OH, YEAH, AND JESSE VENTURA AND HULK HOGAN ALWAYS HATED EACH OTHER, TOO

4/30/08
One of my more insightful friends sent me an e-mail this morning asking what I thought of the Obama/Wright flap and whether it will influence the nomination. I have been neglecting the IP of late, so I thought I’d post my response.

What really amazes me is that more of the media don’t see the Wright/Obama “conflict” for what it is: an entirely, and ham-handedly, staged effort to distance Obama from Wright. This is straight out of the Clinton playbook, only done with nothing like the Clinton finesse.

I suppose the media’s inability to see through this diaphanous ruse should not surprise me in the least, let alone amaze me. As the old saying goes, there is none so blind as he who will not see, and most of the media refuse to see ANYTHING negative about Barack Obama. But what will they do if this turns out to be, as it looks like it will, an Obama-McCain race? All hagiography, all the time?


Below is my response to my buddy:

4/30/08

First, I think the whole thing (i.e., the Obama/Wright flap) is staged; the "conflict" was set up in order to distance Obama from Wright. It isn't real; it's all political tomfoolery. Call it my cynicism, if you must, but you know how I feel about politicians.

Second, the Wright issue has been neutralized by this charade, with the help of a compliant and deliberately gullible media. Even though I get a sense that the tide is turning, it is a bit late and it still looks like Obama gets the nomination. Very few of the party pros who compose the superdelegates have the intestinal fortitude to deny the nomination to a Black man who leads in popular votes and committed delegates, even if he is looking like the weaker candidate at this juncture.

Hillary is clearly sticking (and has stuck) around in order to be the only alternative when "something else" surfaces. Whether that "something else" has already surfaced or is yet to emerge, the strategy was certainly worth a try and still might work out, but, as I said in the last paragraph, I doubt it. I have to tell you, though, that if she somehow manages to win the nomination, she is the Rocky Balboa of politics.

A few more things. First, the fight doesn't hurt the Democrats at all. They are getting all the attention and all the focus. Just look at the turnout numbers in the primaries, even BEFORE McCain secured the nomination. All the excitement is on the Democratic side. My second point is related to the first: It's still hard to see how the Democrats blow this one. While they often bear an amazing resemblance to the '69 Cubs, they can't lose to a McCain led GOP after eight years of Bush even if the weaker of their two candidates (looks like Obama now) gets the nomination, right?

THIS ISN’T WHAT GOD HAS IN MIND

4/18/08

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the Chicago Sun-Times today. It speaks for itself. Please remember the Penleys in your prayers:

Letters to the Editor
Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans
Chicago, IL 60654
letters@suntimes.com


4/18/08

Page 21 of your Friday, April 18 edition featured a picture of Dena and David Penley at the funeral of their son, PFC Shane Penley, who was killed by sniper fire in Iraq. Included in the caption under the picture was a quote from Lt. Governor Pat Quinn who addressed the funeral: “The hardest thing to do is lose a child, but that is God’s will.”

Pat Quinn (no relation) is a good and honorable man and doubtless was doing his best to do the impossible: comfort Mr. and Mrs. Penley at the most horrific time one can imagine. Perhaps he wasn’t thinking, but surely Mr. Quinn cannot think that it is God’s will that Shane Penley, or anyone, should die in war. People don’t die in combat in compliance with God’s will. People die in war because other people defy God’s will. It was not God’s will that young Shane Penley, or anyone else, die in combat. People like Shane die in combat because national leaders on one side or the other decide to directly defy God’s will by starting armed conflicts for reasons that, in comparison to the human costs involved, always turn out to be frivolous.

God didn’t will Shane Penley to die before he had even begun to live. God does not wish us death; He wishes us life, and life eternal. It is when people decide to defy God’s will for us that other people, like young Shane Penley, and his parents, have to suffer the horrendous consequences.



