Stones Cry Out

Bloomberg.com

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said political leaders are discussing the idea of closing the world’s financial markets while they “rewrite the rules of international finance.”

“The idea of suspending the markets for the time it takes to rewrite the rules is being discussed,” Berlusconi said today after a Cabinet meeting in Naples, Italy. A solution to the financial crisis “can’t just be for one country, or even just for Europe, but global.”

The Washington Post

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is claiming another casualty: American-style capitalism.

Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation’s wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.

The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.

Breibart.com

Germany called on Friday for a set of global rules to help tackle the global financial crisis, saying it was time to put an end to ad hoc solutions.

"We need global rules for the markets," German Finance Minister Peer Steinbruck said.

Is this all seeming a little end-times-esque?  If we wind up with a truly global economy, or one far more global than we even have now, is it so hard to believe a step or two down the road is a card, and then an implant, that you must have to buy anything? 

Are we watching the foundation laid for the events in the book of Revelation?  Or am I just paranoid?

• Epistemic arrogance and the financial crises. Or game theoretic errors.
• Chapter 3 of Porn and the Christian life is out.
• A replacement for the ass and the elephant.
• When truth to power had teeth.
• A film recommendation.
• The waning of the Gospel and the crippled church.
• Abortion not linked to poverty?
• Pro-choice as a replacement term for pro-abortion perhaps makes little sense.

Rights are a very confusing notion. It seems to me there are two possibilities regarding Mr Obama’s recent claim that “health care is a right.” Either he means something completely different by “right” than I might understand it to mean (which is to say not a common notion of what is casually meant by “a right”) or he should not get anybody’s vote because he’s, well, insane. Bill Whittle, former democrat, at NRO puts this one perspective:

Well, back in the day, we would simply say that a right has legal authority — it’s in the Constitution and therefore it’s a not just a right, it’s a birthright. So why shouldn’t we amend the Constitution to include the rights to health care, food, housing, education — all the rest? What’s the difference between the rights we have and the “rights” Obama wants to give us?

Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government.

The Declaration states that the “rights we hold to be self-evident” (and perhaps granted by Nature’s God) where Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness almost certainly mean for Jefferson, Adams and Franklin to be the Aristotelian eudomonia (definition #2 at the link). Rights for our founders are emphatically not consumables that the government should provide for us.

There are two essential problems with Mr Obama’s (insane?) claim that health care is a “right”. The first is illustrated above, and that it is not a right as normally thought. The notion that health care is a fundamental right to which every person is entitled is radical policy of redistribution at best. The second problem with the idea of healthcare as thing which government can cure is that it’s wrong! Read the rest of this entry

In an article about how the current financial crisis would affect the two presidential candidates promises, the NY Times demonstrates the real problem without even noticing it.

While first commenting, as I did, that neither candidate could get specific on what promised programs they would not implement or delay as a result of circumstances, the paper immediately jumps in with the absolutely wrong emphasis.

The big issue for each candidate is not spending, per se, but how the crisis will affect their promises on taxes. Mr. Obama has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy, starting next year, to help restore fairness to the tax code and to pay for his spending plans. With the economy tanking, however, it’s hard to imagine how he could prudently do that. He should acknowledge the likelihood of having to postpone a tax increase and explain how that change will affect his plans. Then, he can promise to raise those taxes as soon as the economy allows.

Mr. McCain has an even tougher job. To be straight with voters, he would have to acknowledge that the centerpiece of his economic plan — to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2011 and to add billions of dollars of new tax breaks — is impossible. If he went ahead with those plans, the national debt would explode, undermining the borrowing that the nation must undertake to finance the bailouts.

Sounding like some forlorn caller to the Dave Ramsey show, complaining that they could get out of debt if only they could make more money, the Times looks only to the income side of the ledger.  Not content to ignore spending, they specifically rule it out.  But as anyone who’s listened to Dave, or to advice from Crown Financial Ministries, or just about any other financial advisor, it is far, far easier to regulate your spending thanit is your income level.  Now, the federal government is in a different position than most of us, in that they can simply legislate the amount of money they want to come in, but as these advisors will tell you, if you don’t discipline your spending and set good habits in that regard, no amount of income will be enough.  Ever.

Not only does the Times come at this problem incorrectly, it’s ironic that it paints itself into a corner on its proposed solution.  Obama can’t raise taxes, but McCain can’t cut them.  Guess the Bush tax levels are, as Goldilocks might say, just right?

