This is How a Democratic Country Evolves Into a Police State

After reading this article by Glen Greenwald describing how affording "due process" to terrorism suspects is now seen, on a bi-partisan basis, as "leftist extremism," ask yourself, how likely is it that the exercise of all these new executive powers is going to remain confined to "terrorism suspects?"

Aren't there other "dangerous people" out there. What about people who disseminate dangerous ideas? How long will it take for these powers to migrate to different problems - to different people who scare "us."

This trend in public opinion is truly alarming. We're dong exactly what terrorism is meant to get us to do - destroy ourselves and our country. The tragic irony of all this is that so called conservatives - folks who have long lectured everyone about the tyrannical potential of cnetralized unchecked government power - are cheering all of this on.

Joe H.

How Not to Get Mad

This morning, my wife reminded me that we were meeting a friend's fiance and that "we shouldn't get into political discussions with them" because they "are very conservative" and I'm a liberal.

As advice for a first encounter, that's pretty sound. But I've often wondered why people get so angry when they are discussing issues about which they disagree? To me, that's the time issues are truly worth discussing. Talking with people who agree with us is often an exercise in self congratulation - "Of course! You understand what I'm saying." On the other hand, talking with people who disagree with us, particularly smart, well informed people, gives us the opportunity to learn something (ahem, exchange truth for error and CHANGE OUR MINDS). Moreover, if it turns out that we're correct, the discussion develops in us a keener grasp of the reasons for thinking that our position was correct.

But we do get angry with one another. And I think there are three basic reasons for our anger.

1. We take (and defend) positions on issues that we don't know anything about.

I used to ask my moral philosophy students at the University of Utah, "How many of you think Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided? As you may have guessed, what with the University of Utah being in Salt Lake City, and with Mormons being among the most morally and politically conservative citizens of our country, most would raise their hands in agreement with that proposition. But when I asked "how many of you have actually read the Roe v. Wade decision, virtually no one had - most of them didn't even know that Courts publish their decisions, which include their legal reasoning.

That's a fascinating phenomenon. People develop amazingly strong feelings about issues over which they have not spent five minutes in open-minded reflection - never listened with an open mind to what the opposition has to say. I suppose if I had really strong feelings about an issue that I knew absolutely nothing about, and somebody challenged my view, I'd have no choice but to get angry.

2. We think of ourselves as members of a team.

A most basic human impulse is tribalism. We adopt positions that seem true to us - even if our positions are not grounded in any facts or arguments that we have been exposed to. We then naturally associate with people who agree with us. People who disagree with "us" are seen as outsiders and "others." They become suspect, and are thought of as dangerous. When we're defending our views, we're also defending our "team," which, to a significant extent, anchors our identity. Attacks on our views are attacks on us, on me and my team, and on our identity. That would make anyone mad.

3. We don't like to admit that we are wrong.

This is self explanatory. People feel diminished when it appears that they are wrong - or simply uninformed - about an issue that they have developed strong feelings about. Anger is a very easy way to distract ourselves from this fact. It is probably the best method of distraction available. There's an old adage in the law: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if both the facts and the law are against you, raise your voice and pound your fist on the table! That summarizes the strategy perfectly.

Any solutions?

1. Go out of your way to find the best arguments being made by the opponents of your strongest and most dearly held views. Interpret these arguments as charitably as you can and then, respond to them in your mind. And if you can't, or can't find another thinker who can adequately respond, CHANGE YOUR MIND. This will go a long way towards diffusing the possibility of you getting angry in any discussion about your views.

2. Join only one team - the "truth" team. In the introduction to his refutation of Plato's theory of the forms - which was integral to Plato's theory of knowledge and theory of being - Aristotle wrote, "Plato is dear to us, but the truth is dearer still." Consider all other allegiances subordinate. Our attitude should be, "as long as we're seeking the truth, and acknowledging the truth when we discover that it is contrary to what we currently believe, I'm on your team. You're dear to me, but the truth is dearer still." If we do this, we'll have no cause for anger during any discussion.

3. We should enter every discussion, and begin reading every book, with the attitude that our current views may be wrong. We don't think they are wrong, but they may be. And if they are wrong, we want to know it. Again, if we do this, we'll have no cause for anger during any discussion.