Mark Quinn
Naperville

“I COME TO BRING KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM TO THE HINTERLANDS”

4/17/08

People have asked why I haven’t commented on Barack Obama’s condescending remarks regarding the frustrations of working class, rural people. I have two reasons: First, I have been busy with other projects (specifically, wrapping up (hopefully) a novel) and hence have done little with the Pontificator of late and, second, I don’t think I have much to add. But this is too important a development to ignore, so here goes:

If this were anybody but Obama (or perhaps, John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?), who is the only person in the inhabited universe who gets better press than Barack Obama), such a comment would have finished his campaign. I say this admitting that there is a small element of truth in what he says: When people get angry or bitter, even when justifiably angry or bitter, they tend to lash out at others, especially at the achievements of others, and tend to seek comfort in the things that they have found most, well, comforting. This is the human condition and it is by no means limited to working class or rural people; it is how we all react but, in most cases, we wish we didn’t and, in many cases, we try hard not to react the same way “the next time.” Further, the politicians, and mostly the Republicans, have done a good job of deflecting those fears and frustrations toward issues that, even if not ancillary in many people’s minds, are at best, unaddressable in the political context.

That having been said, Obama’s comments were insulting, condescending, and hypocritical for a number of reasons. First, he seemed to be saying that religion is some sort of superstition, little more than an anodyne psychological teddy bear that serves as a pacifier in times of crisis. For many of us, our faiths, our religions, are the center of our lives, the very reason we live, even if our lives don’t always reflect that as much as we would like and, at times, at all. Second, Obama seemed to be equating religion with hatred and suspicion of others as just another of the many emotional balms to which we cling in difficult times. While one can always cite examples, primarily on the fundamentalist fringes of any religion, in which hatred and suspicion of others tend to go hand in hand with the practice of one’s particular faith, true faith, true religion of any stripe teaches us to love and respect our brothers and sisters, whether or not they share our faith. Third, Obama’s apparent denigration of religion and of protectionism (He also cited hostility to free trade as one of those seemingly fatuous sources of comfort for the angry and bitter.) appear to be the height of hypocrisy for a man who regularly trumpets his faith and his suspicion of free trade.

Even if there is some truth in Obama’s eloquent, but amusing, backtracking on these statements (a brave supposition), his comments look AWFUL. They wholeheartedly affirm the caricature of the Democrats (Note that there is much truth in good caricature.) as some sort of Party of Polyhistors bringing truth to the benighted working classes. Further, the comments were delivered at a fundraiser in San Francisco, of all places. Fundraisers are, by definition, attended by wealthy people, often with attitudes of superiority (usually belied by the facts, but that is another issue) and San Francisco is one of the very nerve centers of elitist liberalism. One can almost hear echoes of Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “San Francisco Democrats” speech.

Senator Obama’s defense of himself against charges of elitism rings hollow. He likes to cite his hardscrabble upbringing in arguing that he is the least elitist of the remaining three candidates. (While he may be right about being the least elitist of the three remaining candidates, that is quite a low bar he is hurdling.) However, anyone who tries to appear be down home by citing the price of arugula at Whole Foods is without a doubt a long way, figuratively if not literally, from the South Side of Chicago. Obama may have been born under very trying circumstances, but he was one of those kids, like a former governor of Arkansas who had a similar difficult childhood, who early in life caught the eyes of important people early and was plucked from his world and put on the path to power. Barack Obama is no homey, just as Bill Clinton is no good old boy.

Will these comments hurt Obama’s quest of the nomination? As I have said before, I am trying to avoid making political predictions, largely because so many that I have made have proven wrong (which distinguishes me from professional political prognosticators only in the sense that I admit that I am no good at making political prognostications). However, it is hard to see how this hurts Obama’s quest for the nomination much; the press loves the guy, the Democratic Party is absolutely infatuated with the guy. He seems to be the new boyfriend whose miscreance is casually and conveniently ignored. (Incidentally, John Fund, for whom I used to have enormous respect before he gave up his job of reasoned advocate of free men and free markets for the position of meretricious Bush cheerleader, had a terrific article that made this same argument on the op-ed page of Tuesday’s (i.e., 4/15’s) Wall Street Journal.) So, barring another gaffe (like the Reverend Wright flap or the Tony Rezko sweetheart deal or the U of Chicago handout in which Michelle Obama played the role of bag lady), it’s hard to see how he can lose the nomination. This is especially the case when Hillary Clinton, in trying to take advantage of Obama’s fumble, tries to portray herself as a Bible thumpin’, beer guzzlin’, whiskey swillin’, gun-totin’, pistol packin’ Mama. She has shown herself to be more ridiculous than ever, and that’s saying a lot.

