The Shield of Achilles

Veteran's Day Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:07:00 +0000

One of my favorite WWII photos: a B-24 Liberator bomber over the Pacific

Happy Veteran's Day! Some items you may have missed this past week:

USA: Right in line with my prediction here, some in Obama's new administration already want to put Bush administration officials on trial for torture.

IRAN: A former victim speaks out about sensory deprivation torture technique known as "white torture". We still hear so much about alleged torture under the Bush presidency (like the above). Why do we hear so little about this?

TURKEY: The Duchess of York went undercover with a media crew and exposed shockingly bad conditions at orphanages in Turkey. Turkey's response:

“We object to the undercover methodology of the documentary. We should have been informed about their plans to do a documentary on orphanages. This could have an impact on our image in Europe.”

In other words: "You are making us look bad and could screw up our EU bid; please give us warning so we can clean up an orphanage before putting it on TV"

UK: Bees in the UK are disappearing at probably the most alarming rate in the world. Yes, we would survive without them, but we would enjoy far less variety in foods as well as living in a less colorful world overall.

USA: The Washington Post admits their campaign coverage was biased. Now they tell us. Don't you think they could have said something about this during the election? Related item: one website, eyeonthepost.org, is dedicated to tracking bias at the WaPo, although it focuses mainly on Middle East reporting.

SOMALIA: A 13 year-old rape victim was stoned to death for adultery. I wish all the people who have been screaming about Sarah Palin's belief in creationism would at least spend some time on real problems like this. There are fanatics in the world who hold nobody's life sacred and are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything in the name of their religion.

MEXICO: Mexico just signed an agreement to deport Cuban migrants in their country. Anyone else see any hypocrisy here? Of course, they don't want Cubans taking jobs in the US. Mexico wants to reserve that particular cash cow for itself. See also related story here.

NORTH KOREA: Dictator Kim Jong-Il might be more ill than previously thought; the regime releases photos of him that are obvious fakes. I can do a better job myself (and have).

GREENLAND: In 1968, a US bomber crashed in Greenland with four nuclear bombs. Only three were accounted for. We are just finding this out now. Given the age of the weapon, the remoteness of the area, and the fact that no terrorist organization has it at the moment (or if they do, no one is using it for blackmail), it's probably nothing to worry about. Probably...

USA: One respected physicist chases his dream of time travel. To avoid ridicule, he kept quiet about it until now. Can't say much about this, except it was a childhood dream of mine as well. He should understand though, that even in the very unlikely case that he was successful, what he is actually building is a weapon far more devastating than any nuke in existence.

USA: Obama wants to close Guantanamo and try all detainees in the continental United States. Problem is, what do you do with them after that? After they serve their sentences, they can ask for asylum since it would be "inhumane" to send them back. No other country will want them either. Bottom line: if we do this, we are stuck with them forever.

The future of political discourse

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:26:00 +0000

Some words of wisdom from Victor Davis Hanson:

It seems to me that conservatives have a golden opportunity to offer criticism and advice in a manner that many liberals did not during the last eight years. By that I mean I hope there are no conservative versions of the Nicholson Baker Knopf-published ‘novel’ Checkpoint, the creepy documentary by Gerald Range, the attempt to name a sewer plant after an American President, or the celebrity outbursts that we have witnessed with the tired refrain of Hitler/Nazi Bush—that all have cheapened political discourse. When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

To this I would add: there should be no conservative "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentaries, no fake-liberal commentators mirroring the Steven Colbert fake-conservative model, no conservative versions of Keith Olberman and his pre-school level "worst person in the world" segments (We already know Ann Coulter is going to have a field day for the next eight years), and no protestors holding signs of Obama depicted with Hitler moustaches and devil's horns.

But that's probably too much to hope for.

The military reaction

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:25:00 +0000

No bloodshed, no violence, no panic.

Every soldier I work with is still plugging away at their job, same as always. But why is that? Hasn't the military been described for the last eight years as "Bush's military"? Hasn't everything small slight they have done personally been blamed on Bush?

I've said over and over again, that the military is far more independent than the conspiracy theorists think. But nobody listened to me.

Everyone talked about it, most joked about it, but that was it. It wasn't such a big deal. It seems most military members seem to support McCain, but not all of them. Mostly, soldiers keep their political opinions to themselves.

But keep in mind what has happened. The election is not significant because we elected a biracial man or a man with the middle name Hussein to the Presidency. It is significant because we just elected a man who, although he is a very charismatic speaker, has the thinnest resume of anyone ever to hold that office. And we elected him over a genuine war-hero with almost 30 years in the Senate. I wish Mr. Obama all the best.

I'm curious, though - with a Democratic president and Congress, who will Germany's Stern blame for it's anti-Americanism? Where will American comedians direct their attacks now? Where will pundits like the Daily Kos and Keith Olberman channel their rage? Toward the US Supreme Court?