Joe H

Haters and Mockers

A few days ago I linked to an Onion article satirizing Rush Limbaugh. I usually don't like to talk about people or groups of people - I prefer to talk about ideas, concepts, arguments and the like. I made an exception for Rush because I found the satire particularly on point.

I'm now going to make another exception because I think there is a reason why the vast majority of successful "hate talkers" (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Michael (Weiner) Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter) are on the Right and the vast majority of successful mockers (Steven Colbert, Michael Moore, Jon Daley, Bill Maher) are on the Left . . .

Market forces!

Don't get me wrong, their are plenty of humor challenged leftists. And many a right-winger is kind hearted - some are close friends. But markets are about mass appeal. No one is currently making money mocking liberals or calling conservatives "fascists," but plenty are making money mocking conservatives and calling liberals "socialist fascists."

Those are just the facts.

Joe H.

What the Supreme Court Kept the Public From Watching

I have no doubt that this is a very accurate summary of the evidence in the Prop 8 trial. I also have little doubt that the accuracy of this summary is precisely why the 5 conservative members of the Supreme Court kept us from watching.

Joe H.

By the way, you can read the trial transcripts here.

Civic Virtue

This short article by Andrew Sullivant expresses my concern for our country as well as any has. I highly encourage all of you to read it.

Hey, here's something fascinating. I'm a longtime liberal - a devoted member of the John Rawls/Ronald Dworkin fan club. And yet, I've found that two of my favorite writers/thinkers over the last 15 years, Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, are staunch conservatives.

What's happening to me?

Joe H.

Banks and Bankers

This is almost certainly right.

Three Detainees and a Cover Up. My God! UPDATE

I truly hope this story doesn't disappear. We need an investigation, immediately!

Joe H.

UPDATE:

We need an independent investigation, Immediately!

Rush Limbaugh

This was really sad because, if I were Rush and had said all of the things he's said, I'm sure I would feel exactly this way.

But I'm certain that he doesn't feel this way. I'm certain that he is very proud of himself.

Joe H.

America Lost

President Obama is now claiming the authority to detain people forever without due process - just like President Bush. The administration just announced that it plans to indefinitely detain 50 people that are "too dangerous to release," but who cannot be tried - either because the evidence against them was produced by "coercion" (ahem, "torture"), or because the evidence against them is wanting.

Few Americans object, and most cheer.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-4 majority, that corporations have the same right to freedom of speech as natural persons and, consequently, threw out all restrictions on corporate financing of issue ads advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates. Putting this in perspective, Exxon Mobile reported a $45 Billion dollar profit last year. The total amount of money spent on federal elections in 2008, including the presidential election, was $6 billion dollars. This means that if Exxon Mobile thought it was in their interest to elect politicians with a certain political tendency, they can now devote less than 15% of one year's profit to that project and spend more than all private contributions combined. And that is just one corporation! Walmart? AIG? What about all those American corporations that are owned by foreign companies?

Ho hum. What ever?

Harper's magazine reports that U.S. officials may have murdered 3 U.S. detainees and then had military officials, in coordination with the Justice Department, cover it up by claiming, implausibly, that these detainees had committed suicide.

You don't say. Oh well . . .

We discover that our Treasury Secretary, Timothy Giethner, when he was the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, secretly arranged to have AIG use over $60 billion dollars of tax payer supplied money to purchase toxic assets from Wall Street Banks, including his former firm, Goldman Sachs, at 100% of their investment value (at a time when nobody knew what their market value was). This amounted to a $60 billion dollar give away of tax dollars to the private shareholders of the Wall Street firms - the shareholders of other institutions benefited as well. Then, the New York Federal Reserve Bank, without Giethner's knowledge - yeah right - instructed AIG not to disclose these transactions on its required regulatory filings with the SEC. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York instructs a private company to break the law.

But, Giethner's words, "It had to be done." Okay, if you say so.

What is simply amazing to me is that all of these things have occurred/come to light in the last two weeks.

No response. American lost.

Joe H.

An Accommodation on The Gay Issue

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe being gay or engaging in gay sex is sinful or immoral - although I use both terms to accommodate Christian and secular readers, they are synonymous in my view. But I understand the difficulty Christians have in abandoning the traditional view, which appears to be supported by scripture.

