle preferences (my problem with Jay Mariotti had nothing to do with his life choices), but such inane drivel has no place in an objective evaluation of a football game.

Greenberg's fifth point is just more of the same insanity: the AFC is "tougher to size up than we realized" because (again) Brady is injured and (again) the Jaguars lost. I ask: Does this somehow make the Colts better than the 29-13 thrashing they received?

Maybe Colts Head Coach Tony Dungy can write Greenberg's next column for him. Unlike Greenberg's column, Dungy's surmise of the whuppin' is very accurate: "We certainly haven't had one like that in a long time, where we got soundly outplayed. They outplayed us for four quarters."

You can imagine all kind of reasons how this could happen, but back here in the real world none of them would involve the Colts being "underrated" or the Bears being "overrated."

Is Bush Demented?

This is a serious question and not intended as a snarky jab at a failed president. Organic brain syndromes of various etiology are fairly common among the general population and the president has some risk factors.

Look at the video comparing Mr. Bush from 1994 to 2004. Ignore the commentary for now, but notice the obvious deterioration in his speaking skills.



According to Mr. Bush's official medical record that is made public, he takes no medication except vitamins and has no major illnesses or diagnoses. Absent, however, is any mention of a cognitive or psychiatric evaluation.

Cognitive dysfunction can occur gradually over many years and can be due to any of several factors including but not limited to infections, atherosclerosis, tumors, neuronal degeneration, substance abuse and trauma. Previous presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson, suffered catastrophic brain syndromes that very likely started while serving as president, and in both cases the country was put in unknown jeopardy due to a lack of judgment by its chief executive. Nixon reportedly used psychotropic drugs while in the latter days of his aborted term.

President Bush has admitted to heavy alcohol abuse as a younger man, as well as a de facto admisssion of cocaine use, both of which can cause cerebral damage.   Also, Bush has been diagnosed with Lyme disease which can also have neurologic sequelae. Even without these risk factors, a high ranking official such as the US president surely warrants some evaluation from time to time.  

One difference today is that scientific advances have benefited the diagnosis of mental and cognitive impairment, and also the stigma attached to such maladies has been decreasing. Neuropsychiatric evaluations are commonplace and specialists are available with objective tests that can provide insight into the extent and cause of cognitive impairment.

Why is this important? For obvious reasons the nation's well-being is contingent on having capable people at the helm. The US Constitution provides for a succession plan when the president is not able to perform his duties, and these judgments should not be left to spouses and White House staffers. Some conjecture recently surrounds Bush's conspicuous absence from the Republican Convention as possibly due to his failing mental status, which thus fueled conjecture that the speech was pre-recorded.

A reasonable approach would be to have every president and vice-president undergo a formal neuropsychiatric evaluation upon taking office and then have it repeated every 24 months or upon request of both houses of Congress. Those results should be made available to the ranking members of the Congress for action as necessary.

The planet is becoming a more complex theater of activity and the US presidency is arguably the single most powerful office in the world. We cannot afford to allow mental impairment jeopardize our well-being or the safety of the world.

I don't know if Bush is demented, but I do know that it should be considered. And we have a right and duty to know... especially if we are planning to elect septuagenarians on a regular basis.

My hunch is that Bush just isn't right.  I'd also wager that, as in the case of Ronald Reagan, an announcement is made in the coming years regarding the impaired mental status of George W. Bush.

Sarah Palin and Iraq... and God

No one issue will have more impact on the next president than the Iraq war.

The most stunning aspect of Sarah Palin's vice-presidential candidacy is the absolute dearth of information about her views of the Iraq war.  Google produces nothing substantive, and no, merely visiting the Alaska Guard troops in Kuwait does not win foreign policy points.

By her own admission, she had not paid much attention to the Iraq war until her son showed intent to join the infantry.  In 2006,  when asked about the troop "surge" as proposed by President Bush,  she told Alaska Business Monthly:

I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place...

Huh?  Even those of us who have no child or other family member in the military have been keeping up with the issues especially in regard to such a massive military operation, and we all know there is no "exit plan in place."  That's called responsible citizenship.  Her lack of curiosity reminds me of the current inhabitant of the White House.  To this day Sarah Palin has yet to give an opinion about the Iraq war except some fatuous intonation that "victory is in sight", but then fails to elaborate on her definition of "victory."

