6/23/11
That the G-8 and NATO will be meeting in Chicago in May, 2012 is being widely hailed by the local and national media as an example of the kind of national and international clout our new mayor is bringing to the former Hog Butcher for the World. A sensible person, however, would ask the logical question: Who in the world is going to pay for the security and logistical nightmares these opportunities for pompous pontification present? The city is broke and our police force is already stretched far too thin. And now we have to come up with the spondulicks and the gendarme to host a tempting target for truculent terrorists and assorted yahoos who think they have a point worth making, the latter both outside and inside the venues for the various meetings.
We are told, of course, that the payoff is the “international recognition” such an event will bring. This is the same old canard pulled out of the drawer by pompous politicasters when they want to raid the public purse for purposes of perpetual self-promotion. The payoff is nebulous and ephemeral while the costs are large, quantifiable, and seemingly never ending. When we are in the precarious financial posture in which we are currently positioned, more than “international recognition as a world class city” is needed to justify the kind of spending involved in these events. Further, did you ever notice how the local pols are always claiming, and rightly so, that Chicago is a “world class city” when trying to curry the favor of its voters, whose most salient characteristic may be a well justified though perhaps a bit exaggerated pride in their hometown? If we are already the “world class city” obsequious pols tell us we are, why do we have to spend so much money to become a “world class city”?
The scariest aspect of this latest dividend of Rahm Emanuel’s mayoralty is that Mr. Emanuel recognizes that we can’t afford this latest manifestation of the bread and circuses to which the pols treat us with our own money. He stated, in the speech in which he gave us the great news that we have won the opportunity to spend our money to provide a pack of poltroons (again, both inside and inside the conferences) a forum to bloviate on the public dime,
“And one of the things I’m gonna be working on is raising the private resources necessary to supplement what we have to do.”
Leave aside the fact that we wouldn’t “have to do” anything if Emanuel and his pals in Washington didn’t bring this latest flying circus to our otherwise normally sensible and, when necessary, happily provincial, town. What is really scary is that Mr. Emanuel is proposing to do what he does best: shake down private businesses in order to advance his own political career and those of the people who have hired him to advance their flights of self-aggrandizement. I have commented on this tendency at least twice before, on 3/28/11 in HEY, THE BOYS NEED A LITTLE LUNCH MONEY… and on 5/17/11 in “STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS, STEP RIGHT UP…” In the eyes of Mr. Emanuel and those, like him, who have never held a private sector job that involved any more than selling the influence they garnered in the public sector, private businesses are little more than funding sources for the types of spectacles, for the permanent campaigns, that keep politicians in office. In many, if not most, cases, those being “asked” to “contribute” to whatever the latest project a pol has cooked up to make himself look like a leader, if not an Olympian, are not put-upon innocents; they are (again, in many, if not most, cases; some, if not most, of those “asked” to “contribute” are indeed shakedown victims wondering when it will all end while contemplating moves to polities populated by more prosaic pols) willing accomplices, always ready to come up with spondulicks in order to garner favor with the pols “asking” for “private resources.” Don’t think for a minute that the motivation behind such private generosity is civic pride. Those who “contribute private resources” to the PR efforts of public sector poltroons seeking the next rung on the ladder do so in order to be remembered when your money is being parceled out for some public project.
So, as one famous and, by modern standards, not all that crooked, pol used to say, make no mistake. Such exercises as the NATO summit and the G-8 meeting have as their purpose promoting the political aspirations of the poltroons who propose them. You pay for such flights of self-aggrandizement. And you pay even more when “private resources” are solicited to fund such escapades. And the era of the shakedown is perhaps more alive and more well than it has ever been in Chicago.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TASTE OF DYSPEPSIA
6/22/11
Ah, the joys of Taste of Chicago! Searing heat, oppressive humidity, scores of thousands packed into a space intended for use by hundreds, fellow patrons whose most salient trait is their casual attitude toward personal hygiene, bite-size portions at three times normal portion prices on top of the additional charge for the wonderment of the experience, the death of place to sit to enjoy one’s meal, the pleasant bouquet of the port-a-potties, being served by people who use those same port-a-potties and avail themselves of the on-again, off-again availability of soap and toilet paper that such comfort stations feature, fellow taste customers emptying themselves, one way or the other, of the results of their over-indulgence, the cost of parking downtown in the wake of Mayor Daley’s brilliantly executed parking meter privatization, and, of course, the music that, if played anywhere in proximity to yours truly’s home would induce a call to the local police, demanding that they address the ear-splitting and nausea inducing public nuisance that is such live, big name entertainment.
Why on earth does a sane person subject himself or herself to such abuse? Of course, one can understand the attraction of such a debauch for young men and women trawling for members of the opposite sex, or the same sex, depending on their orientations. Most young men on the prowl, for instance, would attend, say, a human dung hurling exhibition if they thought that there was a reasonable chance that they could enjoy the company of nubile young women at such an event. And, yes, that example was chosen for its many similarities to Taste of Chicago.
But what about those of us who use their brains, rather than their hormones, when choosing an entertainment venue? Why on earth would such a person be attracted to an event featuring outrageous value parameters, boorish, odiferous crowds, dystopic weather conditions, and barbarian like dining accommodations? Why not, if one likes the food at a particular Taste vendor, visit the restaurant at which that vendor does business, where one can enjoy one’s meal at a more reasonable price while seated at a table with easy access to a working and clean bathroom while actually being served food and drink by an attentive wait staff?
After considering this question for years, I think I have come up with the answer as to why people expose themselves to the abuse that is Taste of Chicago. Many Taste attendees like the food that they can sort of obtain at this yearly celebration of squalor and misery but would never in a million years venture into the neighborhoods in which the vendors’ physical restaurants are located. The Taste of Chicago thus provides not only a (very small) sampling of the cuisine available in our city, but also feeds the faux hip urbanite image many suburbanites try desperately and clumsily to convey.
POST NOTE: Years ago, I used to enjoy Taste of Chicago. But first I and then, after initiating what has become a long and happy marriage, we lived downtown and could walk to the Taste of Chicago. We also had a lot more money, fewer things to spend it on, and a lot less discernment than we, or at least I (My wife, for some reason, would really like to go the Taste but somehow cannot persuade her husband to do so.) currently possess. But even back then, after about an hour or so of enduring the general depravity that attendance at the Taste entails, would urge my companions to join me in a ride to one of the restaurants featured at the Taste so that we could enjoy an actual meal in comfortable conditions while spending far less money.
Ah, the joys of Taste of Chicago! Searing heat, oppressive humidity, scores of thousands packed into a space intended for use by hundreds, fellow patrons whose most salient trait is their casual attitude toward personal hygiene, bite-size portions at three times normal portion prices on top of the additional charge for the wonderment of the experience, the death of place to sit to enjoy one’s meal, the pleasant bouquet of the port-a-potties, being served by people who use those same port-a-potties and avail themselves of the on-again, off-again availability of soap and toilet paper that such comfort stations feature, fellow taste customers emptying themselves, one way or the other, of the results of their over-indulgence, the cost of parking downtown in the wake of Mayor Daley’s brilliantly executed parking meter privatization, and, of course, the music that, if played anywhere in proximity to yours truly’s home would induce a call to the local police, demanding that they address the ear-splitting and nausea inducing public nuisance that is such live, big name entertainment.
Why on earth does a sane person subject himself or herself to such abuse? Of course, one can understand the attraction of such a debauch for young men and women trawling for members of the opposite sex, or the same sex, depending on their orientations. Most young men on the prowl, for instance, would attend, say, a human dung hurling exhibition if they thought that there was a reasonable chance that they could enjoy the company of nubile young women at such an event. And, yes, that example was chosen for its many similarities to Taste of Chicago.
But what about those of us who use their brains, rather than their hormones, when choosing an entertainment venue? Why on earth would such a person be attracted to an event featuring outrageous value parameters, boorish, odiferous crowds, dystopic weather conditions, and barbarian like dining accommodations? Why not, if one likes the food at a particular Taste vendor, visit the restaurant at which that vendor does business, where one can enjoy one’s meal at a more reasonable price while seated at a table with easy access to a working and clean bathroom while actually being served food and drink by an attentive wait staff?
After considering this question for years, I think I have come up with the answer as to why people expose themselves to the abuse that is Taste of Chicago. Many Taste attendees like the food that they can sort of obtain at this yearly celebration of squalor and misery but would never in a million years venture into the neighborhoods in which the vendors’ physical restaurants are located. The Taste of Chicago thus provides not only a (very small) sampling of the cuisine available in our city, but also feeds the faux hip urbanite image many suburbanites try desperately and clumsily to convey.
POST NOTE: Years ago, I used to enjoy Taste of Chicago. But first I and then, after initiating what has become a long and happy marriage, we lived downtown and could walk to the Taste of Chicago. We also had a lot more money, fewer things to spend it on, and a lot less discernment than we, or at least I (My wife, for some reason, would really like to go the Taste but somehow cannot persuade her husband to do so.) currently possess. But even back then, after about an hour or so of enduring the general depravity that attendance at the Taste entails, would urge my companions to join me in a ride to one of the restaurants featured at the Taste so that we could enjoy an actual meal in comfortable conditions while spending far less money.