I have proposed that Christians reach a compromise on this issue, something akin to the way Christians currently deal with divorce. But what would that look like?

Christians could adopt, communicate, and live out, the following three propositions:

(1) Our scriptures say that homosexuality is wrong and we're not prepared to contradict our scripture.

(2) We have no idea why our scriptures condemn gay love/sex. So . . .

(3) We refuse to hate or condemn you. We will instead embrace you as full members of our community. We will extend to you the full love of God, to the best of our ability, without endorsing gay love/sex. We will not condemn or reject you if you form a same sex relationship, despite our unwillingness to reject scriptural teaching on this issue.

Is this workable?

Joe H.

A Response Letter On Christian Hostility to Gays

Last Sunday our pastor gave an excellent sermon on repentance. During his sermon, he explained in detail how we all have blind spots about our flaws, and how these blind spots, in conjunction with our natural defensiveness, preclude repentance. He also mentioned that our tendency to hide our flaws from others is often a means of maintaining an "illusion of control."

But then he cited Ted Haggard as an example of a man "hiding to maintain the illusion of control." I immediately thought "we're kidding ourselves if we think that's why Ted Haggard was hiding - he was hiding because Christians are hostile to gays. We need to own this and repent."

Just like the preacher man is saying

So I expressed my thoughts on the matter - our Church is interactive - and I created a bit of a stir. Later, that day I wrote a letter to our Pastor, which I cc'd to a few mutual friends. One of those friends responded. My response to that friend is what follows.

Hope you find it interesting.

P.S. I've changed the names to protect the innocent.

*********************

Hey so and so. Here are a few thoughts in reply.

I don’t dispute the complexity of the Ted Haggard case. The reason I spoke up was twofold. First, Preacher man's citing to him as an example of someone who fell because he was “hiding to maintain the illusion of control” seemed obviously wrong. There are lots of reasons why Haggard might have been hiding, but it seems supremely unlikely that the “desire to maintain the illusion of control” was one of them.

But more fundamentally, the best explanation for why Haggard was hiding seems clear – and it seems only tangentially related to his employment. He was hiding because of Christian hostility to his sexual orientation. Ted Haggard was not merely hiding the fact that he was having gay sex – that is, he was not merely hiding behavior that might have gotten him fired, as you suggest. He was hiding the fact that he was and is a homosexual (more on this shortly). Whatever other reason he had for hiding his sexual orientation, the core reason seems pretty clear – evangelical Christians are hostile to gays. They would not have embraced him as a Christian leader were he to have been openly gay, even if he had sworn an oath to Christian teaching on the issue and promised complete celibacy. People can believe otherwise, but I think they are delusional.

This is not an issue of orthodoxy. Christianity does not teach that being a homosexual, defined as having a same sex attraction, is sinful. No one thinks, or should think, that simply being a homosexual is sinful. It is the sexual activity that people condemn. At worse (so and so's view), being a homosexual is morally equivalent to having a disposition to commit some other type of wrongful conduct. At best (my view), being a homosexual is equivalent to having some other morally neutral disposition – such as being left handed. But which ever perspective is right, being a homosexual itself is certainly not sinful, so there should be no hostility towards gay people as such. There should be no reason that Ted Haggard could not have announced his sexuality and built the ministry he built. But there is. We are hostile and Haggard could not have accomplished what he accomplished without hiding his sexual orientation.

I’m not saying that Ted Haggard was pure of heart in building or maintaining his ministry, or in his other conduct. The ONLY thing I am saying is that we are inappropriately hostile towards homosexuals, and we need to repent of this hostility.

I agree with you that Sunday morning is not the appropriate venue for a discussion of this issue. However, Preacher Man was talking about repentance and “blind spots” and defensiveness. He then cited Ted Haggard as an example of someone who “fell as a result of hiding to maintain the illusion of control.” When I heard him say that, I thought to myself, “everyone’s willingness to accept that account of Haggard’s fall is a perfect example of what Preacher man is talking about." The most fundamental reason for his hiding his homosexuality is our ungodly and irrational hostility towards homosexuality. Haggard's initial hiding of his homosexuality laid the groundwork for all the other hiding and deception that came afterwards. But Christians are blind to that fact. They have no clue that they play any role in keeping gays in a closet of shame. We have a blind spot – precisely the sort that Preacher Man was talking about in his sermon. We need to repent.

