The Quiet Coup

This article, By Simon Johnson, constitutes the definitive analysis of our current economic troubles and the political realities (namely, the fact that our country is now ruled by an entrenched financial oligarchy)that have brought us to our current ruin. I wholeheartedly agree with Simon Johnson's diagnosis and prognosis - which is frightening. The article is easy to read and understands and reasonably short. A must read.

I sure hope we can summon the political will to implement his advice. Otherwise . . .

Joe H

March Madness Explained

Someday I'll put out something more profound - I've been thinking about defending the idea of a "living constitution." But until then some of you may enjoy this sort of etymological/basketball triva.

Joe H.

Just in From Jerusalem

A man and his ever nagging wife of many years went on vacation to Jerusalem. While they were there his wife passed away. The undertaker told the husband, "you can have her shipped home for $5,000, or you can have her buried here, in the Holy Land, for about $150." The man thought it over for quite some time, but finally decided to have his wife shipped back to the United States.

The undertaker then asked, "why would you spend $5000 to ship your wife home, when it would be wonderful for her to be buried here and it will only cost $150?"

"You see," the man began, "I heard that a little over two thousand years ago, a man was put to death and buried near here, and within three days he rose from the dead."

"I just can't take that chance!"

Joe H.

More on the Rule of Law - British Style

This post by Greenwald is quite telling. It demonstrates what the U.S. would do if we weren't such a deeply corrupted democracy.

Joe H

Derivatives Explained

Here's what you've all been waiting for; an understandable explanation of derivative markets ... and why we're in this economic pickle.

(I'm not the author. I received this in an unsolcited email).


Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Spokane. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's drink now pay later marketing strategy and as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar and soon she has the largest sale volume for any bar in Spokane. By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral. At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on security markets worldwide. Naive investors don't really understand the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, their prices continuously climb, and the securities become the top-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses who collect enormous fees on their sales, pay extravagant bonuses to their sales force, and who in turn purchase exotic sports cars and multimillion dollar condominiums.

One day, although the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the bank (subsequently fired due his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. Heidi demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Therefore, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy. DRINKBOND and ALKIBOND drop in price by 90 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %. The decreased bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having granted her generous payment extensions and having invested in the securities are faced with writing off her debt and losing over 80% on her bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 50 workers.

Ultimately, the bank and brokerage houses are saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock negotiations by leaders from both political parties. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by a tax levied on employed middle-class non-drinkers.

Between You and Me . . .

Somewhere in my stuff I have this magazine cartoon showing a minister walking out of church with a female congregant. In the cartoon, the minister, who is holding a Bible, looks at the woman and confides, "between you and me, I hate the sinner as much I hate the sin."

Today I was conversing with a friend via email about the Civil Unions Bill currently pending in Hawaii's legislature. My friend, who is one of Hawaii's legislators, believes the Bill is going to die in committee. But he also noted that much of the email he was getting in opposition to the Bill evidenced a disturbing dislike for "others" in general, not merely homosexuals.

For some reason, my friend's comments reminded me of that cartoon. Don't get me wrong; I think my friend is right. But I also think there is something uniquely worrisome about the fact that Christians have been able to convince themselves that we "love the sinner" and only "hate the sin." If we were truly honest with ourselves, most of us would have to side with the Pastor in the cartoon.

The best evidence for this is that, in all of the debate on the issue, you will rarely, if ever, here an opponent of gay marriage or civil unions express the slightest concern for the needs and desires of homosexuals. Their well-being counts for nothing. Their lives and loves and relationships count for naught and are given absolutely no weight whatsoever in the public policy analysis.

To the contrary, even the slightest perceived threat to the well-being of heterosexuals and their relationships, however remote or hysterical, is taken to be utterly dispositive.

It hard to credibly claim to love a group of people whose welfare is of no consequence to us. How can we credibly claim to love people whose welfare and needs we have never seriously considered - ever!

But even more worrisome is the fact that we Christians have convinced ourselves of that very fact. You don't believe me? Go up to a group of Christians at your church and say something like "you know what, I think we hate homosexuals after all." Shrieks of protest will follow. Shrieks!

I've done it. Twice! Shriek's both times!

And yet, those very same people will stand in the hot Hawaiian sun for hours at a time in order to prevent Hawaii from extending legal support to gay unions. And they'll do this without considering, for one minute, how their success will worsen the lives of Gay people in our State.

That's love?

Between you and me . . .

Joe H.

Financial Literacy

Matt Tiabbi, author of "The Great Derangement," which I highly recommend, provides something very valuable in this article. He explains why the AIG bonuses, small though they be in terms of the overall bank bailout, are really evidence that the U.S. has endured a coup by our financial elite.

After explaining the nature of the coup in vivid and readable detail, Taibbi explains why it is so important for the rest of us to understand what has happened, and why the ruling class, including the media, are in panic mode trying to ease public anger about what these people have done to us and our country.

As all dictators know, literacy is power.