Will these comments hurt Obama against John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?)? Again, while trying to eschew making political predictions, it’s hard to see how the Democrats can lose this one with the Bush record and the almost unbelievably pathetic John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) as the GOP standard-bearer. However, the Democrats have an uncanny ability to do a convincing imitation of the 1969 Cubs. Nominating a guy who has on several occasions now shown a tendency toward carelessness and unpreparedness might be yet another instance of this “talent” coming to the fore.

WE ARE IN A WHOLE HEAP 0’ TROUBLE

4/17/08

The ever insightful John Wessel, who everyone should make a habit of reading on a regular basis, makes a great point on page 2 of today’s (i.e., 4/17’s) Wall Street Journal:

“If this is truly the worst financial crisis in a generation, is it plausible that the Dow Jones Industrial Average—now down more than 11% from its October peak—has fallen as far as it is going to fall?”

This is something I have been considering for months now as I track the market averages’ percentage of decline from their 2007 highs, trying to determine whether I should abandon my bearish market stance that has served me so well, even if not so well very recently. I have come to the conclusion that one has to think that this economic slowdown is really mild in order to sound the all clear on the stock market. In other words, if this is just a minor slowdown, then, yes, the stock market fully discounted it, or over discounted it, when it reached its lows early in March.

However, as loyal readers know, I don’t think that what we are experiencing is a mild slowdown or even a shallow recession. What we are experiencing is not the “worst financial crisis in a generation,” as Mr. Wessel says, but, rather, the worst financial crisis since the late ‘70s, early ‘80s or perhaps than the ‘30s. The housing crisis (and, as loyal readers also know, I don’t use the word “crisis” at all casually, as does the press) is only one aspect of the problem we face. What we are confronting is a credit, spending, saving, capital, foreign exchange, stagflation, tectonic economic shift crisis. 11%, or even 20%, does not come close to discounting the degree of economic and financial danger we face.

Talking my position? Maybe, but considering my miniscule degree of influence, it doesn’t matter. I am happy to be long puts on the overall market, the financials, and the cars, heavily invested in TIPs, and long USO and GLD.

“I’M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I’M HERE TO HELP YOU…”

4/8/08

The Democrat controlled Senate is formulating a new stimulus bill that, according to its champions, goes directly to the housing problems that the pols and Wall Street poohbahs assume are at the foundation of our economic and financial problems. The bill contains $11 billion in tax relief for homeowners and “incentives for first time homebuyers.” What a great idea—encourage more people who can’t afford homes to buy homes!

So now we have a trifecta. Our government is proposing to solve problems wrought by excessive spending with more spending (See, inter alia, my 1/7/08 post “THEY’RE ALL KEYNESIANS NOW.”), to address the problem of excessive leverage with more leverage (See, inter alia, my 3/20/08 post “HAIR OF THE DOG.”), and, now to address the difficulties that result from people who have no business owning homes “owning” homes by encouraging more people who have no business owning homes to “purchase” homes. (See, inter alia, my 4/3/08 post “PARTY ON, SENATORS!”)

For his part, our “free market” President admirably urges caution in applying government salves to problems that defy government solutions. But then he returns to form by urging Congress to allow his “pro-growth (his words) package” (i.e., the tax rebate scheme) to work.

So an intrusive, overreaching Congress is urged by a rudderless, clueless, gormless President to follow a “pro-growth” plan that involves borrowing more money to give to people to spend in order to solve a problem caused by too much borrowing and too much spending.

Remember this when the “experts” tell you that we can never go into a Depression again because the government will do whatever is necessary to avoid a ‘30s redux.

PARTY ON, SENATORS!

4/3/08

Yesterday, the Senate passed, over Republican crocodile tears for many of its provisions, a housing bill that is perhaps the most feeble- minded and scrofulous piece of legislation to come out of Washington in years, and that is saying something.

There are so many things wrong with this bill that it is hard to begin. First, there is a $6 billion dollar tax break (essentially letting them carry back losses further than they otherwise would be allowed) for homebuilders, a provision with which the “free market” Republican had no problem. While morally reprehensible and economically debilitating, this legislative equivalent of desiccated bowel fruit is no different from much of what comes out of Washington: a favored constituency makes billions when the times are good. When bad times come, usually, as in this case, due to the excesses, poor judgment, sloppiness, and gormless business decisions of that very constituency, we, the taxpayers, are forced to pick up at least a portion of the bill. Privatizing the returns, socializing the risks. It happens all the time, but seems to be far more the rule, and less the exception, when responsible, “free market” Republicans occupy the White House and have at least a measure of influence in the Congress.