The irony is that Preacher Man was preaching about blind spots and defensiveness as impediments to repentance. He was talking about letting ourselves be “winnowed.” But when I suggested that we have a blind spot (our ungodly hostility towards gays) that had just been demonstrated by our uncritical acceptance of Preacher Man’s account of Ted Haggard’s hiding, the response seemed defensive – references to Haggard’s “adultery,” quibbles about whether we really “forced” Haggard to hide, and debate about whether he was truly gay. All these issues were distractions. My criticism was clear. I was criticizing us for our ungodly hostility. But we would have none of that.

By the way, the question as to whether Haggard is gay is silly. He is sexually attracted to other men. He has demonstrated this by his conduct. Being sexually attracted to other men is what it means to be gay. My statement that he was and is gay should not be controversial, regardless of what he says about himself. He is gay. You and I are straight. Those are facts.

The tension about this issue has to do with whether Haggard (or any other homosexual) is unalterably gay. Christians seem intent on believing that gay men are actually confused, or damaged, or depraved heterosexuals, rather than homosexuals. They fear conceding the point that many homosexuals are unalterably homosexual – despite the testimony of many thousands of people. They fear that once this is conceded, homosexuality will cease to be thought of as a behavior (which seems immoral and repulsive) and come to be seen as a circumstance that people can empathize with. I get that, but I think Christians should ask themselves why they are so willing to entertain claims that people can be cured of homosexuality? Do we accept these claims based on evidence, or because we desperately want to maintain our traditional beliefs?

Of course, none of this excuses my rudeness. And I didn’t mean to white wash you in an over broad manner. Not all Christians are hostile to gays. I would have expected those who were not hostile to gays to be encouraged by my bringing the issue up. Also, I understand that many Christians are not ready to deal with this issue, and will feel defensive when it is brought up. But that’s just it. I’m trying to get them ready. They need to get ready, because this is the biggest issue the church will face in the next two decades. I know it will make people uncomfortable. But if we don’t start thinking about this issue and moving towards some kind of accommodation – like we have achieved with the issue of divorce – we’ll increasingly been seen as bigots.

Repentance from our hostility is the first step.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I appreciate your listening and responding.

Joe

We're in Serious Trouble

Guys, we're in serious trouble as a nation if nothing happens. This follow up to yesterday's revelations in Harper's magazine would be profound evidence that we've completely lost our moral bearing if it produces no action by the Obama Administration.

Joe H

Not Wanting The Public to Watch III

Here is another take on the Supreme Court's decision to disallow the Federal District Court's broadcast of the ongoing gay marriage trial. It is well worth reading.

Dahlia Lithwick's analysis is that the Supreme Court's conservative majority (the vote was 5-4 with all the conservative justices voting to disallow the broadcast) has a profound disdain for the intelligence of the American public. But this analysis seems sound only if one assumes that their arguments were sincere. I doubt this. As Dahlia Lithwick pointed herself out, their written justifications were supremely unconvincing.

The Supremes are smart enough to know when their arguments are bad, particularly when they are really bad. So I think the true answer is the one I gave in my earlier post. These men are conservative catholics. They don't want the public to view a trial where the case for both sides gets a fair hearing and appropriate scrutiny. They know (in their hearts) that the evidence and rational arguments run in favor of allowing gay marriage. They just can't rid themselves of Catholic teaching on the issue.

In short, they're afraid of the results of that debate on public opinion. That is the most obvious explanation

Well, I hate to break it to you gentlemen, but that horse has left the barn. I hope, when the case gets to you, that you're not foolish enough to write another Dred Scott or Plessy v. Fergeson decision.

Imfamy lasts a long time. Every week you attest to that when you attend mass and recite the Apostle's creed - "He was crucified under Pontious Pilate."

Be careful.

Joe H

Let us Turn Our Thoughts Today

Martin Luther King is a personal hero of mine. I've always been inspired by his courage and admired his rhetorical skills. I've often lamented the degree to which our nation has failed to recognize the debt we owe him for leading an emphatically non-violent movement seeking racial equality before the law.