Happy reading. Oh, I hope everyone will excuse Taibbi's profanity in his first sentence. Its an understandable sentiment.

Joe H.

Obama, Bush's Secret Keeper

I think Dahlia Lathwick gets it exactly right. There is absolutely no justification for Obama's strenuous attempts to keep Bush administration wrongdoing secret. This really needs to stop. Out with it already!

Joe H.

Torture Confirmed Beyond Doubt

Sorry everyone for being away so long. What with there being a ton of work at my new firm and a scheduled weekend vacation in Maui to visit with old friends, I've been swamped.

I did notice that someone leaked a secret report by the International Red Cross (why was it secret?) confirming that our CIA has engaged in systematic torture at its secret prisons. Given that the International Red Cross is an institution of impecable credentials, as well as the world's foremost expert on torture, there is no longer any doubt that the United States has become a rogue nation with respect to human rights.

If our citizens don't do something to pressure the Obama administration into investigating and prosecuting these offenders, our children and grand children will look back and see that we forfeited our honor and commitment to the rule of law because we wanted to be safe and we were too cowardly to confront evil among us. In the meantime, it will be difficult for me to listen to our nation's citizens sing our national anthem or repeat our pledge of alligence. "Liberty and justice for all" is a wonderful ideal, but it is not something we 21st century Americans care much about.

Joe H.

P.S. For anyone who would conclude, based on these comments, that I don't love our country, ask yourself whether your mother loved you when she critized you? Patriotism is a love of country - but love and criticism are not contraries. My love for our country motivates my criticism. I criticize because I worry that our country is changing into something that we will (and shouuld) eventually hate.

Rankings for Porn and Happiness

Well,Well. Utah and Hawaii are once again ranked 1st and 2nd in the nation - this time for happiness.

I wonder if the happiness rankings are related to the porn rankings?

I better stop now before I get into trouble.

Joe H.

Dumb Money Debacle - The Rich vs. The Rich

Lots of people are getting hurt in the current downturn. But no group is getting creamed more than the rich. Of all the people who should be clamoring for greater financial regulation and greater transparency on Wall Street, rich people should be shouting the loudest!

Joe H.

John Yoo and the Secret Memos

Okay, I dare anyone to read this piece by Gary Kaima and then argue with a staight face that we shouldn't prosecute Bush administration officials, starting with John Yoo.

Joe H.

The Sanctity of Life Argument

Last week, President Obama overturned the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research put in place by former President Bush. Its worth noting that seven out of ten Americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It is also extremely unlikely that those many millions of Americans believe that embryos are "someones" who can be murdered and nonetheless support federal funding for research that destroys embryos. This means that these Americans, like me, implicitly reject the Right to Life argument as applied to early fetal life.

That being said, the related conviction that human life is "sacred," expressed by anti-abortion groups claiming to defend the “sanctity of life,” is far less controversial. To be sacred a thing need only be thought to embody a significant degree of intrinsic value. Even non-living things such as flags, songs, scriptures, famous paintings, and natural wonders can be thought of as sacred. The claim that abortion is morally profane, even at the earliest stages of pregnancy, is far more credible than the "abortion is murder" claim. It is more reasonable to think that human life is unique and precious at every stage of its development, given what human life is, how it came to be, and what it can do, than it is to think that microscopic embryos are “subjects” who can be “murdered.”

Unfortunately, the sanctity of life argument is not nearly as powerful a justification for legal proscription of abortion as the right to life argument. Rights, after all, are well recognized moral trumps. A belief that a thing is sacred, to the contrary, although not without moral weight, is less significant, morally speaking. This is true for a number of reasons.

First, much of human opinion regarding what is "sacred" is inherently religious. For this reason, the premise that a thing or practice is sacred, and therefore inviolable, will rarely be universally accepted. Moreover, there is no way to reconcile antithetical religious convictions on such matters.

Second, even when people agree about what is sacred, they will often differ sharply about the proper way to show respect for the sanctity of that thing. Consider end of life decisions. Many people agree that human life is sacred in some sense or other. But these same people differ sharply about what follows from this premise. Some think the best way to show respect for the sanctity of human life is to preserve it as long as possible, regardless of the circumstances. Others think it profane to allow a life to deteriorate beyond recognition and usefulness.

Who is right? I'm not convinced we can know - both arguments are plausible. And both appeal equally to the notion that human life is sacred.

Third, in cases of significant disagreement about whether a thing is sacred, or disagreement about the proper way to honor the sacred, it is problematic for those holding a majority view to impose that view, by law, on those who reject it. Consider the following example. We agree that the right to life argument lacks moral force until week 13. We further agree that fetal life is sacred at all stages of its development, simply because it is human.

Now suppose that we discover at week eight that the fetus will develop into a child with extremely severe birth defects. One of us thinks the sacred status of the developing fetus requires us to preserve its life. The other thinks the sacred nature of human life (in conjunction with feelings of compassion for the entity's future suffering) requires that this particular life be terminated. Assuming that both opinions are plausible applications of the premise that human life is sacred, which I think they are, should one of us be allowed to use the law to impose our vision of the sacred and its proper application on the other (remembering that we are not talking about a right to life - only about what we personally consider the proper application of our conception of the sanctity of human life). Clearly not, it would seem. If resepect for the sacred is the sole basis for our disagreement, it would seem that each of us ought to be free to act from his or her own conscience.