I’LL HAVE WHAT HE’S HAVING
6/22/11
I sent the following letter to the editor of the Naperville Sun in response to Mayor George Pradel’s dismissal of a 1:00 AM “ill-timed mass departure of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” at our new neighbor, Show-Me’s (a Tilted Kilt or Hooters wannabe with even less class and, so I’m told, even worse food) as something “you’ve got to expect when you have a restaurant”:
6/22/11
Naperville police were called to Show-Me’s (sic) at 1:00 A.M. on Monday in response to what neighbors said was a fight but what Show-Me’s executive Lee Nanos called, according to Wednesday’s Sun, “an ill-timed mass departure of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party at the restaurant.” That must have been some birthday cake, but I digress.
In response, Naperville Mayor George Pradel, who earlier had promised neighbors of Show-Me’s that such behavior would not be allowed at the bar that abuts a residential neighborhood, said “…you’ve got to expect that when you have a restaurant.”
You have to expect “ill-timed mass departure(s) of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” when you have a restaurant? How many “ill-timed mass departure(s) of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” have taken place at Quincy’s or Las Palmas, restaurants located on either side of Show-Me’s? Just what kind of restaurants does Mr. Pradel frequent? Perhaps he merely finds the wings served at your typical biker bar irresistible.
I sent the following letter to the editor of the Naperville Sun in response to Mayor George Pradel’s dismissal of a 1:00 AM “ill-timed mass departure of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” at our new neighbor, Show-Me’s (a Tilted Kilt or Hooters wannabe with even less class and, so I’m told, even worse food) as something “you’ve got to expect when you have a restaurant”:
6/22/11
Naperville police were called to Show-Me’s (sic) at 1:00 A.M. on Monday in response to what neighbors said was a fight but what Show-Me’s executive Lee Nanos called, according to Wednesday’s Sun, “an ill-timed mass departure of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party at the restaurant.” That must have been some birthday cake, but I digress.
In response, Naperville Mayor George Pradel, who earlier had promised neighbors of Show-Me’s that such behavior would not be allowed at the bar that abuts a residential neighborhood, said “…you’ve got to expect that when you have a restaurant.”
You have to expect “ill-timed mass departure(s) of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” when you have a restaurant? How many “ill-timed mass departure(s) of between 60 and 70 guests from a birthday party” have taken place at Quincy’s or Las Palmas, restaurants located on either side of Show-Me’s? Just what kind of restaurants does Mr. Pradel frequent? Perhaps he merely finds the wings served at your typical biker bar irresistible.
JON’S IN THE HUNT
6/22/11
Yesterday, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr. declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I wish Mr. Huntsman all the luck in the world. Though he and I disagree on many issues, he seems to be a capable, decent, accomplished, and patriotic man who is devoted to his beautiful family and to his Mormon faith. While in some (thank God, limited) quarters his LDS faith may be suspect, the Mormons have accomplished much in and for this country and the values they embody are those that one would think would be embraced by those who make careers, or at least self-images, trumpeting their devotion to family values. I might even go a step further and say that, since among politicians ideology and supposedly fervently held policy positions are as disposable as the used tissues of allergy sufferers, I could overcome my ideological differences with Mr. Huntsman and support him in his quest for the presidency, reasonably sure that his innate decency and competence would make him a good president and that his experience as ambassador to China would help our country in navigating what soon will become, if it isn’t already, our most important international relationship.
All that having been written, Mr. Huntsman, barring some kind of miracle, has no chance for the Republican nomination. There is not much room in the GOP nominating process for social moderates like Mr. Huntsman, and whatever room there is has long been occupied by the odds-on favorite for the nomination, Mitt Romney, who makes a habit of figuratively winking at moderate Republicans while tossing their long shared core ideologies and outlooks overboard in a desperate bid to pander to the true believers who largely determine the GOP nominee. The only way that Mr. Huntsman can make a splash would be for something to cause Mr. Romney to drop out, which is extremely unlikely, or for millions of Democrats to pass on their non-race in the primary, take a Republican ballot, and select Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination, which is almost as unlikely because no Democrat who wants to reelect President Obama would favor Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination; in the general election, Mr. Huntsman could give Mr. Obama a lot of trouble.
Surely Mr. Huntsman is smart enough to know that his chances for the Republican nomination are only marginally better than those of Harold Stassen in 1968. So why is Mr. Huntsman running? Some have speculated that he is tuning up for a 2016 race. That is certainly plausible. More likely, however, is that Mr. Huntsman, given his experience in and predilection toward foreign policy, is running for Secretary of State. Certainly a President Romney would look favorably on Mr. Huntsman for such a position. Perhaps more relevantly, a reelected President Obama could make quite a bipartisan splash by making Mr. Huntsman his Secretary of State. Note that Mr. Huntsman, in his announcement speech, made a point of saying “I respect the President” and that he worked effectively for the country and for the President in a very sensitive and vital foreign policy post. Moreover, Mr. Obama could make himself a more effective candidate, and better president and Party man, by making his current Secretary of State his 2012 running mate.
Yesterday, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr. declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I wish Mr. Huntsman all the luck in the world. Though he and I disagree on many issues, he seems to be a capable, decent, accomplished, and patriotic man who is devoted to his beautiful family and to his Mormon faith. While in some (thank God, limited) quarters his LDS faith may be suspect, the Mormons have accomplished much in and for this country and the values they embody are those that one would think would be embraced by those who make careers, or at least self-images, trumpeting their devotion to family values. I might even go a step further and say that, since among politicians ideology and supposedly fervently held policy positions are as disposable as the used tissues of allergy sufferers, I could overcome my ideological differences with Mr. Huntsman and support him in his quest for the presidency, reasonably sure that his innate decency and competence would make him a good president and that his experience as ambassador to China would help our country in navigating what soon will become, if it isn’t already, our most important international relationship.
All that having been written, Mr. Huntsman, barring some kind of miracle, has no chance for the Republican nomination. There is not much room in the GOP nominating process for social moderates like Mr. Huntsman, and whatever room there is has long been occupied by the odds-on favorite for the nomination, Mitt Romney, who makes a habit of figuratively winking at moderate Republicans while tossing their long shared core ideologies and outlooks overboard in a desperate bid to pander to the true believers who largely determine the GOP nominee. The only way that Mr. Huntsman can make a splash would be for something to cause Mr. Romney to drop out, which is extremely unlikely, or for millions of Democrats to pass on their non-race in the primary, take a Republican ballot, and select Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination, which is almost as unlikely because no Democrat who wants to reelect President Obama would favor Mr. Huntsman for the GOP nomination; in the general election, Mr. Huntsman could give Mr. Obama a lot of trouble.
Surely Mr. Huntsman is smart enough to know that his chances for the Republican nomination are only marginally better than those of Harold Stassen in 1968. So why is Mr. Huntsman running? Some have speculated that he is tuning up for a 2016 race. That is certainly plausible. More likely, however, is that Mr. Huntsman, given his experience in and predilection toward foreign policy, is running for Secretary of State. Certainly a President Romney would look favorably on Mr. Huntsman for such a position. Perhaps more relevantly, a reelected President Obama could make quite a bipartisan splash by making Mr. Huntsman his Secretary of State. Note that Mr. Huntsman, in his announcement speech, made a point of saying “I respect the President” and that he worked effectively for the country and for the President in a very sensitive and vital foreign policy post. Moreover, Mr. Obama could make himself a more effective candidate, and better president and Party man, by making his current Secretary of State his 2012 running mate.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
VISIONS OF DYSTOPIA ON A BEAUTIFUL SUMMER AFTERNOON
6/21/11
The newspapers and news broadcasts are usually consumed with vital developments on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars winners and from covering in laborious detail the various misadventures of grey matter challenged celebrities and miscreant children of quasi-politicians. But when such media organs find some extra room for what most Americans find inconsequential, boring stuff, they cover stories about politicians of both parties, but primarily Democrats, urging banks to make more loans or to adjust the loans previously made to deadbeat borrowers in order to “keep people in their homes” or other such verbal saccharine for the economically illiterate. As much as I hate to admit it, the politicians may have a point here, though they probably don’t realize why they have a point.