A good quote from David's Mediankritik:

For Americans living in or visiting Germany, this may translate into fewer close encounters of the Hate-America kind in certain bars, taxis and social gatherings. The trendy types will have to drop Hate-Bush for some other cause-celeb and pick up a new ultra villain to rail against. This in itself may lead to some angst and uncertainty.

My Prediction on the US election

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:17:00 +0000

No, this isn't my prediction over who will win the election. Rather, what will happen after the election.

First prediction: the election will be heavily contested no matter who wins. I believe it's going to be much closer than the pollsters indicate, and we've already had plenty of charges of voter fraud and vote suppression on both sides. So get ready for quite a few court battles.

Second; this depends on who wins:

1) If Obama wins, but the Democrats only hold a small majority in Congress, or lose their majority altogether, then the country is going to plug along much as it has for the last several years. But we will get Universal healthcare in a rather watered down form, and a modest military drawdown.

2) If Obama wins, and the Democrats grab a wide majority in the House and Senate. Then our country will not only take a radical shift with Universal healthcare and a huge military drawdown, but also we will also be mired down in congressional hearings and investigations over the last eight years, focusing on Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

3) If McCain wins, there will be rioting in the streets, widespread accusations of voter fraud, and plenty of violence. Conspiracy theorists will go wild.

I'm calling it like I see it. But I hope I'm wrong on all of these...

Media bias is the most rampant it's ever been

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:57:00 +0000

Right now McCain is trailing Obama in the polls by a small margin, and that is actually quite remarkable, considering the fact that Obama is outspending McCain on advertisements by 3 to 1, and that Newspapers, News outlets, and the entertainment are heavily biased towards Obama. In short, McCain is fighting a huge uphill battle against the mass media. Considering his age, and what he's up against, he's actually making quite a heroic effort.

What's amazing to me, is how many people think the American media are objective here. Some of them actually claim that they are biased toward McCain!

If you didn't already notice the obvious, there are now a couple of serious studies that back me up.

First the "news" media, according to the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan organization:

The good news for John McCain? He's now receiving as much attention from the national media as his Democratic rival. The bad news? It’s overwhelmingly negative.

Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain, from the conventions through the final presidential debate, were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative — the least favorable coverage of any of the four candidates on the two tickets.

Then, the entertainment industry, according to the AP:

From Sept. 1 through Friday, the Republicans were the target of 475 jokes by Jay Leno and David Letterman alone. The Democratic team of Obama and Joe Biden were the victim 69 times, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which has been tracking such data since 1988. That's nearly a 7-to-1 ratio.
In no other campaign over the last 20 years has one party's ticket been jabbed more than the other by even a 2-to-1 ratio, said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a similar imbalance. The center doesn't even consider Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien, Craig Ferguson and others — including the season's breakout comedy star, Tina Fey imitating Sarah Palin.

Of course, the irony is that they may put themselves out of a job. People like Stewart and Colbert have formed their entire success around George Bush's presidency. Who are they going to mock if the Republicans are no longer in control?

In a related and stunning article, a long-time writer and former PBS host, Michael S. Malone, explains why he's ashamed to be known as a journalist:

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist. [...]

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. [...]

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The media will get the President that they deserve.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

A Guillotine on display at Obama rally

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:36:00 +0000

- with George Bush's severed head underneath. I really don't like having this photo on my site, which is why I made it so small. The full size version can be seen at El Marco's site here, along with several other disturbing pics of the political rally. Actually, his entire site is good stuff.

Remember this picture the next time someone warns you about the rather nebulous threats heard at McCain rallies.

I'm all for getting into the spirit of Halloween, but when you start encouraging and celebrating a specific person's death, this is just a bit too much, non? The 18th century France connotations not lost on me either - like how much some of these people would mirror Robespierre's reign of terror, if they ever had their way.

US conducts attack in Syria?

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:15:00 +0000

"Iraq this Way!", a photo taken in Syria by Red Betty Black

Since I am now stationed in Korea, this is one incident that I have no inside knowledge of at all, so I feel much more free to discuss this raid (Sometimes I have to be extra-careful not to divulge any classified information):

Syria has protested angrily to both the US and Iraq after what it said was a US helicopter raid inside its territory that killed eight civilians.
Syria summoned US and Iraqi envoys to condemn the "aggressive act".
...
The US has neither confirmed nor denied the incident. It has previously accused Syria of allowing militants into Iraq.

Syria said the US helicopters attacked a farm in the Abu Kamal border area.

If confirmed, the raid would be the first known attack by US forces inside Syrian territory, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
...
Syria's official Sana news agency said that "four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 1645 local time [1345 GMT] on Sunday".