Apparently Sarah Palin's religion informs much of the motive of the United States' involvement in Iraq.  The war is prescribed by her God and, regarding the troops, "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."  I did not know that!  I wish someone would tell the evil terr'ists so they would stop trying to kill us!

Furthermore, it turns out that God wants Alaskans to drill and transport fossilized dinosaur by-products to put into our gas tanks and furnaces. 

God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that... I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded... But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God.

I'm not sure which language Governor Palin used to uttered those sage words, however, because for a couple decades she was a member of the Assembly Pentecostal Church, which is famous for its members having the ability to speak in tongues.

To say that understanding Iraq is important for a vice-presidential candidate is like saying that understanding the double-play is important for a potential shortstop.    Palin simply does not evoke confidence that she gets all the nuance of conducting a war in a theater such as Iraq, and I doubt the Muslim world will be impressed with her theology.

Seriously, this person wants to be my president?   So, again, Ms. Palin, stop feeding red meat to right wing nutjobs and start giving us substantive information about your world view.  

Sixty-five days.... and counting.

The Rhetoric of Sarah Palin

The electorate has a mere 66 days to figure out whether Sarah Palin has the ability to lead this nation, which is a shorter time than any other V.P. candidate in my memory.  She has emerged from a political backwater by the selection of one man who had met her once before making a decision.  This man, John McCain, hopes to become the oldest person inaugurated President, at an age in which his father and both grandfathers were already deceased.

Every other candidate on the national tickets have been in federal office, penned memoirs and been campaigning for years.  Only Palin is unknown, which is why her speech this week was an important introduction to her candidacy and was the most watched spectacle of its kind.

And how did Gov. Palin greet her would-be loyal minions?  Answer: With all the typical Rovian half-truths and outright lies to which we have become accustomed these past several years.

To wit: She began by bragging that she stopped the federal funding for the "bridge to nowhere" which gained international acclaim as the most egregious example or pork barrel spending.  Palin smirked that if Alaskans needed a bridge, they'd fund it themselves, thus portraying her state as the self-sufficient stalwarts who eschew handouts from the feds.  Unfortunately, Ms. Palin failed to divulge that she backed the funding until it was publicized, i.e., she was for it until she was against it, and then even when the bridge project was cancelled Alaska kept the money anyway. 

The second falsehood involved Palin's snarky rejoinder about Senator Obama "writing two memoirs but not a single major law or reform, even as a state senator."  Unfortuantely, again, the good governor failed to learn that Senator Obama has infact co-sponsored several bills in both the US Senate and Illinois Senate on a host of issues including disclosure for federal funding, ethics reform, police brutality, and democracy promotion in Africa. 

Thirdly, Gov. Palin used the same tired scare tactics about taxes that Republicans have been abusing for decades.  If current taxes need to be raised it's only because the current GOP administration, backed by GOP congresses until 2006, have spent us into an economic coma.  But the fact is that when Palin says that Obama will "raise income taxes", she is speaking only to the top 2% of wage earners.  In fact, for the vast majority of taxpayers, the taxes paid under the McCain and Obama plans are almost identical.  Those making over $250,000 will pay more under Obama, but everyone else pays less.   Under McCain, everyone pays less tax, but the high earners pay a lot less.

The other interesting factoid about the two tax plans is that the McCains stand to save almost $400,000 in taxes under his tax scheme and only $6000 under Obama's, so how come nothing is made of this apparent vested interest?

Sure, the convention is a time of raucus partisan sparring and all is meant in good fun.  The problem I have as a voter is that Sarah Palin has very little time to present herself as a serious chief executive.  Senator Obama has run a stellar campaign, held a US Senate seat and penned those pesky memoirs, so his introduction is considerable.  The other two Senators have been in national spotlight for decades and their records and histories are a matter of record.  

Perhaps the McCain/Palin ticket is not interested in pursuing my vote, and I'm okay with that, but if they do feel a need to appeal to me, then I would suggest that Governor Palin dispense with the cute rhetoric and start a serious discussion about the manner in which she would govern.  

Sixty-five days...  and counting.

 

McCain as the change agent?