The “prosperity” that our once great nation enjoyed in the years leading up to the eminently predictable travails of 2008 was built on irresponsible extension of credit. There is no other way to explain it. It was indeed a Potemkin prosperity, but few people knew it; they thought they were really making the kind of money necessary to finance the lifestyles to which they had become accustomed and to which they thought they were entitled. If we hope to return to that Potemkin prosperity, or even maintain what seemingly passes for a recovery, we must of necessity return to a period of reckless and irresponsible lending. (I touched on this theme as it relates to the housing market in my 3/30/11 post, “WHY RENT WHEN YOU CAN OWN?”) It’s either that or take the medicine made necessary by at least twenty years of living well beyond our means, eating all of our seed corn, and helping ourselves to the seed corn painfully built up by other nations in a manner with which our ancestors would be familiar. Some might argue that we have already taken such medicine, but they are wrong; the economic problems we experienced, while painful, were not nearly sufficient to wring out the excesses, and inflated expectations, that had built up for at least the last generation. Is there any politician, or any business leader, willing to have any part in administering the medicine that, while ultimately ameliorative, will cause wailing and gnashing of teeth among the populace unlike that ever heard in our once great nation’s history? To ask the question is to answer it, as is to observe what is passing for economic and financial policy in our enlightened modern world. Cheap, easy credit is being encouraged (albeit with, thank God, limited success so far) in order to avoid further pain. This consequences of this hair of the dog approach to economic policy are eminently predictable, but that does not dissuade the pols and policy makers from such an approach; they probably figure they can postpone the real problems until they are either retired and counting their money (or weighing out their gold if they had the cerebral horsepower to buy that ancient object of kingly desire) or have long since disposed of this mortal coil.
But, one might legitimately argue, won’t reckless lending of the type being encouraged by fiscal and monetary policies and the rhetoric behind them lead to problems, as in de facto bankruptcy, at the nation’s, and the world’s, lending institutions? Of course. But, as before, the government will be there to bail out the banks, or, more properly, those who lent to the banks and those who guided the policy that brought them once again to their ruin. So, effectively, what we will see is indirect government subsidization of the profligate spending that was the sandy bedrock of the fake prosperity that most Americans regard as the halcyon days of this nation. So it won’t be a good time to be a taxpayer, a saver, or even a bank shareholder. But it will be a good time to be spending like a Middle Eastern suzerain and taking on debt to do so; after all, the government will do all it can to encourage this activity and to absolve those who participated in it from responsibility for their actions. And it will finance such a rescue from punishing those of us foolish enough to be responsible with our money, both through taxation and debasement of the dollar.
Have a great day.
The newspapers and news broadcasts are usually consumed with vital developments on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars winners and from covering in laborious detail the various misadventures of grey matter challenged celebrities and miscreant children of quasi-politicians. But when such media organs find some extra room for what most Americans find inconsequential, boring stuff, they cover stories about politicians of both parties, but primarily Democrats, urging banks to make more loans or to adjust the loans previously made to deadbeat borrowers in order to “keep people in their homes” or other such verbal saccharine for the economically illiterate. As much as I hate to admit it, the politicians may have a point here, though they probably don’t realize why they have a point.
The “prosperity” that our once great nation enjoyed in the years leading up to the eminently predictable travails of 2008 was built on irresponsible extension of credit. There is no other way to explain it. It was indeed a Potemkin prosperity, but few people knew it; they thought they were really making the kind of money necessary to finance the lifestyles to which they had become accustomed and to which they thought they were entitled. If we hope to return to that Potemkin prosperity, or even maintain what seemingly passes for a recovery, we must of necessity return to a period of reckless and irresponsible lending. (I touched on this theme as it relates to the housing market in my 3/30/11 post, “WHY RENT WHEN YOU CAN OWN?”) It’s either that or take the medicine made necessary by at least twenty years of living well beyond our means, eating all of our seed corn, and helping ourselves to the seed corn painfully built up by other nations in a manner with which our ancestors would be familiar. Some might argue that we have already taken such medicine, but they are wrong; the economic problems we experienced, while painful, were not nearly sufficient to wring out the excesses, and inflated expectations, that had built up for at least the last generation. Is there any politician, or any business leader, willing to have any part in administering the medicine that, while ultimately ameliorative, will cause wailing and gnashing of teeth among the populace unlike that ever heard in our once great nation’s history? To ask the question is to answer it, as is to observe what is passing for economic and financial policy in our enlightened modern world. Cheap, easy credit is being encouraged (albeit with, thank God, limited success so far) in order to avoid further pain. This consequences of this hair of the dog approach to economic policy are eminently predictable, but that does not dissuade the pols and policy makers from such an approach; they probably figure they can postpone the real problems until they are either retired and counting their money (or weighing out their gold if they had the cerebral horsepower to buy that ancient object of kingly desire) or have long since disposed of this mortal coil.
But, one might legitimately argue, won’t reckless lending of the type being encouraged by fiscal and monetary policies and the rhetoric behind them lead to problems, as in de facto bankruptcy, at the nation’s, and the world’s, lending institutions? Of course. But, as before, the government will be there to bail out the banks, or, more properly, those who lent to the banks and those who guided the policy that brought them once again to their ruin. So, effectively, what we will see is indirect government subsidization of the profligate spending that was the sandy bedrock of the fake prosperity that most Americans regard as the halcyon days of this nation. So it won’t be a good time to be a taxpayer, a saver, or even a bank shareholder. But it will be a good time to be spending like a Middle Eastern suzerain and taking on debt to do so; after all, the government will do all it can to encourage this activity and to absolve those who participated in it from responsibility for their actions. And it will finance such a rescue from punishing those of us foolish enough to be responsible with our money, both through taxation and debasement of the dollar.
Have a great day.
Friday, June 17, 2011
MAYBE THEY HAVE A “SECRET PLAN”
6/17/11
This morning’s (i.e., Friday, 6/17’s) Wall Street Journal reported on its first page that the military is asking President Obama to delay the withdrawal of the “surge” troops (i.e., the 33,000 soldiers sent into that quagmire in order to bring our troop total to 100,000 and who have been responsible for the manifest success the military, the Bush/Obama Administration, and bipartisan War Party on the Hill claims we are enjoying in that graveyard of empires) from Afghanistan until the Fall of 2012. The plan currently is to start pulling out the surge troops next month and have much of the drawdown completed by the end of 2011. The military argues that it would like to remain at full strength through next year’s heavy fighting season, which starts in the Spring and winds down in the Fall.
Cynics immediately suspected a political motive behind the Fall, 2012 withdrawal, to wit, that the troops will be coming home just as Barack Obama is running for reelection, thus providing a boost to his campaign. I have to part with my brother and sister cynics on this issue. It would be easy to see why the military would like to do their commander-in-chief a favor; despite all his empty talk in the 2008 campaign of disengaging us from the pointless foreign adventures of George Bush, Barack Obama has turned out to be at least as enthusiastic about pointless, expensive, and counterproductive military involvement as was George Bush. However, one suspects that the military is not so breathless for Barack Obama that it would pick such an inopportune time for a partial Afghan withdrawal. Remember that the military, though it is the federal government’s most important bureaucracy, is, at its roots, a federal bureaucracy. As such, it constantly seeks ways to justify and expand its considerable portion of the fruits of the labors of the American people, or lately, its share of the product of the Fed’s hyperkinetic printing presses. Thus, while there are some clear thinking visionaries in our military who display common sense and deliberative thinking, most of its leadership simply wants to expand its purview and thus would prefer staying in Afghanistan more or less forever. If the goal is to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan for as long as possible, the worst time to schedule a pullout would be during an election season. The last thing Mr. Obama wants to do while running for reelection is to announce that he will forgo a schedule withdrawal and keep the surge troops in Afghanistan. In other words, a scheduled pullout in the Fall of 2012 will be a done deal; there will be no going back. If the military really wants to stay in Afghanistan forever, they would schedule the drawdown for mid to late November of 2012, after the election. Such a drawdown would be easier to rescind.
So why is the military proposing a Fall, 2012 drawdown? One could concoct a number of interesting theories. The most obvious, but not the most plausible, is that I am wrong and that they want to help their friend in the White House more than they want to stay in Afghanistan. An only slightly less obvious motivation is that the military leadership wants to stay as long as they possibly can, and feel that a Fall, 2012 drawdown would be at about the limits of the American people’s tolerance for the type of nation building exercise the Bush/Obama administration swore it would avoid. Another is that Fall of 2012 really means late fall 2012, as in late November, early December, for reasons I outlined in the last paragraph. A fourth theory of the military’s motivations is that they would like to undermine Mr. Obama by scheduling a drawdown during the election season and then finding a reason to rescind it, hurting his reelection chances and getting a president who is even more friendly, if such a thing were possible, to the expansionist bureaucratic dreams of the military. A fifth is that the military really thinks that the American people are fully behind our effort in Afghanistan and that Mr. Obama might rescind the partial withdrawal just to win the favor of the American people at election time. This theory is, of course, the least plausible, or at least I hope it is.
The last, and most interesting, theory is that cooler heads than we cynical types think are in charge at the Pentagon. They see the futility of Afghanistan and want to get out as expeditiously as possible. Scheduling the withdrawal for an election season, thus insuring that it will take place, is a first and giant step toward getting us out of the quagmire that is hurting not only the country but also the esteem in the eyes of the people of its military leadership. This theory, too, may be implausible, but even one as cynical as I hopes that it proves to be the correct theory.
This morning’s (i.e., Friday, 6/17’s) Wall Street Journal reported on its first page that the military is asking President Obama to delay the withdrawal of the “surge” troops (i.e., the 33,000 soldiers sent into that quagmire in order to bring our troop total to 100,000 and who have been responsible for the manifest success the military, the Bush/Obama Administration, and bipartisan War Party on the Hill claims we are enjoying in that graveyard of empires) from Afghanistan until the Fall of 2012. The plan currently is to start pulling out the surge troops next month and have much of the drawdown completed by the end of 2011. The military argues that it would like to remain at full strength through next year’s heavy fighting season, which starts in the Spring and winds down in the Fall.