The government said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh farm near Abu Kamal, eight kilometres (five miles) from the Iraqi border.

A building under construction was hit and four children and a married couple were among the dead, it said.

Meanwhile, this is the kind of reporting that is particularly infuriating:

Our correspondent says the timing of the incident is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus.

The US military is not political!! I've said it before, but I'll say it again: We are not George Bush's personal force. Why do even professional journalists seem to think this is so? The United States is not some third-world dictatorship; the military doesn't do raids for political purposes, and I have never, ever heard of anyone in the Bush administration asking them to. "Broadening ties" is also all well and good - except with terrorists.

If, and I emphasize if - US Special Forces attacked a farm on the Syrian side of the border, it was because they had strong intelligence of foreign fighters gathering there. Guaranteed. Such a raid would have had to have been approved at a very high level, and nobody would want to risk the blowback of attacking innocents, particularly outside of Iraqi borders. Commanders are not stupid, and they know the press would report this, and that Syria and other networks would deliberately distort it.

The report of "children" being attacked is almost a given, and the traditional way to cover your own guilt. If this were so, why not tell us whom, or show photos? Soldiers are human beings, and 99.99% would never attack children unless their lives were genuinely threatened.

But it's not just Syria. Of course, at certain nutjob web sites, they are already condemning the United States before all the facts are even in. A tad impatient for November, maybe?

Keep in mind that this was not too far from the town of Qaim, which has been a hotbed of Al-Qaeda for a long time.

Allahpundit makes a good observation:

Exit question: If they were targeting an AQI safehouse, why put men on the ground to “storm a building,” as the BBC report puts it? Why not just send a missile down the chimney, Waziristan style? Clearly they were looking for someone.

Update: The only two people I can think of who might justify an operation in Syria are al-Masri, the leader of AQI, and Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who’s long been rumored to be hiding out there. Roggio will have other guesses, certainly. A snatch and grab operation of some high-ranking insurgent would explain why boots were on the ground and why they felt they had to act now, even with the election so near. Short of that, the only explanation I can come up with is that there was some sort of cargo in transit that simply had to be seized and secured, even at the risk of casualties.

That is a very good explanation and entirely plausible. There is one more possibility, however. If US forces were in "hot pursuit" and aerial reconnaissance observed enemy fighters crossing the border and stopping at that farm, then they would also follow it up. Either way, I'm sure we will get a full explanation in time.

Me: wishing I was there instead of here...

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

More hatred (as if we need more)

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:37:00 +0000

Right on cue to my last article, I found this one (via Little Green Footballs).

From NY Daily News: "Who are left-wing haters to point fingers at John McCain?".

[NYT Columnist Frank] Rich's use of the term "Weimar-like rage," ironically in a column decrying Republican scare tactics, is but one example of the left's careless usage of Nazi allegories to describe people and policies they don't like. Since 9/11, major anti-war rallies have included people holding signs and puppets comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Leftist writer Naomi Wolf, who has expressed fears that the feds were monitoring her children's letters from summer camp, recently published a book titled, "The End of America," which likens the Bush administration to a fascist junta.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann spews over-the-top, hateful rhetoric in his "Special Comments" on a regular basis. He has said that the Bush administration threatens America with a "new type of fascism," referred to the GOP as the "leading terrorist group in this country" on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, and has said that Fox News is "worse than Al Qaeda" and "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Have the journalists now bemoaning the low tactics of the McCain campaign and its supporters never set eyes upon the wildly popular Huffington Post? That Web site hosts countless angry rants, many examples of which are too vulgar to document in a family newspaper. In 2004, Nicholson Baker wrote a novel imagining the assassination of President Bush. Last week, Fox's "Family Guy" depicted Nazis donning McCain-Palin buttons.

Right-wing pundits are not blameless either, but fair is fair. Read the whole thing.

Related: Also via LGF, a non-partisan group concludes that the media's campaign coverage of John McCain has been overwhelmingly negative (no big surprise to me, but will be to some).

Also: A Republican campaign hq in Tennessee is vandalized with a large brick through the window.

McCain supporters are engaged in negative campaigning?

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:42:00 +0000

The conventional wisdom seems to be that McCain/Palin and their supporters are running the negative campaign, and that Obama/Biden are being firm but fair. It comes out in national polls, and it comes out in conversation when I discuss politics with others.

Several times I have had to correct people on the false impression left by the media on the Republican nominees. Neither McCain or Palin have called Obama a Muslim - in fact, they have publicly corrected others who have claimed that. Neither McCain or Palin have called him a terrorist either (although they have claimed he associated with a terrorist - William Ayers). True, a lot of false charges have gone back and forth, and McCain isn't totally innocent here, but nothing he has done compares to this kind of intentional disinformation (and these all occurred just in the last few days):

The Guardian prints an article from a former Vietnamese guard at prison camp where McCain was held as a POW, who claims McCain was never tortured. They don't even seriously question his account.