John McCain, if elected, would likely govern in a much different manner than the current administration, but would it be different enough? His speech tonight was effective in portraying him as a reasonable and pragmatic thinker who talked about education, energy and terrorism to rousing applause.

McCain's life of service is admirable, but the question for today is whether he would make a good president with the current problems we face. I can see his points on a number of issues, and I can be magnanimous enough to recognize his references such as "legislating from the bench" as a wink to the right wing nutjobs that he needs in his camp.

At the end of the day, I would trust that McCain would use common sense in governing, choosing judges and dealing with our allies. He's not stupid and while he may have a slightly different world view than I have and he may be a bit too beholden to the anti-choice conservatives than I would prefer, I still maintain that, if elected, McCain would serve us well.... assuming one thing.

The issue bearing down on McCain's candidacy is his age and health. This may sound cliche, but it is a question that cannot go away. Up until yesterday, I would have said that worse for the country than a President McCain dying or leaving office would be McCain becoming invalid and leaving governance to some nameless bureaucrats. But after hearing Sarah Palin last night, I realize that a President McCain dying in office would be an unmitigated disaster*.

I voted for McCain in two primary elections over the past eight years. The 64 year-old John McCain was the far better candidate for the Republican party in 2000 and I proudly cast my ballot for him. The 72 year-old McCain is the same man, but a far different candidate. The Republican party is far different now than it was in 2000. The damage done to this nation under the watch of George W. Bush cannot be calculated and I'm not sure that McCain represents enough change for my liking.

John McCain's reiteration of his POW captivity was, as always, inspirational, but I have heard this story or read accounts of this saga at least a dozen times. Does it ever get old? McCain had to remind the cheering throng that Obama had no military experience. Where was this throng when George W. Bush, the draft dodger, was insinuating our military into an illegal war and abrogating our international treaties while the rest of us have been screaming? I find this disingenuous.

McCain used the term "change" ten times tonight in an attempt to usurp the meme from Obama, the true change agent. John McCain is the General fighting the last war in more ways than one. The nation is a lot different than it was 8 years ago, as is the world, and we need new leadership for a new world.

Nobody will buy him as a change from Bush.

I know I don't.





*Palin's speech last night was breathtaking. Honestly, I sat down to bang out my take on it, but nausea overtook me and I thought it would just be better to leave it all unsaid. Not in a million years could I imagine her as my president. What's next? Barney Fife as Attorney General? Seriously.

Sarah Palin and American History

A few years ago I asked a friend how many times the word "God" appeared in the Constitution. The reply was somewhat cryptic, but the gist was that he did indeed think that the Constitution was based on some version of "God's law."

Now, we have another instance of the failure of our public education system. On her questionaire for the Alaska gubernatorial * race in the 1990's, Sarah Palin responded thusly:

Question: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance? Why or why not?

Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Yikes. The Pledge of Allegiance was not written until 1892, and furthermore, the words, "under God" were not added until 1954, during the Cold War fervor against those godless Communists.

I won't belabor the point too much, but this is the exact reason non-theists shudder when approached with candidates such as this who have little understanding of the purposes of the establishment of this great union, one of which was to protect the citizens from the tyranny of a religious majority. This is pretty basic nuts-and-bolts American history, so it begs the question, what else doesn't she know?

She's only been on the ticket a few days, and we're already finding a target rich environment for opinion pieces. Who the hell vetted her? Methinks this is looking more like John McCain's "Harriet Miers moment" with each passing hour.

And we haven't even heard her stance on foreign policy yet, so definitely stay tuned.

*N.B.: The link to the original questionaire has been mysteriously deleted and replaced with a link to the McCain campaign website-- which indicates that the deletion was done very recently and for a specific purpose. Shame.





(If someone has evidence that this characterization of Ms. Palin's ignorance is inaccurate, please let me know and I will gladly publish a retraction. The wording of the question sounds a little contrived but I have seen this referenced in several locations so I'll let it ride here until I have evidence to the contrary. Good lord, I hope I'm wrong about this.)

"Bristol's decision"

The official statement from the Palin family regarding their 17-year-old unwed daughter's pregnancy:

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our
heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with
news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever
planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and
even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the
responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and
support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very
quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the
love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter
and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of
candidates." [emphasis mine-- Tony]

For all the other Bristol's out there, let's keep it their decision. (Oh yeah, how 'bout something more than abstinence-only education, too. Duh.) That's the last you'll hear from me on this girl's personal life.