Cynics immediately suspected a political motive behind the Fall, 2012 withdrawal, to wit, that the troops will be coming home just as Barack Obama is running for reelection, thus providing a boost to his campaign. I have to part with my brother and sister cynics on this issue. It would be easy to see why the military would like to do their commander-in-chief a favor; despite all his empty talk in the 2008 campaign of disengaging us from the pointless foreign adventures of George Bush, Barack Obama has turned out to be at least as enthusiastic about pointless, expensive, and counterproductive military involvement as was George Bush. However, one suspects that the military is not so breathless for Barack Obama that it would pick such an inopportune time for a partial Afghan withdrawal. Remember that the military, though it is the federal government’s most important bureaucracy, is, at its roots, a federal bureaucracy. As such, it constantly seeks ways to justify and expand its considerable portion of the fruits of the labors of the American people, or lately, its share of the product of the Fed’s hyperkinetic printing presses. Thus, while there are some clear thinking visionaries in our military who display common sense and deliberative thinking, most of its leadership simply wants to expand its purview and thus would prefer staying in Afghanistan more or less forever. If the goal is to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan for as long as possible, the worst time to schedule a pullout would be during an election season. The last thing Mr. Obama wants to do while running for reelection is to announce that he will forgo a schedule withdrawal and keep the surge troops in Afghanistan. In other words, a scheduled pullout in the Fall of 2012 will be a done deal; there will be no going back. If the military really wants to stay in Afghanistan forever, they would schedule the drawdown for mid to late November of 2012, after the election. Such a drawdown would be easier to rescind.
So why is the military proposing a Fall, 2012 drawdown? One could concoct a number of interesting theories. The most obvious, but not the most plausible, is that I am wrong and that they want to help their friend in the White House more than they want to stay in Afghanistan. An only slightly less obvious motivation is that the military leadership wants to stay as long as they possibly can, and feel that a Fall, 2012 drawdown would be at about the limits of the American people’s tolerance for the type of nation building exercise the Bush/Obama administration swore it would avoid. Another is that Fall of 2012 really means late fall 2012, as in late November, early December, for reasons I outlined in the last paragraph. A fourth theory of the military’s motivations is that they would like to undermine Mr. Obama by scheduling a drawdown during the election season and then finding a reason to rescind it, hurting his reelection chances and getting a president who is even more friendly, if such a thing were possible, to the expansionist bureaucratic dreams of the military. A fifth is that the military really thinks that the American people are fully behind our effort in Afghanistan and that Mr. Obama might rescind the partial withdrawal just to win the favor of the American people at election time. This theory is, of course, the least plausible, or at least I hope it is.
The last, and most interesting, theory is that cooler heads than we cynical types think are in charge at the Pentagon. They see the futility of Afghanistan and want to get out as expeditiously as possible. Scheduling the withdrawal for an election season, thus insuring that it will take place, is a first and giant step toward getting us out of the quagmire that is hurting not only the country but also the esteem in the eyes of the people of its military leadership. This theory, too, may be implausible, but even one as cynical as I hopes that it proves to be the correct theory.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
THE PONTIFICATOR ON WIMS AM 1420, THE TALK OF THE SOUTH SHORE
6/16/11
Here is the link to last week’s interview of me by Brian Brophy on WIMS AM 1420 in Michigan City
http://www.wimsradio.com/wimsblog/archives/category/brian-brophy
We discussed a number of issues but concentrated primarily on the Blagojevich trial and the expansion of gambling in Illinois. The second topic is especially relevant for WIMS listeners since, at least in part, the new casinos in and around Chicago are designed to take business from similar establishments in northwest Indiana.
One of the great aspects of being interviewed on WIMS is the ability to speak at great length without the seemingly constant commercial interruptions that characterize many other talk stations. You’ll enjoy WIMS’s format, and I’m confident you’ll enjoy the interview.
Thanks.
Here is the link to last week’s interview of me by Brian Brophy on WIMS AM 1420 in Michigan City
http://www.wimsradio.com/wimsblog/archives/category/brian-brophy
We discussed a number of issues but concentrated primarily on the Blagojevich trial and the expansion of gambling in Illinois. The second topic is especially relevant for WIMS listeners since, at least in part, the new casinos in and around Chicago are designed to take business from similar establishments in northwest Indiana.
One of the great aspects of being interviewed on WIMS is the ability to speak at great length without the seemingly constant commercial interruptions that characterize many other talk stations. You’ll enjoy WIMS’s format, and I’m confident you’ll enjoy the interview.
Thanks.
Monday, June 13, 2011
“EVER SEEN A GROWN MAN NAKED, JOEY?”
6/13/11
I’ve already written more on the Anthony Weiner’s self-induced problems than the subject matter merits. See my 6/7/11 post “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!” and my 6/9/11 post “UNHAND ME, YOU FIEND!” However, the new pictures that came out this weekend (“Live, from the locker room of the Congressional gym, Anthony Weiner!”) prompted yet, and maybe not my last, post on the Weiner news that just won’t stop coming. Why? Because these pictures, along with those previously sent to comely, though presumably not nubile, young women prompted yet another big, but perhaps not as big as presumed, question, to wit: Does Congressman Weiner really think that young women in their twenties, and, in at least one case, in her teens, find men in their mid-40s physically attractive? To ask the question is to answer it, but Congressman Weiner seems to think, as I said in my 6/7/11 post, that he is the “very epitome of hotness” while most, if not all, women in the age group he was looking to target are doubtless replying with something like “Ewww.” So we can add stupidity to perversion, dishonesty, and narcissism when listing Congressman Weiner’s most salient character traits. When enumerating his physical traits, perhaps poor eyesight is the most notable.
Mr. Weiner’s lofty estimation of his physical attractiveness to women half his age reminds me of a story a friend of mine, who, like yours truly, is in the midst of what can charitably be described as “late middle age,” told me a few weeks ago over coffee. He said that he was at the gym that morning and on the next machine was a twenty something young woman of striking, almost indescribable, physical beauty. Impressed by this breathtaking young woman, my friend asked one of the trainers what machine my friend could possibly use in order to get to the point at which he might attract this young woman’s attention. The trainer promptly referred him to the ATM in the lobby of the gym.
In a similar vein, if Anthony Weiner were trying to impress the young women who aided in his self-amusement, perhaps he should have flaunted the power he holds as a United States congressman rather than his physical characteristics, at least if he were in the habit of doing his trolling during meal time. As Henry Kissinger once said (It is not hard to imagine the substance of the question to which this utterance was the answer.), “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Mr. Weiner’s forsaking the use of this ultimate aphrodisiac in favor of his somewhat lacking physical characteristics again points out that we must add dullness to the list of Anthony Weiner’s traits that lead one to wonder why he had achieved such a lofty perch from which he is currently crashing.
I’ve already written more on the Anthony Weiner’s self-induced problems than the subject matter merits. See my 6/7/11 post “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!” and my 6/9/11 post “UNHAND ME, YOU FIEND!” However, the new pictures that came out this weekend (“Live, from the locker room of the Congressional gym, Anthony Weiner!”) prompted yet, and maybe not my last, post on the Weiner news that just won’t stop coming. Why? Because these pictures, along with those previously sent to comely, though presumably not nubile, young women prompted yet another big, but perhaps not as big as presumed, question, to wit: Does Congressman Weiner really think that young women in their twenties, and, in at least one case, in her teens, find men in their mid-40s physically attractive? To ask the question is to answer it, but Congressman Weiner seems to think, as I said in my 6/7/11 post, that he is the “very epitome of hotness” while most, if not all, women in the age group he was looking to target are doubtless replying with something like “Ewww.” So we can add stupidity to perversion, dishonesty, and narcissism when listing Congressman Weiner’s most salient character traits. When enumerating his physical traits, perhaps poor eyesight is the most notable.
Mr. Weiner’s lofty estimation of his physical attractiveness to women half his age reminds me of a story a friend of mine, who, like yours truly, is in the midst of what can charitably be described as “late middle age,” told me a few weeks ago over coffee. He said that he was at the gym that morning and on the next machine was a twenty something young woman of striking, almost indescribable, physical beauty. Impressed by this breathtaking young woman, my friend asked one of the trainers what machine my friend could possibly use in order to get to the point at which he might attract this young woman’s attention. The trainer promptly referred him to the ATM in the lobby of the gym.
In a similar vein, if Anthony Weiner were trying to impress the young women who aided in his self-amusement, perhaps he should have flaunted the power he holds as a United States congressman rather than his physical characteristics, at least if he were in the habit of doing his trolling during meal time. As Henry Kissinger once said (It is not hard to imagine the substance of the question to which this utterance was the answer.), “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Mr. Weiner’s forsaking the use of this ultimate aphrodisiac in favor of his somewhat lacking physical characteristics again points out that we must add dullness to the list of Anthony Weiner’s traits that lead one to wonder why he had achieved such a lofty perch from which he is currently crashing.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
“…TO WAR, TO WAR, THE COUNTRY’S GOING TO WAR!”