The really malodorous provisions of this bill, however, are an increase in the size of the loans, to $550,000, that the FHA (read you the taxpayer) can back and $10 billion of bonding authority for the states to issue mortgage revenue bonds to refinance soured home loans and to provide loans for first time homebuyers. What both provisions amount to is an effort to make it easier for people who can’t afford homes to buy homes, which is the genesis of the financial problem we face. Just as by allowing Fannie and Freddie to expand their balance sheets (See my 3/20/08 and 1/17/08 posts.), the federal government is trying to solve the problem of excess leverage with more leverage, with this piece of legislation the government is trying to solve the problem of overextended “homeowners” by creating more overextended “homeowners.” Only, in this instance, when these “homeowners” default, it will not be the banks, investment banks, money managers, speculators, and other Republican constituencies who are left holding the bag: it will be you, as a federal and state taxpayer, who will be left to foot the bill. Your government at work.

There is a provision in the expansion of the FHA lending authority that proponents of the bill will tout as a step toward “responsibility.” That provision requires (Are you sitting down?) an increase in the required down payment for an FHA loan from 3% to a whopping 3.5%. Oh, boy! That will surely root out the fiscally precarious! And Barney Frank (lest people think I am a partisan pol basher) is objecting to this onerous increase in the down payment requirement. Apparently, Mr. Frank wants to make sure more deadbeats own homes with your money.

Ain’t Washington grand?

A FOUR LETTER WORD THAT BEGINS WITH “S” THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY IN POLITE COMPANY

4/1/08

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran a front page article about baby boomers’ having to delay their planned early retirements. The Journal cited many reasons for these thwarted plans for early exits from tedious, but, in the cases the Journal cited, apparently well paying jobs, including the drop in the real estate and stock markets, the virtual extinction of defined benefit pension plans in the private sector, dwindling, or vanishing, retiree health benefits, and the increasing costs of necessities like food and gasoline which the economic cognoscenti continue to tell us are not important when calculating “actual” inflation.

All these reasons for people having to delay retirement are legitimate, but the real reason was not even touched upon by the Journal, or by most other commentators on the delaying retirement phenomenon, mostly due to our growing inability to be honest with ourselves both as individuals and as a society: People simply don’t save enough money. It’s as simple as that. There are often good reasons for not being able to save. The prices of most things, despite the anodyne reassurances of Wall Street economists, are going up, and going up substantially. Putting kids through college, not all that easy even back when I, and most of you, attended college, is now an incredibly onerous task. Taxes, especially property and payroll taxes, are way up. There is no question that it is hard for “average” people to save money, but it isn’t impossible. As my parents told me when I was growing up, no matter what you make, you can always manage to save some of it.

The real story behind the savings deficiency which plagues our society is more accurately reflected in the heart rending tale of the last couple examined in the Journal article. Ellen Minter and Jeff Bartman, a San Francisco couple who “spent 30 years in demanding, mid-six figure (Mid six figure? Is that $500,000? $150,000? $100,001? Just asking. Parenthetical comment mine.) jobs in the tech industry” according to the Journal. They had planned their retirement in excruciating detail. As Ms. Minter said, “I had spreadsheets up the yin yang.” (Yin yang?) However, when the stock market cratered, Mr. Bartman had to give up his plans of retirement. Sad, eh? Then we hear of Ms. Minter’s Lexus convertible, Chanel suits, and “1996 Cabernet they’d bought in France years back.” (1996? Couldn’t have been that many years back.) Any sympathy went out the window upon reading this portion of their tale of woe. Attention, Ms. Minter and Mr. Bartman: Had you not simply had to have Lexus convertibles, Chanel suits, trips to France, and 1996 Cabernet, you could have saved more money and the vicissitudes of the market would not have mattered all that much.

It would also help the frustrated retirees the Journal cited if they didn’t trust the advice of “financial advisors” (who in many cases entered that field after successful careers peddling shoes and fast food) who promote such well thought out strategies as putting everything in the stock market because, after all, it earns 11% per year, just like a bank account, or leveraging up to buy real estate because, after all, real estate never goes down. But the core problem is lack of savings. Saving, besides being imperative for the survival of our economy and society, is good for the soul and has a remarkably salubrious impact on one’s retirement plans.