My Initial Reaction to VP Pick Sarah Palin

I admire McCain for the curve ball he's thrown into the election. After all, he's a maverick.

My initial reaction to Sarah Palin as the potential Vice President to the oldest inaugurated President in hisory is...

...[drum roll]...

Well, to be honest, I got nothing.

Sorry about the suspense and all, but really, how can I form an opinion about someone who is absolutely unknown?

I'll make a few points about the issues so far:

1. McCain's VP is extremely important to his candidacy. His father and both grandfathers were dead by the time they were 72, which is the birthday McCain just celebrated. He has a malignancy that may recur at any time.

2. We can compare the [lack of] experience between Palin and Obama and some may conclude that neither have very extensive foreign policy chops. I'll accept that, but I have heard Obama speak over and over about the way he would govern, I have seen him run a stellar national campaign for the last 18 months, he has surrounded himself with top-notch advisers. I'm confident in his educational background and his tenor.

3. I do not accept that being governor of a state with the same population as Kent County Michigan gives her any type of valuable experience as "Commander in Chief" of the Alaska Guard, as she has proposed. Please.

4. I can fill pages on what I do not know about Sarah Palin. What are her exact views on social programs, health care, abortion laws versus personal choice, education, the environment, role of the military in the world, etc, etc.

5. I do know that the authoritarian pro-life people are overjoyed with Palin even though they know nothing more than I do about the manner in which she would govern on a whole host of important issues. These one-issue voters are dangerous because they have shown in the past that they are willing to elect any random fool as long as he or she recites the proper mantra.

My initial reaction to Sarah Palin is... nothing. She seems nice, is easier on the eyes than Joe Biden, and is passionate about Alaska. But can she be president? We have 9 weeks to form an opinion, so stay tuned.

Market Update: No reason for short term bets

On August 20th, we noticed that support had been broken and the nice run from the July 15th capitulation was nearing an end. We recommended to sell into strength at that time, and the time is now.

Sure this week has been low volume with the end of summer, but the technical analysis of the market is not reassuring. The future is impossible to predict and now is a good time for risk management and hedging all your long positions with corresponding shorts.

Oil price has been the wild card and now we are seeing renewed strength in that sector with the narrative assigning weather considerations to the recent rise in the barrel price of oil.



The sentiment indicator we are looking at in the above figure is the "% of NYSE stocks above their 50-day moving average." While this is not as bearish as we had seen in October, the pattern certainly is not contradicting the bearishness of the price movement in the first figure.

We have had a large number of stocks cross above their 50-day MA in the last 5 weeks and that should act as a short term ceiling to price movement. Be careful establishing any new long positions in this environment.

Having said that, the regional banks (KRE) have been pummeled and will likely be the first to emerge from the financial doldrums when that time comes. Many of these companies have solid balance sheets and their retail businesses should continue to to do well as the economy chugs along. The question remains how long it will take, but KRE basket of regional bank stocks boasts a 5.2% dividend, which would pay one to wait while taking little risk for the long term.

Is Dark Knight a political allegory?

Walking out of the latest Batman movie, my politically aware compatriot immediately remarked that he thought the Joker was a representation of Dick Cheney, an agent of chaos battling the rule of order.

I disagreed. In fact, if Dark Knight is a political allegory, then I would argue that Batman himself is supposed to be Dick Cheney, the secretive complex protagonist who grunts in monosyllables, an ersatz hero with a billionaire alter ego who has benefited immensely from the status quo and will go to great lengths in order to preserve it. Who are we to know what the political tendencies of the filmmaker are, if there are any indeed?

Cheney, like Bruce Wayne, and unlike the Joker, has lived within the crucible of the power structure of our culture and has done well financially and politically. Bruce Wayne is a self-assured and connected player within the Gotham society; he owns buildings, escorts dignitaries and influences the opinion of the mucky-mucks. That’s our beloved Dick Cheney.

The Joker is the disconnected agent of chaos, sowing destruction for no other reason than to do it. The better political analogy would be the Joker representing Osama bin laden or perhaps global terrorism itself. While some of us may see a bit more order to the roots of real world terrorism, for the purpose of the movie’s plot, this would suffice. The Joker recruits the dregs of society to do his bidding and act as fodder.