6/12/11
Senator Lindsey Graham (R., SC), perhaps the most predictable public official, other than John McCain, who has made a habit of decrying Washington while making his living there, was on Face the Nation today. It seems he and the usual suspects, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, are pushing for military involvement in Syria. Senator Graham, who has never, ever seen a war he has not wanted the U.S. to escalate, says that “if we care about the Syrian people,” we will not rule out military action in Syria, “along the Libyan model.” Apparently, the bipartisan War Party in Washington thinks Libya is a raging success while Mr. Ghadafi (or however he is spelling his name today) remains in power, people are being slaughtered in a war designed to stop the slaughter, and we have given nary a thought to the concept of “If you break it, you buy it” as applied to geopolitics and that is proving costly beyond measure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, Senator Graham apparently does not read the papers; in response to criticism from outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates that they are not doing enough in Libya, or anywhere, for that matter, our European allies protest that the Libyan adventure has stretched them to the limit of their military capabilities. If Messrs. Graham, McCain, and Lieberman get their wish and we respond militarily to the plight of the Syrian people, it will be a nearly exclusive U.S. operation, with perhaps some help from Turkey and a token plane or two from one of the Gulf sheikdoms we defend in the name of democracy.
On the same broadcast, Mr. Graham makes the case for broadening the Afghan campaign to Pakistan, saying that he is tired of telling South Carolina families that their sons have been killed in Afghanistan by IEDs manufactured in Pakistan and there is nothing we can do about it. Apparently, Mr. Graham discounts that the something we can do about it is to get out of Afghanistan; getting out of a war is beyond his comprehension. If the War Hawks insist on staying in Afghanistan, perhaps they could explain why we are there. Originally, we went in to avenge the attacks of 9/11 and capture and/or kill the perpetrators. Now we seem to be on some kind of nation building exercise in a country in name only in which our strategic interests are limited, at best and that looks poised to be the graveyard of yet another empire. But I digress.
Even if we care about the Syrian people, and we do, we cannot run a foreign policy based on feelings and compassion. Foreign policy has to be run based on strategic interests. While that sounds cold, such a foreign policy in practice is far more compassionate than policy based on compassion and, in our case, a certainty that we are the only nation capable of dispensing compassion because we are the only country that knows what is good for everybody. Why? Look at the results of our compassion for the Iraqi and Afghan people. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died so we could show out concern and care for them? Afghanistan’s numbers are smaller only because the country is less densely populated, and if Mr. Obama and the War Hawks who can only give him any credit when he is doing their jingoistic bidding continue on their Afghan “strategy,” Afghanistan will soon match Iraq in its number of victims of American compassion. A foreign policy based on strategic interests, on the other hand, would have resulted in no (0) Iraqi deaths and perhaps a handful of Afghan deaths as we quickly went in, got the bad guys, and got out.
If Messrs. Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have their way and we intervene in Syria so that they can show their compassion for the people we will be bombing and their defense contractor contributors can get even richer at your expense, we will be involved in five wars if you include the very aggressive covert operation we are conducting Yemen in support of a brutal regime that behaves very much like the Assad regime in Syria we will be fighting in the name of humanitarianism. If the War Hawks’ Pakistani dreams are realized, that will be six wars. This during a time when the country is broke (and Messrs. McCain and Graham never cease to remind us until talk turns to the military) and the American people are sick and tired of seeing their kids killed to satisfy the imperial ambitions of the xenophobes who measure their patriotism by the amount of blood and treasure they are willing to spend to foster further hatred of America overseas.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R., SC), perhaps the most predictable public official, other than John McCain, who has made a habit of decrying Washington while making his living there, was on Face the Nation today. It seems he and the usual suspects, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, are pushing for military involvement in Syria. Senator Graham, who has never, ever seen a war he has not wanted the U.S. to escalate, says that “if we care about the Syrian people,” we will not rule out military action in Syria, “along the Libyan model.” Apparently, the bipartisan War Party in Washington thinks Libya is a raging success while Mr. Ghadafi (or however he is spelling his name today) remains in power, people are being slaughtered in a war designed to stop the slaughter, and we have given nary a thought to the concept of “If you break it, you buy it” as applied to geopolitics and that is proving costly beyond measure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, Senator Graham apparently does not read the papers; in response to criticism from outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates that they are not doing enough in Libya, or anywhere, for that matter, our European allies protest that the Libyan adventure has stretched them to the limit of their military capabilities. If Messrs. Graham, McCain, and Lieberman get their wish and we respond militarily to the plight of the Syrian people, it will be a nearly exclusive U.S. operation, with perhaps some help from Turkey and a token plane or two from one of the Gulf sheikdoms we defend in the name of democracy.
On the same broadcast, Mr. Graham makes the case for broadening the Afghan campaign to Pakistan, saying that he is tired of telling South Carolina families that their sons have been killed in Afghanistan by IEDs manufactured in Pakistan and there is nothing we can do about it. Apparently, Mr. Graham discounts that the something we can do about it is to get out of Afghanistan; getting out of a war is beyond his comprehension. If the War Hawks insist on staying in Afghanistan, perhaps they could explain why we are there. Originally, we went in to avenge the attacks of 9/11 and capture and/or kill the perpetrators. Now we seem to be on some kind of nation building exercise in a country in name only in which our strategic interests are limited, at best and that looks poised to be the graveyard of yet another empire. But I digress.
Even if we care about the Syrian people, and we do, we cannot run a foreign policy based on feelings and compassion. Foreign policy has to be run based on strategic interests. While that sounds cold, such a foreign policy in practice is far more compassionate than policy based on compassion and, in our case, a certainty that we are the only nation capable of dispensing compassion because we are the only country that knows what is good for everybody. Why? Look at the results of our compassion for the Iraqi and Afghan people. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died so we could show out concern and care for them? Afghanistan’s numbers are smaller only because the country is less densely populated, and if Mr. Obama and the War Hawks who can only give him any credit when he is doing their jingoistic bidding continue on their Afghan “strategy,” Afghanistan will soon match Iraq in its number of victims of American compassion. A foreign policy based on strategic interests, on the other hand, would have resulted in no (0) Iraqi deaths and perhaps a handful of Afghan deaths as we quickly went in, got the bad guys, and got out.
If Messrs. Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have their way and we intervene in Syria so that they can show their compassion for the people we will be bombing and their defense contractor contributors can get even richer at your expense, we will be involved in five wars if you include the very aggressive covert operation we are conducting Yemen in support of a brutal regime that behaves very much like the Assad regime in Syria we will be fighting in the name of humanitarianism. If the War Hawks’ Pakistani dreams are realized, that will be six wars. This during a time when the country is broke (and Messrs. McCain and Graham never cease to remind us until talk turns to the military) and the American people are sick and tired of seeing their kids killed to satisfy the imperial ambitions of the xenophobes who measure their patriotism by the amount of blood and treasure they are willing to spend to foster further hatred of America overseas.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
“UNHAND ME, YOU FIEND!”
6/9/11
In a further expansion of the tight spot Representative Anthony Weiner put himself, or would like to put himself, in (See my 6/7/11 post, “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”), one of his spokeswomen (Emphasis mine) delivered a statement that included the following: (Wall Street Journal, 6/9/11, page A4)
“To reiterate, (Congressman Weiner) has never met any of these women or had physical contact with them.”
So this is the married Congressman Weiner’s defense, to wit, he has never met any of the women with whom he fantasized about engaging in perhaps the most intimate of human experiences. Yes, he, er, entertains himself by discussing in great detail with women other than his wife the things he would like to do to them (or, in at least one instance, what he would like her to do to him), but it’s not so bad because, after all, these women are strangers and he is a do-it-yourself kind of guy.
This is America and Congressman Weiner and other consenting adults (Whether some of his handy helpmates were indeed consenting has now become an issue, but let’s leave that one alone for now.) have, or ought to have, the right to do most whatever they please as long as they don’t do damage to others. But, as voters, we also have the right to consider Congressman Weiner’s idea of relatively harmless fun sufficiently strange that we don’t want someone with such a perverted set of values representing us.
In a further expansion of the tight spot Representative Anthony Weiner put himself, or would like to put himself, in (See my 6/7/11 post, “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”), one of his spokeswomen (Emphasis mine) delivered a statement that included the following: (Wall Street Journal, 6/9/11, page A4)
“To reiterate, (Congressman Weiner) has never met any of these women or had physical contact with them.”
So this is the married Congressman Weiner’s defense, to wit, he has never met any of the women with whom he fantasized about engaging in perhaps the most intimate of human experiences. Yes, he, er, entertains himself by discussing in great detail with women other than his wife the things he would like to do to them (or, in at least one instance, what he would like her to do to him), but it’s not so bad because, after all, these women are strangers and he is a do-it-yourself kind of guy.