As a tribute, I read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" each year. If you have never read it, its well worth the 20-25 minutes it will take you to get through it.

However, here is another article that you ought to read as well. If, after reading this article, anyone thinks we can simply "look forward," then I'd say you don't understand the nature of the human soul or the dangers of unaccountable power. Americans can be noble. But we are not intrinsically more moral than other people. That is why our founding fathers created a system of divided and limited government with a free press and an independent judiciary. That system is breaking down. Evil men are using our misguided (albeit patriotic) sentiments to dissuade us from exposing them and holding them accountable.

This cannot stand. It is tantamount to ignoring cancer.

Joe H.

Republican Exceptionalism

Present company excepted to my Republican friends, but this clip by congressman Alan Grayson expresses my sentiments exactly.

Cheers!

Joe H.

Not Wanting the Public to Watch II

Here's a better, more well thought out explanation of why conservative activists would not want Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the trial determining the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, to be televised. I agree wholeheartedly.

Joe H.

The Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage

Olsen makes the "conservative" argument for gay marriage as well as any straight guy I've ever read.

Here here!

Joe H.

More on Geithner

A $60 Billion dollar theft in broad daylight. And no one seems to care.

Joe H.

Openning Argument

Here's Ted Olsen's Opening Argument. It is as clear and eloguent as a $750 per hour lawyer can make it.

Joe H.

Not Wanting the Public to Watch

A few years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that by legislatively creating an equivalent alternative system mirroring the institution of marriage (Domestic Partnerships) in terms of its rights, benefits, and responsibilities, the state had implicitly acknowledged that gay citizens and non gay citizens benefited from gay access to such an institution. The court then reasoned, based on equal protection jurisprudence, that reserving the prestigious label "marriage" for straight unions implicitly stigmatized gay unions as less valuable or important, even though the two institutions are identical except in name. For this to be legal under California law, California had have a compelling interest in stigmatizing gay unions. As the Court found that California had no such interest, it struck down the State's ban on gay marriage.

In 2008, the people of California amended the State's Constitution to define marriage constitutionally as a union of one man and one woman. California's Proposition 8, which passed by a 52% to 48% margin, overturned the California Supreme Court's decision legalizing same sex marriage.

Today in Federal Court, trial begins on a Federal Constitutional challenge to Proposition 8. At issue is whether legislative and/or constitutional bans on gay marriage are constitutional under the federal constitution.

This case is likely to have an enormous impact on our law, given the nature of the legal challenge, and given the fact that Federal equal protection jurisprudence is nearly identical to California's jurisprudence. The Courts will ultimately have to determine whether "gays" constitute a suspect class - a group that has been singled out by the State and subjected to some form of harm, burden, or restriction that it does not impose on non-class members.

If it finds that gays are a suspect class, which seems very likely, it will then have to determine whether the harm, burden, or restriction being imposed is related to some rational purpose. To make this determination, the court will first have to decide how important the interest, or how fundamental a liberty or right, is being infringed by the harm, burden, or restriction. If the Court finds that the interest, right, or liberty is relatively unimportant, it will simply ask "does the harm, burden, or restriction imposed by the State, serve any rational purpose? And if it finds one, it will uphold the State's action. Similarly, if the court finds that the interest, liberty or right being infringed is important, it will ask "does the state have a good or important reason for imposing the harm, burden or restriction" and "could the state achieve its purpose by instituting a less onerous policy?" Again, if it answers "yes" to both of these questions, it will uphold the policy.

But if the Court finds that the interest, right, or liberty being infringed is fundamentally important, it will ask, "does the State have a "compelling" - really important = interest justifying the imposition of the harm, burden or restriction?" and "could the state achieve its purpose by instituting a less onerous policy?" and "is the policy by which the state is imposing a harm, burden or restriction designed to impose the least amount of harm necessary to accomplish its purpose?" For a court to uphold a policy that infringes on a fundamental right or interest of a suspect class, it must be convinced that the answer to all three questions is "yes."