Continuing the analogy, Commissioner Gordon is akin to George W. Bush, the maligned leader who is caught between forces that he cannot control or even understand. Batman, while attempting to serve as the force for good, engages in destructive activities that lead to a host of unintended consequences that endanger the populace. The Commissioner bears the brunt of the mayhem as he wishes to bring the Joker to justice but must also navigate the mixed sentiments surrounding Batman’s violent vigilantism. In the end, Commissioner Gordon is hurt and his family (read: Bush’s legacy) is injured, as he muddles through the out-of-control situation.

Of course, the filmmaker may have had none of this in mind when he penned the screenplay. All comic book characters play with the notion of good versus evil, control versus chaos, and the Bush administration’s “with us or against us” ideology plays into the comic book analogy very well.

I suppose we can see political analogy in much of culture if we were to use our imagination. Was “Jaws” a metaphor for the Nixon administration’s wanton predation upon our civic structure? Maybe “The Exorcist” was meant to be a simile for the Vietnam War or the evil of war inhabiting the being of even the most innocent of our culture.

A couple years ago I read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and I could not help but see the similarities between the monster and George W. Bush, but then my senses were deeply affected at the time by the rapidly degenerating situations of the Iraq war and the economy. Bush, I truly believe, has always meant well by his intent, but he is flawed by infantilism, much like Dr. Frankenstein’s creation. Bush lacks the intellectual prowess, the cerebral horsepower, to navigate complex situations, he is a creation of our modern social structure, and seems truly surprised by the failures that he has encountered-- all ripped from the pages of Shelley's classic.

Of course some literature has been expressly intended as political allegory, as every high school student learns when studying Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift’s satire on European politics. Other fictional works merely play on eternal truths which can then be applied to many situations, political or personal. Ernest Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea could also be seen in the Bush presidency, and certainly Herman Melville’s Moby Dick.

With any of these possible metaphors, we start to paint a picture of George W. Bush as a pathetic character, a flawed hero who is put into an unwinnable situation, or eschews warnings to the detriment of himself and his charges.

The Dark Knight: Dick Cheney kicking ass and taking names.

Counting Houses for Sen McCain

Besides, I like the song:



Maybe someone should do a version to Cougar's Little Pink Houses?

Market Update: Support is broken

Ugly end to the 27-day rally. It was fun while it lasted, but alas, it is time to sell into strength. My horizontal line could be a bit lower than depicted on the above graph, but you get the picture. Violation! With such an oversold condition, however, look for a bid today or tomorrow to take some profits.

Hypocrisy Fest 2008

Condoleezza Rice on Russia:

"Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power...that's not the way to deal in the 21st century."

But that rule does not apply to the US:

The US must continue to engage in "kinetic warfare" - which [David Kilcullen, adviser to Condoleezza Rice,] defines as "killing the enemy and breaking their stuff" - in order to demonstrate to the Iraqi population that it has the upper hand.

Revenge of the Old Lady

Sure, this might be staged, but it's still hilarious.

Biotech Index: Don't do anything [Updates 1 & 2 below]

This is scary stuff. If someone held a gun to my head to make a decision today, I guess I'd buy it before I'd sell it. But let's just leave it alone.

If it breaks below $67.70, the next support is $58, but that's a big "If."



Update 1
[Aug 17 at 2316hrs]:

Eric at Buy the Top is giving this index an 80-95% chance of breaking down in the next three days due to its overbought condition. I view him as a savant of sorts with a superbly developed right brain, which makes him uniquely qualified to see the spatial relationships necessary for technical analysis. My intellect can detect the overbought condition, but my brain cannot process such a high likelihood of XBI "breaking down to $60-62 over the next month." We'll see.

Update 2
[Aug 19 at 0400hrs]:

XBI closed at $67.37, which is indeed below support of $67.70. Eric's thesis looks good. The entire market closed down today, but the losses in XBI were greater than the market indices. All broad averages tested support levels (again) and while it may not be time to panic, this counter-trend rally is getting long in the tooth. Oil dropped after hours which may perk up the stock market today. Also the low volume trading yesterday tends to mitigate the worry we are learning to embrace. Looking for exits overall, and if XBI rallies back up to support (now resistance), maybe I'll open a short.