This is America and Congressman Weiner and other consenting adults (Whether some of his handy helpmates were indeed consenting has now become an issue, but let’s leave that one alone for now.) have, or ought to have, the right to do most whatever they please as long as they don’t do damage to others. But, as voters, we also have the right to consider Congressman Weiner’s idea of relatively harmless fun sufficiently strange that we don’t want someone with such a perverted set of values representing us.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
YOURS TRULY ON WIMS TONIGHT!
6/8/11
I will be appearing on Brian Brophy’s radio show on WIMS AM 1420 (Michigan City, IN) tonight (Wednesday, 6/8/11) at about 8:15, CDT. Brian and I will be discussing, among other things, the expansion of gambling in Illinois, which is a very hot topic in Indiana, and the Blagojevich trial.
WIMS broadcasts stream live at
http://www.wimsradio.com/
It should be a fun half hour or so; I hope you can join us.
Thanks.
I will be appearing on Brian Brophy’s radio show on WIMS AM 1420 (Michigan City, IN) tonight (Wednesday, 6/8/11) at about 8:15, CDT. Brian and I will be discussing, among other things, the expansion of gambling in Illinois, which is a very hot topic in Indiana, and the Blagojevich trial.
WIMS broadcasts stream live at
http://www.wimsradio.com/
It should be a fun half hour or so; I hope you can join us.
Thanks.
A TRAGEDY WORTHY OF AESCHYLUS
6/8/11
Perhaps the biggest financial story of the last few weeks has been the maneuverings among the European Central Bank (“ECB”), the IMF, various European economic powers, and agencies created by those powers to avoid a default by Greece. Greece received about $160 billion in bailout money in May, 2010 but hasn’t been able access the private markets, as had been hoped (It does spring eternal, you know.) when the bailout was arranged, so a chunk of Greek debt coming due over the next few months can’t be refinanced without help from somewhere.
Why just not let Greece default, as Argentina did in 1992, and be done with it? If one believes in the free market’s disciplinary and recuperative powers, a default makes sense. However, eurocrats and the bankers they serve are afraid that a default by one eurozone country will affect the creditworthiness of other, perhaps all, eurozone countries, leading to what President Obama, not at all shy about sharing his manifest financial expertise with the likes of Angela Merkel, so financially doltish that she runs a country that is fiscally sound, called the “disastrous” results of an “uncontrolled spiral and (sic) default in Europe.”
The real reasons that the eurocrats feel they must once again hit up their taxpayers to allow the Greeks to live well beyond their means are two. First, if Greece defaults, the ECB will no longer accept Greek debt as collateral for loans. This would cause problems for European banks who have lent heavily to Greece knowing that they can use the Greek bonds as collateral for loans from the ECB and, doubtless, counting on the time tested strategy of privatizing gains and socializing losses. These banks would have to refinance such loans from the ECB elsewhere, and, wherever “elsewhere” is, it wouldn’t take defaulted Greek debt as collateral. This ECB problem, however, is far from insurmountable. In the event of a Greek default, the ECB could simply change what have become, over the last few years, its very flexible rules.
The biggest reasons that avoiding a Greek default (Language gets tricky here.) seems so imperative to the eurocrats and the banks they serve is because a “credit event,” which is not necessarily the same as a default, would trigger the credit default swaps (“CDS”s) written by an array of financial players, including, in large part, European banks. If whatever solution is concocted to bail out Greece short of more lending from European taxpayers under the fig leaf of the European Financial Stability Facility (“EFSF”), be it a “voluntary” exchange of maturing debt for debts with similar terms (Such an exchange would definitely be considered a default by the rating agencies; the agencies have already stated that an exchange of maturing debt for debt with terms more generous to the debtor than those available in the secondary market, in which Greek debt is trading, when it does, with yields in the 15% to 20% range, would constitute a default. But a default is not necessarily a “credit event” for CDS purposes.) or a technical payment at maturity matched instantaneously with an “encouraged” purchase of new debt, is considered a “credit event,” buyers of CDS could collect from those who wrote the CDS contracts. The supposition seems to be that the writers of the CDS contracts are largely European banks; thus, a Greek “credit event” could trigger a financial “crisis” in Europe and in our interconnected financial world. So the general consensus among the eurocrats seems to be that the possibility of a “credit event” must be avoided at all costs, and thus the only solution is for European (EFSF) and world (IMF) taxpayers to save Greece and its creditors by reaching further into their pockets.
But think about this for a minute. Eurocrats, along with the IMF, are striving mightily to avoid a Greek “credit event” in order to absolve supposedly sophisticated financial actors of the responsibility to make good on contracts they voluntarily entered into. If Greece does not experience a credit event, the writers of the CDS contract make money, in some cases, considerable money. The other side of that coin, in a free market, is that if Greece does default, the writers of those contracts lose money, in most cases, considerable money. Isn’t that the way a market is supposed to work? But, the way the eurocrats and the IMF see it, the writers of those contracts ought to be able to profit from those contracts if Greece is saved but should be able to pass their potential losses onto other parties, maybe onto Greece’s lenders, often the people on the other side of the CDS trade, who will be forced to “voluntarily” extend their debt but not collect on the CDS contracts they may have purchased, but more likely onto European taxpayers.
So again, what we are seeing is an example of “too big to fail,” socialization of losses and privatization of profits, and a perversion of capitalism, all in the interest, supposedly, of maintaining financial stability. This system stinks. Taxpayers in Germany, Finland, and other fiscally responsible countries see this. The politicians in such nations better open their eyes or there is bound to be trouble in Europe and beyond; restive populations are not a prescription for “stability.”
Perhaps the biggest financial story of the last few weeks has been the maneuverings among the European Central Bank (“ECB”), the IMF, various European economic powers, and agencies created by those powers to avoid a default by Greece. Greece received about $160 billion in bailout money in May, 2010 but hasn’t been able access the private markets, as had been hoped (It does spring eternal, you know.) when the bailout was arranged, so a chunk of Greek debt coming due over the next few months can’t be refinanced without help from somewhere.
Why just not let Greece default, as Argentina did in 1992, and be done with it? If one believes in the free market’s disciplinary and recuperative powers, a default makes sense. However, eurocrats and the bankers they serve are afraid that a default by one eurozone country will affect the creditworthiness of other, perhaps all, eurozone countries, leading to what President Obama, not at all shy about sharing his manifest financial expertise with the likes of Angela Merkel, so financially doltish that she runs a country that is fiscally sound, called the “disastrous” results of an “uncontrolled spiral and (sic) default in Europe.”
The real reasons that the eurocrats feel they must once again hit up their taxpayers to allow the Greeks to live well beyond their means are two. First, if Greece defaults, the ECB will no longer accept Greek debt as collateral for loans. This would cause problems for European banks who have lent heavily to Greece knowing that they can use the Greek bonds as collateral for loans from the ECB and, doubtless, counting on the time tested strategy of privatizing gains and socializing losses. These banks would have to refinance such loans from the ECB elsewhere, and, wherever “elsewhere” is, it wouldn’t take defaulted Greek debt as collateral. This ECB problem, however, is far from insurmountable. In the event of a Greek default, the ECB could simply change what have become, over the last few years, its very flexible rules.
The biggest reasons that avoiding a Greek default (Language gets tricky here.) seems so imperative to the eurocrats and the banks they serve is because a “credit event,” which is not necessarily the same as a default, would trigger the credit default swaps (“CDS”s) written by an array of financial players, including, in large part, European banks. If whatever solution is concocted to bail out Greece short of more lending from European taxpayers under the fig leaf of the European Financial Stability Facility (“EFSF”), be it a “voluntary” exchange of maturing debt for debts with similar terms (Such an exchange would definitely be considered a default by the rating agencies; the agencies have already stated that an exchange of maturing debt for debt with terms more generous to the debtor than those available in the secondary market, in which Greek debt is trading, when it does, with yields in the 15% to 20% range, would constitute a default. But a default is not necessarily a “credit event” for CDS purposes.) or a technical payment at maturity matched instantaneously with an “encouraged” purchase of new debt, is considered a “credit event,” buyers of CDS could collect from those who wrote the CDS contracts. The supposition seems to be that the writers of the CDS contracts are largely European banks; thus, a Greek “credit event” could trigger a financial “crisis” in Europe and in our interconnected financial world. So the general consensus among the eurocrats seems to be that the possibility of a “credit event” must be avoided at all costs, and thus the only solution is for European (EFSF) and world (IMF) taxpayers to save Greece and its creditors by reaching further into their pockets.
But think about this for a minute. Eurocrats, along with the IMF, are striving mightily to avoid a Greek “credit event” in order to absolve supposedly sophisticated financial actors of the responsibility to make good on contracts they voluntarily entered into. If Greece does not experience a credit event, the writers of the CDS contract make money, in some cases, considerable money. The other side of that coin, in a free market, is that if Greece does default, the writers of those contracts lose money, in most cases, considerable money. Isn’t that the way a market is supposed to work? But, the way the eurocrats and the IMF see it, the writers of those contracts ought to be able to profit from those contracts if Greece is saved but should be able to pass their potential losses onto other parties, maybe onto Greece’s lenders, often the people on the other side of the CDS trade, who will be forced to “voluntarily” extend their debt but not collect on the CDS contracts they may have purchased, but more likely onto European taxpayers.