The Supreme Court has already said, numerous times, that marriage is fundamental to human well-being and the right to enter into marriage is fundamental. Therefore, for the Courts to uphold bans against gay marriage, they will need to be convinced that the the State has a compelling interest in excluding gays from the institution. And this will be particularly difficult to do after a State like California has legislatively created an identical institution with a different (less prestigious) title, for gays. At that point, the State is reduced to explaining its compelling interest in stigmatizing gay unions.

Two very well known and experienced lawyers, Theodore B. Olsen and David Boies - the lawyers who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore, respectively, in Bush v. Gore, have teamed up to challenge proposition 8. Judge Walker is holding a full trial, complete with opening and closing arguments and lay and expert testimony - which he ordered streamed to other federal courtrooms and distributed online throughout the course of the trial.

However, just hours before the testimony was to begin, the United States Supreme Court intervened, temporarily staying Judge Walker's decision to allow the proceedings to be broadcast. Apparently, the supporters of Proposition 8 objected to the plan to make the proceedings available for public viewing.

This is telling. Over the years I've repeatedly pointed out to friends who oppose gay marriage that they are losing ground in public opinion because they are not making any arguments - or at least, any convincing arguments. The reason for that is clear - there are no good arguments to be made against including gays within the institution of marriage. In fact, the opposite is true - there are rather powerful arguments in favor of including gays within the institution. Arguments based in justice and fairness, but also arguments demonstrating that gays and straights alike would benefit, and that the institution of marriage would be strengthened. Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of "Gay Marriage" by Jonathan Rauch. Its a tour de force.

I'm guessing that supporters of Proposition 8 know (in their hearts) that their case is weak and worry that a fair airing of the evidence and arguments before the American people would further undermine opposition to gay marriage. That's a telling indicator of where social conservatives stand in this last great battle of the culture wars.

Joe H.

For Some Levity

A man who was getting terrible headaches went to see his doctor. After a thorough examination his doctor gave him the grim news. "We're going to have to remove your testicles." The doctor explained that they were pushing up against the base of his spine and that there was no alternative surgery to relieve the pressure.

Deeply depressed by this diagnosis, the man thought to himself, "when my wife feels depressed, she goes clothes shopping. Maybe that will cheer me up." So the man went to the very best clothier in the city and told the salesman that he wanted to purchase a suit. The sales man responded, "very good sir, you're a 44L. "That's right, I am," the man conceded, "but how did you know that?" "Please sir, that is my job."

After getting fitted with a smart looking suit, the salesman suggested that he should also get some shirts, noting, "you're a 163/4 35/36. "Right again, how did you know this." The salesman replied once again, "Sir, that is my job."

After selecting some fine shirts, they completed the ensemble with a belt, shoes, and a hat. Each time the salesman correctly stated the man's size.

Finally the salesman asked, "I don't mean to be personal Sir, but would you also like to purchase underwear . . . you're a 34?" The man replied "yes I would like to purchase underwear, but I'm afraid you're wrong for once. I'm a 32." "No Sir" the salesman replied. "You're a 34. Why, if you wore a size 32, your testicles would be pressing against your spine and you'd be getting terrible headaches.

Joe H.

Flexians

As a follow up to my rant yesterday, I want to recommend the book "The Shadow Elite" by Jamine R. Wedel. She describes how our Democracy is being hijacked by a small cadre of shadow elites - she calls them "Flexians" - who operate unaccountably within our system of government and commerce without loyalty to anyone but themselves and their associates. Geithner and his wall street pals are perfect examples of such people.

If you're interested, and I desperately hope you are, Here's short article written by Ms. Wedel explaining her work. With this Geithner rip off now exposed, I think it is not hyperbole to declare that the survival of our democracy is at stake.

Joe H.

In Case You're not Clear About the Importance of the Giethner Story

In case you are wondering what the big deal is regarding our current Treasury Secretary's interaction with AIG while he was Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, here's a short explanation.

1. Background.

During the run up to the financial crisis, many of the Wall Street firms, including Mr. Geithner's former firm, Goldman Sachs, purchased Credit Default Swaps ("CDSs") from AIG. CDSs are, essentially, insurance policies on Collateral Debt Obligations. (CDSs differ from insurance contracts in important respects, but they serve a similar function). CDSs gaurantee that if the value of security, in this case a Collateral Debt obligation, falls below a certain value, the issuer of the CDS, in this case AIG, will pay the "insured" party a negotiated payout.