One Batshit Crazy Christian:

Are These Examples of Irony or Hypocrisy?

"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."-- John Edwards, on Bill Clinton, 1999

"Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected. We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for an end to the Russian bombings. The attacks are occurring in regions of Georgia far from the zone of conflict. They mark a dangerous escalation of the conflict."-- George W. Bush, on Russia, 2008 (at left, Mr. Bush's own example of "respect for a sovereign nation", circa 2003)

Answer: Hypocrisy. But one is just the expedient blather of a smarmy ambulance chaser, and the other is your country's foreign policy. One matters and the other does not. You pick.

Whither Conservatism

A meme that I broach on a regular basis is the anti-conservatism of George W. Bush's fiscal policy. It cannot be called liberalism, but it certainly is not conservatism. Charles Wheelan, PhD, a University of Chicago Economics professor, discusses the characterization of Bush's fiscal policies with the appellation Neo-neoconservatism. (I still prefer anti-conservatism.)

Wheelan:

Conservatives are supposed to be about balancing the budget and limiting the size of government, not about adding new entitlement programs and borrowing money from China to pay for them...

...So what is George W. Bush? He's certainly no liberal, either. In fact, we're left with the worst of all worlds: liberal-style spending without the stuff it usually buys...

...Seven years of fiscal recklessness hasn't solidified a tattered safety net, or fixed a broken health care system, or upgraded the skills base of America's working class, or improved our crumbling infrastructure, or updated our outmoded international institutions... We're spending like drunken sailors, but we're not even getting the hookers and booze...

...Republicans are starting to distance themselves from Bush. There's something pathetic and unprincipled about that, given that they were complicit in the policies that have made him unpopular. If the Republicans truly stood for sensible conservative policies, they would have ditched him six or seven years ago -- and we'd be better off for it...

I know conservatives. Conservatives are friends of mine. You, George Bush, are no conservative. And shame on the Republicans for not recognizing that sooner.

I would add that the Democrats have been complicit as well to some (albeit lesser) degree. Upon gaining leadership in the House and Senate in January 2007, I would liked to have seen a barage of subpoenas and testimony about the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by the Bush administration. Sure, Conyers, Feingold and a few others have been vocal in this regard, but the Congressional majority leaders have been almost giddy in their silence.

The next president will inherit the worst situational maladies since Carter took office in 1977. Obama or McCain, upon being sworn in, will need to confront two stagnant theaters of war, a worldwide recession of our making, poor relations with our allies, record budget deficits, spiraling health care entitlements, lack of confidence in US capital markets, palpable governmental incompetence-- all of which have been either unaddressed or mismanaged during a lame duck presidency.

The opposing party of whoever wins in November will be quick to tag the next president with the culpability for these problems as they percolate and explode in the next 18 months.

The anti-conservatism of George W. Bush.

Salim Hamdan (finally) Gets Justice

The shrill voices of the authoritarian right will echo for a few weeks on this one. Osama bin Laden's driver was sentenced to 66 months, of which he has already served 61 months.

Is this the proper sentence? That's what a military tribunal and judge have determined. The prosecutors had asked for 30 years and that request was summarily rebuffed and changed to a shade over time served.

As the Rude Pundit put it:

"...when the judge in the trial, Captain Keith Allred, told Hamdan, "I hope the day comes when you return to your wife and your daughters and your country," and joined him in speaking, "God willing" in Arabic, it was a direct "fuck you" to the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the Bush administration as a whole. It was a way of acting as an example and asserting that, even against the inhumane, one can still behave humanely."

He speaks the truth rudely.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, R.I.P.

I remember reading the Gulag Archipelago when I was a kid at the advice of my grandfather who I revered deeply. At the age of 14 the size and scope of the book was daunting, but the result was a stark realization that the freedoms we enjoy in this country are worth the constant vigilance of an informed citizenry. Tyranny lurks around every corner.

The world would be a much more dreary place if dissidents like Solzhenitsyn did not feel safe coming forth with their revelations. We would not have won the Cold War, or even World War II for that matter, without the complicity of former enemies who viewed our free society as something special.

What damage is being wrought by the continued disrespect we are showing for the rule of law?