Finally, it is widely recognized that circumstances sometimes justify our intruding upon the sacred. Jesus himself taught, by word and example, at numerous points in the New Testament, that concerns about human well being sometimes trump respect for sacred things. Regarding consecrated days of worship Jesus could not have put this point more clearly. “Man” he said “was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man!”

In summary, the premise that human life is sacred, at all stages, and is thus morally entitled to respect, is a plausible moral premise. But that premise seems inadequate to justify legal prohibitions.

Any thoughts?

Joe

Internet Porn Use

I hope this report will not affect your understanding of why we moved to Utah, or why we decided to return to the Islands.

It is an anomaly. Honestly!

:)

Joe H.

Secret Military Dictatorship

Yesterday, the Obama administration released nine previously classified legal memorandums. These memorandums were drafted in secret and kept classified by the Bush administration. They served as the legal basis for the administration's actions in its "War on Terror" - including domestic spying in violation of the FISA statute, the arrest and indefinite detention (on U.S. soil) of U.S. citizens, without charges, and its rendition/torture program.

The first thing to notice is how genuinely radical the people who have been running our government the last eight years truly were. I use the term "radical" not as a synonym for "extreme," but in the more accurate sense of the Bush Administration's rejection of the core (or root) precepts of the American constitutional order. Here's just one of the memorandums in which the Administration granted itself the authority to conduct domestic military operations within the United States, against U.S. citizens! The memorandum has to be read to be believed, but it essentially advises the President that he, as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, has the authority to ignore all federal laws and the entire Bill of Rights in his prosecution of the "war on terror" within the United States.

(For what its worth, in October of 2008, Stephen Bradbury, Chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, withdrew this memo and denounced both its legal reasoning and its conclusions).

The second thing to be grasped is that the Obama administration released these memorandums in unredacted form. Unredacted! This conclusively demonstrates that the memorandums never contained information that posed a threat to national security. All the memorandums ever contained was the Bush administration's understanding of its authority under the constitution. Why did that have to be secret?

Far more importantly, how could we, the citizens of the United States of America, have tolerated, much less supported and relected, a President who claimed (and exercised) sweeping, unreviewable, and heretofore unprecedented tyrannical powers, based only on his (and his lawyers') reading of the constitution? How could we tolerate this while that very same president refused to reveal the legal reasoning supporting his claims?

And now that we can see for ourselves how utterly ridiculous the legal reasoning supporting those claims was, how can we simply "fix it and move on" as President Obama suggests?

Who are we?

Its hard to come to terms with this. I keep asking myself, "did we really have a secret coup?" Is it possible for lawyers working in the Office of Legal Counsel (whose opinions supposedly have immunizing power for officials who rely on them) to replace our entire constitutional order, in secret, and then have their legal opinions immunize their benefactors from all legal accountability?

Remember, these memorandums formed the legal basis for: (1) the administration's indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charges; (2) the administration's torture program ("torture" is the description given to the administration's actions by its own officials); and (3) the Administration's domestic surveillance program (which was unmistakeably illegal and felonious). Each of these actions/programs violated very specific federal statutes, as well as the U.S. Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Yet they were all premised on nothing more the President's alleged constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, as interpreted secretly, by Administration appointed lawyers working in the Office of Legal Counsel.

Think about that for a minute. Our elected leaders commit war crimes and other felonies in our names. Their acts are then immunized by secret (and truly ridiculous) interpretations of the Constitution's "commander and chief" clause, drafted by lawyers appointed by that very same commander and chief. And now that all of this has come to light, everyone wants to simply "move on?"

That is truly insane! I find that set of facts absolutely incomprehensible!

But however insane it appears to me, no prosecutions appear to be in the works. What's more, our entire political class, including President Obama, is recommending that we look forward rather than backward. And however incomprehensible it appears to me, it looks as if President Bush's radical (and hitherto secret) interpretation of our constitution has effectively immunized him and other Bush administration officials from legal accountability.

Hey, if this is how it works, here's a message to President Obama: Appoint me to the OLC and you'll be our next King.

I'll tell you, unless we find a way to officially repudiate all of this constitutional nonsense and, at minimum, publicly denounce the authoritarian radicals who ran our country for the last eight years, our constitutional order is finished.

Its just a matter of time.

Joe H.

UPDATE

Andrew Sullivan expresses this point as well as anyone has.

UPDATE II.

Here's another good summary of the dictatorial powers the President secretly claimed as war time powers (and remember, there was no forseeable end to the "war on Terror."

Money Gurus?

This is a good article calling into question the credibility of the cable news talking head dispensers of financial advice. Its a confessional of sorts. Highly worth reading.

Joe H.