Rolling Stone magazine runs a hit piece putting the worst spin possible on every facet of McCain's military career, including accusing John McCain of running and hiding in cowardice during a 1967 fire on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal, which killed 134 navy personnel. They base this entire article on the word of one man (who, incidentally, supports Obama).

And based on this story, many blogs even run with the rumor that McCain started the fire himself!

And Sarah Palin? It just keeps getting better. The UK's Daily Telegraph gave us this quote about polar bears from the Alaskan governor:

"magnificent, cuddly white bears are doing just fine and don't need our protection. If the ice melts, they'll adapt to living on the land."

Only problem is, she didn't say that. The literally just made it up out of whole cloth. The Telegraph has since altered the page and removed the quote (without an explanation or apology), but you can still see the angry reactions to the fake quote in the comments section.

Meanwhile, the NYT wrote a gossip hit-piece on Cindy McCain which was so over the top with sleaze that even Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald, who hates McCain, condemned it. Meanwhile, a Times reporter even emailed the McCain's 16 year old daughter posing as a friend from facebook, in order to get dirt on her mother! A copy of that email can also be read at the above link.

This prompted Cindy's attorney, John Dowd, to make this astute remark:

"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here."

In the West, shots were fired at the McCain campaign bus, while one Maryland man's home and cars were vandalized with spray paint simply for supporting McCain. In Detroit, a pizza joint offers free pizzas for McCain/Palin signs (to encourage people to steal them).

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart showed a different side of himself by going into a rage about Gov. Palin.

But we are supposed to believe it's only McCain supporters who stoop to these levels.

In many ways, Obama is far above those that claim to support him. But unlike him, I'm not going to directly blame him for the actions of his supporters. Like this disturbed woman who decided to file a lawsuit against McCain and Palin for their campaign speeches. I am not joking. Some people really are that ridiculous.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Profiles in Courage: Luis Soriano

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:09:00 +0000

Elections are mostly talk. And if you are like me, you've had enough this year. Some people in the world speak through their actions instead. It may seem minor in the big picture, but people like this do make a difference. I normally don't comment on human interest stories like this, but I'll make an exception this time. This goes hand in hand with the immigration debate. I love to hear about people trying to better their country instead of fleeing from it:

LA GLORIA, Colombia — In a ritual repeated nearly every weekend for the past decade here in Colombia’s war-weary Caribbean hinterland, Luis Soriano gathered his two donkeys, Alfa and Beto, in front of his home on a recent Saturday afternoon.

Sweating already under the unforgiving sun, he strapped pouches with the word “Biblioburro” painted in blue letters to the donkeys’ backs and loaded them with an eclectic cargo of books destined for people living in the small villages beyond.
...
“This began as a necessity; then it became an obligation; and after that a custom,” he explained, squinting at the hills undulating into the horizon. “Now,” he said, “it is an institution.”

And in the meantime, he has braved weather, poverty, bandits, and threats of political retaliation. So why does he do it?

Once upon a time, very long ago, there were bookmobiles across the United States. Mobile libraries providing services to remote locations or to urban neighborhood children. Today, we have everything instantly on the Internet and that age seems a lifetime ago.

When I last left Iraq, Internet was still not available to ordinary people in their homes. They could either pay about $2200 for a satellite dish and other fees to get the service, or go to their local cyber cafe for about $3 an hour. Either method is cripplingly expensive in a country where someone is lucky if they make $500 a month. Free wireless is unheard of.

These anecdotes are just a reminder that not all of the world shares in the current information revolution. But they still have the same educational needs as everyone else.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Korea

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:17:00 +0000

North Korea, as seen from an observatory on the south side of the border, at Odo mountain

I'm no longer in Germany - after many years, I am now doing a one-year tour away from my family in South Korea. This is the second time for me. In some ways, this is worse than Iraq! At least in Iraq, I feel like I can do my job with a purpose; Korea has been a stalemate for 50 years.

The above village is mainly for show, since North Koreas know that people can see it. But there is a permanent population that tills the fields by hand, as most people did in antiquity.

Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:33:00 +0000

I can't help thinking that race trumped ideology here. A career military man who is a self-described Republican passes over McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran, for Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois:

"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."

He's "transformational". That's got to be about the stupidest reason I've ever heard anyone say anywhere.

He also claimed he had been going "back and forth" on who to support. Well, if your support for either is that lukewarm, why go on television, against your own party, and against a fellow vet? Why publicly endorse either one?

Even retired generals are entitled to make stupid decisions. But unless he's angling for a job in an Obama administration, I have a feeling his career in the Republican party has ground to a halt...