So again, what we are seeing is an example of “too big to fail,” socialization of losses and privatization of profits, and a perversion of capitalism, all in the interest, supposedly, of maintaining financial stability. This system stinks. Taxpayers in Germany, Finland, and other fiscally responsible countries see this. The politicians in such nations better open their eyes or there is bound to be trouble in Europe and beyond; restive populations are not a prescription for “stability.”
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
“….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”
6/7/11
Anthony Weiner’s sticky situation is the perfect story for modern news; it’s salacious, comically tragic, and provides further evidence, for the legions of us who fervently believe this to be the case, that our government is in the hands of a group of strange, aberrant people whose concerns, ideas, and values could not be more divergent from our own.
Opinion on Mr. Weiner’s gripping situation spans a wide, but not wide enough, range. His supporters spout such inanities is “What he does on his own time and in the confines of his own home is his business, so I continue to support him.” Those who oppose him decry Mr. Weiner’s sleight of hand (outright lying, really) to the press, the public, and his colleagues in public office. Some might go so far as to denounce Mr. Weiner’s dishonesty to his new wife; if he can lie to her, he can surely lie to us, goes the logic.
While lying is one of Mr. Weiner’s faults that have been exposed by this brouhaha, it is not the only peccadillo that ought to outrage the public. So far, though, no one has gone so far as to say what I am going to write now: Mr. Weiner’s lying was despicable, but it is standard operating procedure for just about all politicians. Politicians lie because, for them, to do so comes at least as naturally as telling the truth. They rationalize their lying, sometimes calling it, in the words of our immortal former governor in the Land of Lincoln, a “misdirection play” or some such cutesy-pie periphrasis for dishonesty. The lying was not Mr. Weiner’s only, or even, perhaps, most serious transgression. Simply put, it is perverted, immoral, depraved, and sick, especially, but not only, for a married man, to send illicit and explicit (mild words, to be sure) messages to women he barely knew, at least one of whom was young enough to be his daughter and, for all he knew, some of whom could have been minors. The image of a leering, middle aged man biding away his time at his blackberry texting pictures of the man he considers the very epitome of hotness (himself) to much younger woman and doing who knows what while doing so evokes memories of the Jethro Tull classic “Aqualung.” Once upon a time, we considered such behavior sick, perverted, and creepy. The only reason that Mr. Weiner had to lie, and the only reason that his actions were, as he called them, “dumb” was that all of us, even Mr. Weiner, know that he’s a pervert. What is strange is that, in this enlightened new world, everyone is afraid to, in this case, call a spade a spade. Instead, we castigate Mr. Weiner for dishonesty, while, fearing censure by the enforcers of modern morals, refrain from criticizing the handiwork that necessitated, in Mr. Weiner’s mind, the dishonesty we so decry.
Of course, it is Mr. Weiner’s right to occupy himself with his fantasies on his own time (How does such a busy Congressperson have time for such diversions? That is grist for another mill, I suppose.) and on his own computer and blackberry. Thank God he wasn’t using other people’s equipment, electronic or otherwise, for such activity! But I digress. While many of us would consider such behavior immoral (sick, really), it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal, unless, of course, the objects of Mr. Weiner’s dexterity were minors. However, just as Mr. Weiner has the right to fritter away his time, and his other personal resources, imagining performing the most intimate of human acts with complete strangers, the people have the right not to be represented by those who dismiss what their constituents consider morally repugnant behavior as a mere harmless diversion.
I suppose this is the point at which modern morality dictates that I add “I’m no prude, but…” However, in this new, promising, modern age when we can criticize a man for dishonesty but dare not criticize a married man for entertaining himself by sexting with complete strangers half his age, I suppose that, as a guy who abhors both dishonesty and the type of behavior Mr. Weiner deemed so harmless, I completely qualify as a prude.
Anthony Weiner’s sticky situation is the perfect story for modern news; it’s salacious, comically tragic, and provides further evidence, for the legions of us who fervently believe this to be the case, that our government is in the hands of a group of strange, aberrant people whose concerns, ideas, and values could not be more divergent from our own.
Opinion on Mr. Weiner’s gripping situation spans a wide, but not wide enough, range. His supporters spout such inanities is “What he does on his own time and in the confines of his own home is his business, so I continue to support him.” Those who oppose him decry Mr. Weiner’s sleight of hand (outright lying, really) to the press, the public, and his colleagues in public office. Some might go so far as to denounce Mr. Weiner’s dishonesty to his new wife; if he can lie to her, he can surely lie to us, goes the logic.
While lying is one of Mr. Weiner’s faults that have been exposed by this brouhaha, it is not the only peccadillo that ought to outrage the public. So far, though, no one has gone so far as to say what I am going to write now: Mr. Weiner’s lying was despicable, but it is standard operating procedure for just about all politicians. Politicians lie because, for them, to do so comes at least as naturally as telling the truth. They rationalize their lying, sometimes calling it, in the words of our immortal former governor in the Land of Lincoln, a “misdirection play” or some such cutesy-pie periphrasis for dishonesty. The lying was not Mr. Weiner’s only, or even, perhaps, most serious transgression. Simply put, it is perverted, immoral, depraved, and sick, especially, but not only, for a married man, to send illicit and explicit (mild words, to be sure) messages to women he barely knew, at least one of whom was young enough to be his daughter and, for all he knew, some of whom could have been minors. The image of a leering, middle aged man biding away his time at his blackberry texting pictures of the man he considers the very epitome of hotness (himself) to much younger woman and doing who knows what while doing so evokes memories of the Jethro Tull classic “Aqualung.” Once upon a time, we considered such behavior sick, perverted, and creepy. The only reason that Mr. Weiner had to lie, and the only reason that his actions were, as he called them, “dumb” was that all of us, even Mr. Weiner, know that he’s a pervert. What is strange is that, in this enlightened new world, everyone is afraid to, in this case, call a spade a spade. Instead, we castigate Mr. Weiner for dishonesty, while, fearing censure by the enforcers of modern morals, refrain from criticizing the handiwork that necessitated, in Mr. Weiner’s mind, the dishonesty we so decry.
Of course, it is Mr. Weiner’s right to occupy himself with his fantasies on his own time (How does such a busy Congressperson have time for such diversions? That is grist for another mill, I suppose.) and on his own computer and blackberry. Thank God he wasn’t using other people’s equipment, electronic or otherwise, for such activity! But I digress. While many of us would consider such behavior immoral (sick, really), it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal, unless, of course, the objects of Mr. Weiner’s dexterity were minors. However, just as Mr. Weiner has the right to fritter away his time, and his other personal resources, imagining performing the most intimate of human acts with complete strangers, the people have the right not to be represented by those who dismiss what their constituents consider morally repugnant behavior as a mere harmless diversion.
I suppose this is the point at which modern morality dictates that I add “I’m no prude, but…” However, in this new, promising, modern age when we can criticize a man for dishonesty but dare not criticize a married man for entertaining himself by sexting with complete strangers half his age, I suppose that, as a guy who abhors both dishonesty and the type of behavior Mr. Weiner deemed so harmless, I completely qualify as a prude.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
“…A LADY DOESN’T WANDER ALL OVER THE ROOM AND BLOW ON SOME OTHER GUY’S DICE…”
6/1/11
One of the big local stories today is the gambling bills’ being passed out of the Senate and hence being headed to Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) for his signature or veto. Given that Mr. Quinn’s convictions are as ephemeral as a Cubs’ winning streak, his protestations that the gambling bill is “top heavy” mean little; hence, I would bet on the former. So, if all goes as expected, we will have a big new casino in Chicago, two new casinos in the suburbs, casinos in Rockford and Danville, slot machines at the airports and at local race tracks (See my very insightful 3/1/11 post, “HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN…” on slot machines at race tracks.), and, apparently, a slot at the trough for just about every special interest group with the ability to whine and write a campaign check, not necessarily simultaneously.
I would feel more strongly about this largest expansion of gambling in the state that gave us Tony Accardo and nurtured young Al Capone if it all didn’t seem so inevitable, but I still have objections to the plan based primarily on the weakness of the arguments in favor of this gargantuan expansion of gambling, er, sorry, gaming.
First, why is gambling so evil and reprehensible if done in by private entrepreneurs (yes, including the aforementioned Messrs. Accardo and Capone who, under today’s legal structure, would be legitimate businessmen rather than bloodthirsty gangsters) but suddenly eupeptic and beneficial if it gets the imprimatur of the government (or, in the case of the upcoming paean to tackiness that soon will be housed in Chicago, ownership by the government) and the politicians get a hefty chunk of the proceeds? Either gambling is a social evil or it is not; that the government has the biggest piece of the action should have no impact on its desirability from a moral/ethical/criminological standpoint.