But seriously folks, let’s not forget who’s backward proposal this is; the New York Times.  No one would mistake them for a member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.  This is a liberal answer to the problem, and it is entirely the wrong approach.  The conservative answer to this are common sense financial principles.

Notice I’m not naming party names.  This is mostly because, while Democrats can spend like a drunken sailor, Republicans have show that they can get about as drunk themselves.  If the conservative, common sense solution is to have a ghost of a chance, Republican politicians have to get back to their conservative roots. 

And we, as their constituents, have to get out of our entitlement mentality, waiting to see which candidate for whatever office will give us the most stuff.  Otherwise, the road to the presidency will be won by the candidate promising to be the most pandering and the least responsible.  The best thing about our republic is that it is government "by the people", but sometimes it’s the worst thing about it, too.

• Mr Obama and Ayers matters … or not.
• Marx on the bailout. And a T-shirt.
• Links by ginny.
• Plugging a worthy College. If you’re not going into Science/Math/Engineering, I can’t imagine a better education.
• Imagine the reaction if this was Ms Clinton and Camille Paglia on Mrs Palin.
• A question Mr Obama refuses to address.
• 9/12.
• Both sets of (mostly stupid) pictures.

Short impression of the 2nd Presidential Debate:  Just like the 1st Presidential Debate, but with more walking around.

Not much new ground covered in this debate, even though there was ample opportunity for it.  The questions just teed up the candidates for the same stump speech excerpts we heard last time.  As such, Obama comes out of the debate in the driver’s seat since the pressure for a game changer was on McCain. 

A few notes:

Obama continued to lie about what brought about this financial crisis.  The wheels did not magically start to come off the day George W. Bush sat down in the Oval Office chair, and the party-line votes regarding Fannie and Freddie put the Democrats on the side against regulation of those institutions.  Even Bill Clinton has debunked this line.  That John McCain didn’t even bother to set the record straight on this is a huge missed opportunity, moreso because it was a carbon copy of Obama’s line in the first debate.

If I hear the phrase "fundamental difference" one more time, I’ll scream.

One bit of new ground that was actually covered was McCain’s 300 billion dollar bailout of people who bought more home than they could afford.  I was extremely disappointed in this.  As I said recently, huge federal debt is not the way to fix a problem that is debt-related.  This is a further example of how our politicians have been conditioned to go after votes by offering giveaways because we respond to giveaways.  McCain’s obviously looking to curry favor with those who think the government should protect people from the consequences of their decisions.  This makes as much fiscal sense as allowing me to refinance my car every year at its new, lower value.  No, I incurred a debt that I am morally obligated to pay.  This is another example of the faux "fairness" and class warfare our country has come to accept to a large extent. 

What about illegal immigration?  What about abortion?  What about judicial appointments?  What about a host of other issues that haven’t been touched on in 2 debates?  Mr. Brokaw, you fell down on the job.

If health care is a "right", Mr. Obama, is food now a right as well?  Which is more important; food that you need every day or health care you need once in a while? 

John, John, John…don’t crack jokes.  They really didn’t work.

Obama is suddenly for nuclear power?  I’m sure there were some environmentalist supporters of his who spewed coffee out their noses at that.

Anyway, so much for another debate.  Not very notable, and mostly a rehash. 

• What’s wrong … a good answer.
• The debate summarized. A much shorter summary.
• Al Gore invented the Internet (not!), and Mr Obama thinks that the government invented computers? Where do these guys get those wacky notions?
• Terror politics … not about political costs vs gains.
• One thought on the significance of the reaction to Mrs Palin.
• Lepanto.

As far as mudslinging goes it is useful to recall that in these latter days of the American Republic, mudslinging is a lost art form. Rarely if ever, unlike the heady days of when the Republic was fresh do opponents in races accuse the other side of corrupting infants or worse … stealing them.

Mudslinging, machine politics, and the rest came of age in the first few elections, notably I think when Mr Arnold almost stole an election in New York by virtue of good organization. Very quickly the high minded concepts of Madison and the rest of the Constitutional convention designers had in mind were thrown aside by the rough and ready actualization of their political structure. Read the rest of this entry

If the desert isn’t a good place for solar energy, where is?

Solar companies proposing large power plants in the Mojave Desert are facing opposition from conservationists. They say a rush to build solar here threatens to tear up large tracts of desert habitat and open space.

Environmentalists want to stick with rootops, but as FuturePundit notes, there are other governmental obstacles to that.  In addition, California has state mandates for green energy increase, and rooftops alone won’t cut it.

The Greens are going to be their worst enemy in this.