On another note, I finally have internet access here. Updates coming today.

One update: Even more cynically - notice how he didn't make any endorsement until after one side had a substantial lead?

Another side note: Michael Powell, Colin's son and former FCC chairman, endorsed John McCain.

Still Alive

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:45:00 +0000

And still around. I'm currently on a military assignment in Korea, and my internet access is extremely limited for the moment. More to follow.

I'm probably the only blogger I know that has to continuously remind readers that he is still here. But I'm also one of the few that holds down a full time (or more than full time) job.

Updates soon.

Wall Street plummets

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:41:00 +0000

The US House of Representatives rejects the latest bailout offer, and the Dow Jones goes into freefall.

When assigning blame to the US Congress or the President for this problem, keep in mind that the same thing is happening in other countries as well. The UK's solution is to outright nationalize their failing banks. While I detest nationalization, this may be better than simply loaning money to banks that already failed, as was the proposed plan in the US. I predict we will end up with that plan, but a slightly more watered down version than was rejected yesterday.

Meanwhile, what to do? In the classic film It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter gets control of the bank and much of the town by buying up shares while everyone else is desperately selling. In trying to persuade folks from not selling their shares to Potter in the Building & Loan, George Bailey said: "we're panicking and he's not".

Some free advice: right now is a very good time to buy, buy, buy!

Are we really in a crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:28:00 +0000

Everyone is saying that we are. But I just took a loan and bought a house myself with no worries, and no problems.

Disclaimer: I'm no financial expert. But like many other bloggers, I don't pretend to be. I have looked into what I can in the current "financial crisis" which is being hyped by the media, the President, and Congress. The bottom line seems to be that too many risky loans were made to people who couldn't pay them, and now everyone is losing confidence in the system.

Now the issue on the table is the estimated $700 billion bailout. "Bailout" is the common term, although people should keep in mind that the money would be a loan, not a handout. That point I can't emphasize enough, because most of people's anger over the deal is the misperception that poor people will end up paying for huge CEO salaries. The CEOs might get rich(er), but they still have to pay the government back. Unless they go belly-up again...

For this reason, I can't support the current proposal. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is urging immediate action to open the credit markets back up and avoid a nationwide depression. But I can't help thinking that maybe the credit markets should dry up for awhile. Maybe, just maybe, we have too much debt as it is and need to reign it in.

One alternative to the current plan is to allow these companies to fail and die a natural death. Additionally, in a plan which no one is proposing, you can set up a government-run credit bank with a limited 10-year charter to fill in the gaps and keep the money flowing. Otherwise, you are loaning money to the same people that got us in this mess in the first place.

This is election time, so the other issue involved, of course, is the blame game.

So who is to blame for the current mess? Barack Obama and his surrogates in the blogosphere are exclusively blaming the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress.

But subprime lending (the act of charging risky borrowers more to borrow money) has been around in one form or another for centuries. The current form of the practice dates from at least 1993, when the term was coined during the Clinton administration. Investor's Business Daily pretty much gets it right:

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Of course, the current administration and the current Congress, and Wall Street CEOs are not blameless either. But there is one more culprit in the room that no one wants to acknowledge: ordinary borrowers who took out loans that were beyond their means. It's not popular to say it, but many of these folks are entirely to blame for their own actions.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Racism and the US election [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:57:00 +0000

"Racism" is the gift that keeps on giving - to anyone who wishes to whip up as much hysteria as possible. Here was an AP story today; the implied message here is that if you don't vote for Obama, you are racist:

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The latter remark is hardly surprising, since true conservatives tend to believe that in most cases, all people are largely responsible for their own troubles.

I concede that there are a fair amount of people who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. But any day, I will balance that against the masses of people who are supporting him simply because he is black.

And while we are at it, why don't we also compare this against the number of people who will not vote for McCain because he is old, or because his running mate is a woman? Even by the AP's own calculation, the number of these "racists" is only 2.5% (although in a race this close, that could be decisive).

If you think I'm reading too much in the AP story, keep in mind that plenty of others have said the same thing, and much more blatantly. Just last month, Jacob Weisberg, the editor-in-Chief of Slate.com, wrote an article on the subject entitled: "If Obama Loses, Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him". And it gets worse:

If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to.

In other words, he is blatantly appealing to white guilt and accusing us all of being a racist nation if Obama is not elected. Incredibly it's as if he doesn't see any other issues in the campaign at all...

CNN's Jack Cafferty said something very similar in one of his recent rants. You can see it ably picked apart here by Todd Huston at Newsbusters.org. Strangely, he Cafferty seems to think we are not talking enough about race, even though the media has been obsessed with it from day one.