Collateral Debt Obligations ("CDOs") are securities comprised of groups of mortgage loans made to individual home owners. CDOs were a very desirable investment because the US mortgage industry was very stable - until 2007 the mortgage default rate was very small. Because CDOs were so desirable, there was a high demand for them among the world's investors. This demand was met by mortgage companies lowering their lending standards and loaning to people who could not really afford the homes they were buying - the mortgage companies did not care because they would - after collecting their fees - sell the mortgages to brokerages who would turn them into CDO's and sell them to unwary investors. The brokerages figured out ways to package the CDOs so that the true risk was hidden and the rating agencies failed to inform the public about the real risk.

Additionally, around the year 2000, our Congress, at the behest of then Senator Phil Graham, passed a law deregulating capital and disclosure requirements for CDSs. As a result, a huge worldwide market for CDSs (insuring CDOs) was created. These, too, were sold to unwary investors. This phenomenon reinforced the demand for mortgage loans.

Financial experts sounded grave alarms, but they were ignored. All was well and good. The housing market boomed. Housing prices kept rising. As the prices of housing increased, existing homeowners cashed out their newly created equity. This caused our overall economy to grow robustly as a result.

Then, over a period of time, the variable interest rate mortgage loans that had been made to poor people during the boom began to reset at higher interest rates. When these borrowers started defaulting on their mortgages, the value of the CDOs plummeted. This, in turn, wiped out the issuers of CDS's, who were not required to capitalize these instruments - as insurance companies are required to capitalize policies. Thus, in short order, the bursting of the housing bubble wiped out the issuers of the CDS's and the holders of the CDO's. That is, it wiped out AIG and most of the Wall Street firms.

In response, US tax payers, led by our elected government, jumped in to save the financial system.

With me so far?

2. Geithner's Actions

Under president Bush, the taxpayers extended AIG a $306,000,000,000.00 line of credit. That's right, a $306 Billion dollar line of credit. (So far, they have only accessed $182 billion of that money). AIG then used a good chunk of that money to make good on its obligations to the Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs.

In a secret deal, apparently at the insistence of the New York Federal Reserve, AIG agreed to buy many of the CDO's held by the Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, at 100% of the price the investment banks had paid for them. AIG purchased these assets despite the fact that no one knew their actual market value and, at best, their actual market value was a small fraction of their original value.

Why is that so bad? Because this was essentially a multi-billion dollar gift of tax payer money to the Stockholders of the Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs - a gift for which the taxpayers got absolutely nothing in return.

The standard protocal for dealing with a bankrupt financial institution is for the government to seize control of the institution, wipe out the shareholders (who are already wiped out), purge the institution's toxic assets, recapitalize the bank, and then sell the institution to private investors. In this case, the New York Federal Reserve bank secretly arranged to give ten's of BILLIONS of your tax dollars to the private stockholders of the Wall Street firms, including the then New York Federal Reserve Bank Chairman and now US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's old firm, Goldman Sachs.

Your Money! Your children's money! Tens of Billions of dollars of it. Secretly given to private investors under the auspicious of "saving the financial system." No congressional oversight1 No public announcement! No concessions on lending in return!

Goddammit!

And Giethner (or an underling) then instructs AIG not to disclose these purchases in a required regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He instructs them to break the law in order to keep his gift to the Wall Street stockholders a secret. And he's our fucking treasury secretary!

It is hard to communicate how angry I am about this. But I'm also worried by the fact that most Americans either don't know, or understand, or care that tens of billions of their tax dollars were given to some of the wealthiest people in the world to save them from their own folly - folly that created the worse recession in the US since the Great Depression.

The greed and avarice of these people - the same people who have created untold misery among the American population - is absolutely breathtaking. This may be the biggest rip off in the history of the world.

This is an egregious abuse of power. Geithner belongs in jail. All of these men belong in jail.

Joe H.

Legalize Torture II - UPDATE

Yesterday, following the lead of Andrew Sullivan, I noted that we should face up to what we've become. We are a nation that allowed its government to torture hundreds its prisoners without demanding any accountability whatsoever. We demanded no criminal investigation, no "Truth Commission," and we passively watched the Justice Departments of two Presidential Administrations repeatedly invoke the "State Secrets" privilege - even when all of the material facts of the case were matters of public knowledge - to foreclose the possibility of civil liability and subsequent exposure.