• (global) Fear and loathing?
• Climate report, it did warm up … but not very much.
• Two religions … and Euthyphro.
• Weatherman … a bomb a day?
• From a simple book.
• Bikes for the non-biked … like this.
• Logic in the chopper.

In both debates so far, all 4 candidates were asked which promises and/or programs that they’d proposed would they not be implementing due to the current financial crisis.  I don’t think any of them gave a satisfactory answer to this question, with Obama’s “scaling back” response being the only thing close.

If anything, this credit crisis should be teaching us one lesson: severely curtail borrowing.  Huge debt is killing us.  In the mortgage-backed-securities field, things were compounded when Bank A would take an IOU from Bank B and use it as collateral to get a loan from Bank C.  Repeat this with Bank C and continue until you can hardly follow the trail.

The same goes for the federal government, who, in addition to the national debt already run up, plans to be the final resting place of this toxic debt.  So now all are eggs will be in one unimaginably huge basket.  If the bailout bill doesn’t do the trick and if foreign investors call in their chips, who bails out the feds?

Make no mistake; we are not out of the woods yet.  Sarah Palin mentioned in the VP debate the need for American’s to do their part by not taking on excessive debt.  (Personal responsibility; what a concept!)  This should ring throughout Washington, DC as well.  Spending needs to be cut, deeply and immediately.  A trillion dollars in new programs are not what this nation needs at this moment in time.  Soaking the rich to pay for more big government programs is just kicking the problem down the road.  Soaking businesses to pay for them affects employment and prices in a negative way, so we all get hit by it (promises of aiding the middle class to the contrary).

What I am afraid will happen, however, is that once the current crisis is no longer front page news — when it’s financial concepts that the public doesn’t have time for — the politicians will continue their MO like nothing’s happened.  I wish at least John McCain would get real with this issue, but he won’t any more than Barack Obama will.

And that’s largely our own fault.  Too many of us have the “Ask not what your country can do for your” mentality.  We’re buying the line that if only the rich would pay their “fair share” we’d be out of this mess, but we’ve bought into an incredibly selfish definition of the word “fair”.  We say we want our politicians to tell us the truth, but our vote too often goes to the one promising us more and more for less and less.

The bill has come due.  Let’s cut up the credit cards and stop spending what we don’t have.  This is the first step to freeing up our politicians to tell the truth.

Missing the point, is the problem on both the right and the defenses from the left.

The point isn’t Mr Ayers regrettable (and alas not-regretted) past. It isn’t how close in bed where Mr Obama and Mr Ayers and what did who know when. That is a political wart which will not change the election. But …

The point is they both miss the point on education. Badly.

Mr Obama in a commencement address earlier this year spoke to college grads of not giving themselves to money and career but “doing something for change”. Mr Ayers also sees education as a platform to educate “children for freedom and against oppression”.

Alas, that ain’t the problem. The problem is the scarcity of good engineers and scientists coming out of our schools. It isn’t “more poetry and freedom” that needs to be taught, it’s path integrals and Riemann surfaces. It’s tensors and logic and PLL amplifiers. Mr Ayers (and Mr Obama) are brought up looking in the wrong direction for the “problem” and … that is the problem with their association.

Turns out that Barack Obama’s connection to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is deeper than everyone originally thought:

By 1995, Barack Obama had known Bill Ayers at least eight years since their shared involvement in the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, if not longer. Bernardine Dohrn, once labeled “the most dangerous woman in America” by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, was also well known as the inspiration for the 1988 movie Running on Empty. Subtle terrorists they were not.

As noted in the New York Times, Obama has tried to minimize his relationship with Ayers, dismissing him as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”

Axelrod also tried to excuse the extent of Obama’s involvement with Ayers, stating,
“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”

It’s an obvious fiction pitched by Axelrod, since the Obama children are presently in elementary school, while Ayers’ children are all grown adults, but the Ayers-Obama family connection doesn’t stop at the imaginary connections between the children.

Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’ wife, has largely escaped recent scrutiny, but that lack of attention doesn’t reduce her role as either a leader — and some may argue, the leader — of the Weathermen. Nor can it mask her ties to both Barack and Michelle Obama. It’s now a family affair.

The whole piece is worth reading as it goes into extensive detail about the Obama-Ayers alliance that has not been previously reported. Media apologists for Senator Obama have tried to downplay the connection but the fact remains that such friendships cast serious doubts on the Senator’s judgement. And Senator Obama is going to have a hard time convincing the public that he didn’t know Bill Ayers wasn’t a terrorist when Ayers has never hidden his past.