Discussing this same topic, WSJ's James Taranto wryly points out:

Denouncing people as racists does not seem like a very effective way of winning their votes, so one has to suspect that Sebelius, Letson and Hagan [who believe racism is the only reason people will not vote for Obama] are more interested in explaining Obama's loss than in preventing it.

Why don't we concede that all voters use a host of prejudices when voting for candidates of either side?

UPDATE 22 Sep 2008 0834 AM:
Nate Silver at the Fivethirtyeight blog astutely points out some of the same problems with the poll that I did, as well as some additional ones, although his perspective seems to be more one of trying to reassure us that Obama is electable.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Pakistan is on the frontline in the war on terror

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:08:00 +0000

The crater, embedded from the BBC.

As you probably already know, yesterday 57 people were killed (including two Americans) and 266 injured when a suicide truck bomb detonated at a Marriot hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan. Two diplomats were also killed - including the Czech ambassador, even though the Czech Republic has not deployed any soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Additionally, most of the dead were simply drivers and hotel security guards waiting outside the building. This just helps underscore why this is a global problem, and Al Qaeda's absolute disregard for innocent life. That is the definition of evil - a word which has been so abused in the United States that it's more often been applied to President Bush than to these terror networks.

The blast left a crater 24 feet deep and almost 60 feet wide. There is unconfirmed speculation that the Prime Minister's residence may have been the initial target, or that the attack was really aiming for US Marines in the hotel. In my opinion, the actual target mattered little to Al-Qaeda; far more important was the body count they could obtain from the blast.

Just last week there were reports of border incursions by US Special Forces and a threat by Pakistan to open fire if US troops conduct another cross border raid. I didn't mention it at the time, because Special Operations Forces operate in unknown countries all the time, that is the nature of the business (more power to them). I doubt greatly that this was the only such incursion. It's difficult to win a war when your enemy believes he can cross the border with impunity but you can't.

The other thing to keep in mind is that despite Pakistan's bluster, it is highly unlikely they would ever fire on US troops in any case, because 1) to do so would be virtual suicide, and they know this, and 2) the US would cut off all aid to Pakistan, including weapon sales.

Moreover, terrorist attacks such as this may help remind Pakistan who their real enemies are. In a encouraging move, Pakistan announced that they will now step up raids against Al-Qaeda border outposts.

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Weekly round up

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:55:00 +0000

Photo of the week: Peaches Geldolf, is modeling for Agent Provocateur's line of "Season of the Witch" lingerie

SOMALIA: A German shipowner pays $2 million dollars ransom to Somali pirates who hijacked his vessel and kidnapped the crew. But this money only rewards terrorists, and goes to buy more weapons and equipment so other innocent vessels will be threatened in the future. Haven't we learned anything from the past? Also, see similar incident here. France has the right idea, and storms a pirate ship instead. Good for them. Vive la France!

UK: England is now the most densely populated region in all of Europe, primarily due to skyrocketing immigration (and the figures don't even take into account the illegal population).

UK: Sharia courts are now officially permitted in the UK. They are Muslim religious courts that rule on community issues such as domestic violence, inheritance, and divorce, due to mutual agreement beforehand (like going on the "Judge Judy" show in the US). The article claims that women are receiving a smaller share in financial decisions than they would in a regular British court. If that's true, it's entirely their own fault - any woman foolish enough to choose to have a Sharia court hear her case deserves exactly what she gets. Oh, and Muslim religious courts have no place in the country anyway, but that's a given that seems to have fallen by the wayside...

UK: Outrageous incident in which a hotel clerk refuses a room to a customer simply because he is in the Army. If this happened in the USA, it would have generated a great deal more outrage. The hotel apologized, but there was still no explanation for the refusal in the first place. The English now seem to view these incidents as almost normal. Patriotism isn't so cool anymore...

SPAIN: One African immigrant is killed and thousands of others go on a violent rampage. This is the usual story in Europe, an immigrant is killed by the police, and the community bursts with outrage. But the really perplexing thing in this case is that he was killed by another immigrant during a drug deal gone bad. Trashing your own neighborhoods in protest of your own crimes seems a strange way to improve your standard of living. And a question: why didn't the major media outlets cover this story? Is it because they couldn't blame it on the police?

ISRAEL/ARGENTINA: Debbie Schlussel points out a heck of a story, that unfortunately gets buried in the current "now, now" news climate. Apparently, Israeli Mossad agents hot on the trail of Adolf Eichmann (the most wanted Nazi war criminal at the time), stumbled across the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele, and didn't apprehend him because they didn't want to jeopardize the Eichmann mission. Fascinating stuff.

GERMANY: In a somewhat related story to the one above, a 90 year-old Josef Scheungraber is on trial for Nazi war crimes committed 64 years ago. It may be the very last Nazi crimes trial ever.