Second, the argument that gambling will help us get out of the fiscal morass our public servants have spent us into is laughable to the point of asphyxiation. Why? Giving politicians more money to spend does not solve fiscal problems; it causes fiscal problems. If you give a pol a dollar, s/he will spend two. Inevitably, politicians will make spending commitments, on such anodyne projects as “infrastructure,” “investing in human capital,” and, of course, “for our children,” based on hockey stick projections for casino revenues that will fail to materialize. The commitments, given their “urgency,” (the power of the interest groups benefiting from them, really) will not go away. The taxpayers will be stuck covering the shortfall.
But, some might object, our public servants have earmarked the $1.5 billion to be generated from licensing fees for paying down existing debts. But the $500 million in annual taxes, profit splits, etc. to be generated is not similarly earmarked; it can be spent anyway our public servants deem meritorious. And the earmark of the $1.5 billion is itself a feint. Money is a fungible good; remember how the lottery money was supposed to go for education? It did. But the money that would have been spent on education in the absence of the lottery was spent elsewhere when lottery money went to “our children.” The same thing will happen in this instance. Note that, according to this morning’s (Wednesday, June 1, page 14) Chicago Tribune
It’s (the $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees) money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. (Emphasis mine)
So money that would have been used to pay bills can now be blown on social engineering programs that somehow benefit those doing the engineering more than those on whom it is performed. Great deal.
If gambling were a fiscal panacea, New Jersey would be the portrait of fiscal health. It isn’t such a financial Valhalla because the pols in Jersey spend all the money generated by the Atlantic City casinos…and then some. For that matter, if gambling is such a fiscal shot in the arm, why is the state of Illinois in such bad financial shape? Gambling has been quite widespread in this state for well over twenty years; when it was introduced, its proponents touted the salubrious effect it would have on the state’s fiscal health. Some might cite Nevada, which, until the housing crisis body-slammed it, was in pretty good fiscal health. But that happy state of affairs was not the result of a gusher of casino revenue. Nevada’s fiscal house was in order, and its taxes relatively low, because Nevada pols, like their brethren in that part of our country, dared not outrage their naturally fiscally conservative constituents. Gambling per se has little impact on fiscal health; rather, it is the propensity of the pols to be parsimonious that affects a state’s (or any level of government’s) finances. Gambling isn’t going to change the spendthrift habits of the Springfield crowd. Notice that, in the same session in which this gambling panacea was concocted, the legislature put off pension reform for another day.
Third, the casinos are supposed to foster “economic development.” Have you driven through downtown Aurora or Joliet lately? How about taking a walk a few blocks inland form the casinos in Atlantic City? How’s Detroit looking lately? Again, it isn’t gambling that has a salubrious effect on economic development; it is many things, including the willingness of the political leadership to foster a business friendly environment, and by that I don’t mean handing out special dispensations to the politically favored from otherwise onerous taxes and regulations. (See my 5/18/11 piece “…AND IF YOU EVER LEAVE ME I WILL LOSE MY MIND…”) Just as gambling isn’t going to suddenly change the typical Illinois pol’s lascivious designs on the fruits of your labor, it isn’t going to change his or her outright contempt for those who hire and those who work. Note that in the same session that gave us this gambling expansion, we got a workers’ compensation “reform” package that makes a fig leaf look like a burka.
If legalizing casino gambling could eliminate, or even mitigate, its societal side effects and if pairing those casinos with slot machines in airports and race tracks would solve, or even help, our fiscal problems and reinvigorate our economy, I, like just about anyone, would be in favor of the bill that is awaiting the signature of Governor Quinn (no relation). But further expansion of legalized gambling has been neither the fiscal nor economic panacea its proponents would have us believe, and, even when legal, gambling still has all the nasty societal downsides that the pols found so reprehensible when they were not, at least officially, getting a piece of the action. So who benefits, other than the pols and those who write them checks, rather than, as in the old days, hand them envelopes stuffed with cash?
One of the big local stories today is the gambling bills’ being passed out of the Senate and hence being headed to Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) for his signature or veto. Given that Mr. Quinn’s convictions are as ephemeral as a Cubs’ winning streak, his protestations that the gambling bill is “top heavy” mean little; hence, I would bet on the former. So, if all goes as expected, we will have a big new casino in Chicago, two new casinos in the suburbs, casinos in Rockford and Danville, slot machines at the airports and at local race tracks (See my very insightful 3/1/11 post, “HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN…” on slot machines at race tracks.), and, apparently, a slot at the trough for just about every special interest group with the ability to whine and write a campaign check, not necessarily simultaneously.
I would feel more strongly about this largest expansion of gambling in the state that gave us Tony Accardo and nurtured young Al Capone if it all didn’t seem so inevitable, but I still have objections to the plan based primarily on the weakness of the arguments in favor of this gargantuan expansion of gambling, er, sorry, gaming.
First, why is gambling so evil and reprehensible if done in by private entrepreneurs (yes, including the aforementioned Messrs. Accardo and Capone who, under today’s legal structure, would be legitimate businessmen rather than bloodthirsty gangsters) but suddenly eupeptic and beneficial if it gets the imprimatur of the government (or, in the case of the upcoming paean to tackiness that soon will be housed in Chicago, ownership by the government) and the politicians get a hefty chunk of the proceeds? Either gambling is a social evil or it is not; that the government has the biggest piece of the action should have no impact on its desirability from a moral/ethical/criminological standpoint.
Second, the argument that gambling will help us get out of the fiscal morass our public servants have spent us into is laughable to the point of asphyxiation. Why? Giving politicians more money to spend does not solve fiscal problems; it causes fiscal problems. If you give a pol a dollar, s/he will spend two. Inevitably, politicians will make spending commitments, on such anodyne projects as “infrastructure,” “investing in human capital,” and, of course, “for our children,” based on hockey stick projections for casino revenues that will fail to materialize. The commitments, given their “urgency,” (the power of the interest groups benefiting from them, really) will not go away. The taxpayers will be stuck covering the shortfall.
But, some might object, our public servants have earmarked the $1.5 billion to be generated from licensing fees for paying down existing debts. But the $500 million in annual taxes, profit splits, etc. to be generated is not similarly earmarked; it can be spent anyway our public servants deem meritorious. And the earmark of the $1.5 billion is itself a feint. Money is a fungible good; remember how the lottery money was supposed to go for education? It did. But the money that would have been spent on education in the absence of the lottery was spent elsewhere when lottery money went to “our children.” The same thing will happen in this instance. Note that, according to this morning’s (Wednesday, June 1, page 14) Chicago Tribune
It’s (the $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees) money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. (Emphasis mine)
So money that would have been used to pay bills can now be blown on social engineering programs that somehow benefit those doing the engineering more than those on whom it is performed. Great deal.
If gambling were a fiscal panacea, New Jersey would be the portrait of fiscal health. It isn’t such a financial Valhalla because the pols in Jersey spend all the money generated by the Atlantic City casinos…and then some. For that matter, if gambling is such a fiscal shot in the arm, why is the state of Illinois in such bad financial shape? Gambling has been quite widespread in this state for well over twenty years; when it was introduced, its proponents touted the salubrious effect it would have on the state’s fiscal health. Some might cite Nevada, which, until the housing crisis body-slammed it, was in pretty good fiscal health. But that happy state of affairs was not the result of a gusher of casino revenue. Nevada’s fiscal house was in order, and its taxes relatively low, because Nevada pols, like their brethren in that part of our country, dared not outrage their naturally fiscally conservative constituents. Gambling per se has little impact on fiscal health; rather, it is the propensity of the pols to be parsimonious that affects a state’s (or any level of government’s) finances. Gambling isn’t going to change the spendthrift habits of the Springfield crowd. Notice that, in the same session in which this gambling panacea was concocted, the legislature put off pension reform for another day.
Third, the casinos are supposed to foster “economic development.” Have you driven through downtown Aurora or Joliet lately? How about taking a walk a few blocks inland form the casinos in Atlantic City? How’s Detroit looking lately? Again, it isn’t gambling that has a salubrious effect on economic development; it is many things, including the willingness of the political leadership to foster a business friendly environment, and by that I don’t mean handing out special dispensations to the politically favored from otherwise onerous taxes and regulations. (See my 5/18/11 piece “…AND IF YOU EVER LEAVE ME I WILL LOSE MY MIND…”) Just as gambling isn’t going to suddenly change the typical Illinois pol’s lascivious designs on the fruits of your labor, it isn’t going to change his or her outright contempt for those who hire and those who work. Note that in the same session that gave us this gambling expansion, we got a workers’ compensation “reform” package that makes a fig leaf look like a burka.
If legalizing casino gambling could eliminate, or even mitigate, its societal side effects and if pairing those casinos with slot machines in airports and race tracks would solve, or even help, our fiscal problems and reinvigorate our economy, I, like just about anyone, would be in favor of the bill that is awaiting the signature of Governor Quinn (no relation). But further expansion of legalized gambling has been neither the fiscal nor economic panacea its proponents would have us believe, and, even when legal, gambling still has all the nasty societal downsides that the pols found so reprehensible when they were not, at least officially, getting a piece of the action. So who benefits, other than the pols and those who write them checks, rather than, as in the old days, hand them envelopes stuffed with cash?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