Some of the people our government tortured were completely innocent of wrongdoing - although their guilt would hardly exonerate our government.

And now, Congressional legislators, expressing the views of the majority of American citizens, are attacking the President for allowing the "Pantie Bomber" to be tried in Federal Court - rather than declaring him an "enemy combatant" and subjecting him to "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Simply put, we have embraced torture as a necessary defense against terrorism. Let's admit that and change our laws to reflect our values and preserve the integrity of the law.

Alas, that is too painful - so we either avoid the subject or lie to ourselves. Most of us are quite good at distracting ourselves. I'm pretty good at it most of the time, and I'm not as good at it as most people.

And it is quite astonishing how good some people are at lying to themselves. Consider the money quote from Mark Thieson at National Review Online:

"Of course, we have not endorsed the brutal, barbaric torture of any American citizens."

To this I say, thank goodness we have someone with as much integrity and courage, and as much talent, as Andrew Sullivan. I honestly don't know how Mark Thiessen deals with his cognitive dissonance, but I'm grateful that Sullivan pours it on with eloquence and without mercy.

Three Cheers for Sullivan.

Joe H.

UPDATE -

Sullivan once again dismantles conservatives who are trying to lie to themselves and to us about their support for torture. And lest any of you think this isn't painful for Sullivan, keep in mind that he's a life long conservative. He is the author of "The Conservative Soul."

As I've said many times, opposition to governmental torture is not merely a liberal position. It is also a conservative position. It should be everyone's position. It should be beyond debate. But it isn't. So its supporters should do us all a favor and own it. Man up! Stop telling us you didn't support what you clearly did support.

Legalize Torture

Again, Andrew Sullivan gets it exactly right.

"The constant assertion of the government's right to torture anyone it deems aware of "active threats" to the US with no acknowledgment that this means the rule of law is over ... carries consequences far greater than legalization and formal withdrawal from Geneva. It gives the government no limits on what it can do; it leaves the decisions about whom to torture to men not laws, it discredits the rule of law culturally, and requires massive hypocrisy, euphemism and outright lies as a critical part of our public discourse.

I find this more dangerous than outright legalization. If we truly believe we have to become barbarians to defeat barbarians - and that is the Cheney view - then we should have the courage of our fascist convictions."

Sullivan's point above is not about torture - it is about the corresive effect of lying to ourselves about who we are and what we stand for. If we believe torture is necessary and acceptable, and it appears that many of us do, let's admit that and change our laws accordingly. At least we'd be acting with integrity.

Joe H.

Fear is a Terrible Toxin

"The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere safety."

Glen Greenwald

I hope we can somehow remember this fact. We've got seven years before our country rolls the dice on a new president. God help us if we pick another authoritarian like Bush and/or Cheney. Right now, it doesn't look promising.


Joe H.

Torture is Now being Advocated as a First Response - UPDATE

I hope you all will take the time to read this exceptional piece by Andrew Sullivan regarding where the totture apologists have taken us as a nation.

We used to hear about "ticking time bomb" scenarios - cases in which we know a terrorism suspect has information that will save lives that will soon be lost unless the suspect gives up the information. We now have prominent writers on the political right arguing that our government should use "enhanced interrogation techniques" - including waterboarding - on the so called "panty bomber" to obtain information that he might have about furture terror plots.

This is why we can't move on and look forward. The Bush administration introduced a cancer into the heart of the nation. Whatever their motives, the Bush Administration ordered our intelligence agancies and military to perform actions that constitute torture under any plausible reading of the federal torture statute and the Convention on Torture. They did this in secret, but when it was exposed they doubled down. They claimed that it was legal, necessary and successful, all the while using fear to prevent any accountability. They offered no evidence whatsoever that torture was legal, necessary or successful, but their loyal followers drank the kool-aid anyway and defended them.

And Obama blinked.

The spectical of Americans advocating torture as a first response to a captured terrorist.

God help us.

Joe H

UPDATE

Andrew Sullivan is about an eloquent a writer on the issue of torture as I've encountered, so I'll just let you read his words without comment - they express my sentiments perfectly.