PAKISTAN: Girl was married at 9 years-old to a man who was 45, tries to get an annulment when she is 17, and is gunned down by her own family because of her "dishonorable" actions. Need I say more? Discussion at Jihadwatch.

Iowa, USA: Fort Dodge Community College president Robert Paxton resigns over the "scandal" of him appearing in a photo giving beer to young woman. Since drinking beer is legal, and the woman was of legal age, I'm not sure what the problem is. But someone was outraged somewhere. Looks like Mr. Paxton didn't aggressively fight the action either, since his severance package was about $400,000! One hell of a salary from a community college... But what the hell, it's only money, right? It's not like students need it or anything...

USA: The Obama tax cut web site claims to show you what your tax cut would be under a President Obama. Problem is, the math doesn't add up. For example, it says that a single parent, making only $10,000 a year, would get a $490 tax cut. Problem is, anyone at that income level already doesn't pay any taxes. So how can you cut $490 out of zero? The site is nothing more than a fraud.

UK: Christmas and Easter are banned from a Yorkshire Coast College's calendar, in order to "increase inclusion and diversity”. I.e., for fear of offending Muslims. Should I remind them that the UK is a officially a Christian nation?

South Carolina, USA: In Hilton Head, a fourth-grade student is suspended for having the blade from a broken pencil sharpener in school, followed by a storm of outraged calls and emails to the school. In response, the principal wrote a letter of explanation to parents, but it was not very reassuring, since she admits the sheriff's department was called to respond to the 10 year-old armed suspect. It gets even worse when she admits that the school doesn't have a zero-tolerance policy anymore; i.e. she was not forced into this level of hysterical overreaction, but rather chose to do so. Good discussion at Overlawyered.

New York, USA: Hasidic Jews are upset with bicyclists, particularly female bicyclists, riding through their neighborhood "without dressing modest(ly)". They are also complaining that the bicycles pose a threat to "children and elderly residents". Since they don't use bicycles themselves, maybe they don't understand, but this seems like common sense: don't cars pose much more of a threat to pedestrians than bikes?

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Special interest groups back NYC bill to give voting rights to non-US citizens

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:33:00 +0000

Vote sticker, by Ann Larie Valentine

As if you haven't seen enough garbage coming in this election season already (found via Gates of Vienna):

At a rally outside City Hall yesterday organized by the New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights, supporters of a City Council bill that would extend voting rights to 1.3 million noncitizen New Yorkers said it's unfair that immigrant residents pay more than $18 billion in state income taxes when they can't vote for their representatives.
...
A supporter of the bill, Council Member Robert Jackson of Harlem, said in his district alone there are about 40,000 people who are paying taxes and don't have the right to vote. He said the coalition needed to publicize the position of every council member on the proposal and the reasons for their stances.

Let's publicize the positions of people who back this lunatic bill, and see if we can strip them of their voting rights for even suggesting such idiocy...

If people are upset about paying taxes, living in the community, and not being able to vote, there are two better options available:

1) Become a US citizen!
2) Go back to your own country and vote there (assuming that country has voting rights at all).

After all, I wouldn't imagine moving to a foreign country and demanding the right to vote for their leaders. I lived in Germany for many years without voting in their system, and I don't feel the least bit slighted. I was a guest in their country, and I voted in US elections by absentee ballot.

Now, it's important to keep in mind that: a) the bill covers local elections only, and b) theoretically would only apply to legal residents, not illegal immigrants. But two problems there already: a) That's one hell of a slippery slope, and b) how do you know who is a legal resident or not? Remember, these are the same kinds of people who also uniformly oppose requiring ID cards when voting.

So how do they justify this, anyway? As usual, right on cue, when you have no real arguments on your side, the old "racism" accusation:

He suggested that those opposed to giving noncitizens the right to vote might be motivated by racism, and noted that in the early years of American history noncitizens were allowed to vote.

That second argument is interesting; before WWI, being a citizen was not a uniformly a requirement for voting. But before that time, the world was very different, and the country generally had open immigration anyway. Besides, the "early years" do not always the best examples to emulate. Women and blacks also weren't allowed to vote back then. Does he want to go back to that??

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

7th Anniversary of 9/11

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:48:00 +0000

I'm not going to write a tribute, or get very sentimental today. There's plenty of that going on elsewhere today.

What I would like to point out is how few people in the world believe Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on Sep 11, 2001.

In an international poll (found via Hot Air) in only 9 out of 17 countries surveyed, do the majority of people believe Al-Qaeda was responsible. And it gets worse:

On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.

But what about Western countries? They have the most common sense right? Well, I'm ashamed to say, not much:

Even in European countries, the majorities that say al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-seven percent of Britons, 56 percent of Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda.

Remarkably, the countries that had the highest percentage of people who correctly identified Al-Qaeda as the culprit were Kenya and Nigeria, with 77 and 71%, respectively. Is this because they don't have very much access to all the conspiracy theories floating around the net?

The worst offender is Egypt where an astoundingly low 16% say AQ was responsible, while an equally mind-boggling 43% think Israel was to blame. Israel!

The New York Times recently ran an excellent article (one of the very few times I have recommended the NYT) on 9/11 attitudes in Egypt and why they won't accept the facts of 9/11. A typical example:

“Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, 36, a clothing-store owner in the Bulaq neighborhood of Cairo. “It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis.”

The importance here is that even if we are winning the military fight, we are currently losing the information war in many countries. And that is the aspect of the War on Terror that has the most lasting effect.

Enron attorneys are to get $688 million dollar jackpot

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:49:00 +0000

Just to point out that there are a lot of important issues today that are not getting enough press coverage, this story about Enron is a good example.

For those few who might not know about the Enron scandal, it can be summed up this way: Enron was a hugely successful energy company until 2001, when someone discovered that accountants had been cooking the books for years to hide huge losses. As a result the company folded into one of the costliest bankruptcies in history. Investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and criminal indictments followed. Not surprisingly, lawsuits by investors followed as well.

Their lawyers have now secured a whopping $688 million dollar payday skimmed off of investor's losses - money that could have been better spent helping those who lost their life savings after investing in Enron stock. It is the largest such payout in history in a securities fraud case.

They claim they spent 280,000 man hours working on the case, and chalked up $45 million in expenses (that's some expensive typing and filing!). But even taking those figures at face value, it translates into a net fee of $2,296 an hour. You can assume that all the senior partners at those law firms will get at least $10 million apiece - enough money that they, and even their children, can live in luxury for the rest of their lives without ever needing to work again a day in their life.

For another comparison, to put that in salary terms, working 40 hours a week at that rate translates into an annual salary of $4,8 million dollars!

The attorneys will argue that they deserve this payout because they recouped $7.2 billion for their clients, resulting in a payout of less than 10 percent of the take (normally trial lawyers take 40%).

But this underscores the problem with America's system of rewarding attorneys with commissions; exceptionally large cases lead to obscene paydays - with payouts that surpass those of even the corrupt Enron CEOs.

The USA desperately needs tort reform, and unfortunately, it's an issue that is not even on the table this election season.

More on this case at Overlawyered.

The "genius" of Russell Brand

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:41:00 +0000

... is what MTV is calling his disgusting monologue on the MTV music video awards last night. He is a British comedian, virtually unknown in America. Normally, I wouldn't dive into this kind of thing (especially since music videos ceased being relevant over a decade ago), and it's already all over the media, but there's something else I wanted to point out. Quote:

Please elect Barack Obama! Please! On behalf of the world. Otherwise, you know, would you have let that retarded cowboy fella be president for eight years?

Not a very PC statement about retarded people, but I'm not very PC either. The "cowboy" statement is the one I wanted to remark on. There is a disconnect here between the USA and Europe; many Americans might be surprised that to Europeans, the word "cowboy" is usually meant as an insult. On the other hand, Europeans should know that in the US, the term is not an insult, it's simply a profession (or arguably, a lifestyle), and not considered derogatory in any way. On the contrary, it's often a badge of pride.

Unfortunately, that wasn't all Mr. Brand said. It gets worse:

Sarah Palin. She’s a VILF! Maybe a vice president I’d like to fumble, fondle, I dunno. I do feel a little bit sorry for her daughter, getting pregnant, poor kid. Is it a boy? Is it a girl? No, it’s a P.R. stunt. Come on. Be honest.

It goes on and doesn't get any better from there. Since this man is trying to pull private matters into the ring, then it might be useful to know that Mr. Brand was once fired by MTV for coming to work dressed as Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. He is also a recovering alcoholic and heroin addict who admits he has been arrested for public indecency 11 times.

If MTV wanted a "shocking" figure to give them a ratings boost, they probably got it. But the backlash might not be worth it - their message boards are flooded with angry comments. Michelle Malkin puts some samples up at her site.

One example why comedians can be bad political pundits

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:33:00 +0000

Comedian Bill Maher getting the star treatment on Salon.com:

Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That's why George Bush is president.

Besides the fact that George W. Bush is the son of a former President (which means he doesn't have much in common with guys who resurface driveways), there's one big problem with his statement: Bush is not only a Harvard grad (where he got his MBA), but a Yale grad as well. He didn't graduate magnum cum laude, but still, this is "just like us"?

Expect to see more distortions like this in the days ahead; Obama supporters are increasingly frustrated. The latest poll numbers have McCain significantly ahead of Obama. A USA Today poll has him an astounding 10 points ahead among likely voters.

Of course, these polls mean little right now. It is still early, it's during the time of the Republican convention bounce, and we haven't even had any debates yet.