The ends justified the means. That is the rationale being advanced by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others for the use of what was in essence torture in those first years of the War on Terror. The nation was vulnerable. Little was known about the identity, intentions, and capabilities of the enemy. Speed in closing the knowledge gap was imperative, so imperative that extraordinary, unpleasant means were necessary. The ends justified the means.
Ironically, it was not so long ago that the United States was on the other side of an ends justified the means rationale. That previous time also involved a war with an odd name. War on Terror, meet the Cold War.
For more than four decades in the Twentieth Century, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were the leading antagonists in a struggle for the future of mankind. The United States was the champion of individual freedoms and private sector capitalism. The USSR was the champion of Communism, an ideology based on the supremacy of the group—the state—in social, cultural, and economic arenas.
In the early decades of this struggle, the advantage seemed to many observes to lie with the USSR. In the economic field, the field that provides the populace with food, clothing, and shelter, the idea of a centrally planned economy impressed those observers as much more efficient than messy, unorganized capitalism. Early Soviet successes in the space race—the first satellite, Sputnik, in orbit in 1957 and the first man in orbit in 1961—were cited as evidence of the superiority of the economic component of the Communist system.
But even many who thought central planning superior to free market capitalism did not jump onboard the Communist bandwagon. A major reason was embodied in a common belief in the anti-Communist world: the ends did not justify the means. If a more efficient economic system required that the freedoms of the individual be curtailed, then a more efficient economic system was not worth the price.
Of course, in the later years of the Cold War, most notably during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the efficiency of Communism’s economic component was exposed as a chimera. Central economic planning as attempted in the USSR turned out to be downright inefficient, indeed a failure.
Nevertheless, the belief that the ends do not justify the means was a major rallying concept for those opposed to Communism, particularly in the early years of the Cold War. For some, the belief was probably rooted in religion. For others, the concept was likely an expression of a moral code that ranked individual freedoms high and resisted their curtailment. For still others, the origin might have been no more than a gut reaction, a product of genetic heritage in a nation founded in rebellion against tyranny.
Perhaps the depth of the ends-do-not-justify-means belief in the nation’s soul explains the anguish many citizens feel about an explanation for torture that the ends did indeed justify the means. Or maybe it is the ease, and indeed alacrity, with which the justification was apparently embraced by the Bush Administration. The legal opinions and memoranda released in the last few days give little evidence of a struggle over broad issues of morality, of right and wrong. Instead, the papers are dominated by dry discussions of details, procedures, and alleged safeguards. One reads the material and wonders, did the authors not have any doubts about the end justifying the means?
Put another way, the released material does little more than assume that the end justified the means. Making the subjects of interrogations physically and mentally uncomfortable, even fearful, was the accepted intermediate objective on the path to the next objective, which was meaningful intelligence. The challenge was interpreting treaties, statutes, and precedents in such a way as to reach that intermediate objective of a terrorist willing to talk.
Former Vice President Cheney and his supporters cite yet-to-be released documents describing plots foiled as proof that the ends justified the means. It’s a safe bet that if these documents are released, not everyone will find such clarity. And the troublesome question will remain: did anyone at any point attempt a meaningful examination of whether the ends justified the means, or was that just assumed from the start by all involved, from the Decider on down?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
CRANKY NEEDS HIS AU PAIR
Last week, while running, jogging, shuffling, or whatever it is he does at his advanced age, Cranky took a spill. Cranky has been pounding the pavement for forty years, and spills have not been uncommon, maybe three or four a year. In the past, the result was no more than skinned knees and bruised hands. But this time was different. Maybe his reactions are slower, maybe he was just overdue, but this time Cranky’s first point of contact with the ground was his chin.
The event occurred in a neighborhood populated mostly by folks from nations to the south. Perhaps uncertainty about customs in their new home explains why no one rushed to aid an old Gringo in shorts crumpled on the sidewalk. In any case, Cranky eventually pulled himself up and staggered home.
A four-hour visit to the ER determined that Cranky had cracked his jaw in three places. An oral surgeon pronounced that the jaw needed to be wired shut.
So the next day, after blood had stopped flowing and things had stabilized a bit, Cranky was back at the oral surgeon’s. The last thing he remembers is a needle going into his arm.
Well, the procedure was done but Cranky was still out cold. His wife and a nurse got him into the car for the trip home. There, his wife and two neighbors maneuvered him from the car into the house.
At this point, Cranky began to regain consciousness. His first memory is standing in his living room trying to make a desire known to his wife and the two neighbors: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
The onlookers were perplexed.
“Upstairs, do you want to go upstairs?”
“Do you want something to drink?”
“I think he wants to lay down.”
But they weren’t comprehending Cranky’s need: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
Finally, Cranky attempted graphics. With his hands, he traced an hourglass shape in the air in front of him: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
Someone understood: “He wants an au pair!”
Yes, Cranky wanted an au pair to help in his recovery, preferably young and Scandinavian, but really, any nationality would do. Having made his need known, Cranky returned to unconsciousness.
The event occurred in a neighborhood populated mostly by folks from nations to the south. Perhaps uncertainty about customs in their new home explains why no one rushed to aid an old Gringo in shorts crumpled on the sidewalk. In any case, Cranky eventually pulled himself up and staggered home.
A four-hour visit to the ER determined that Cranky had cracked his jaw in three places. An oral surgeon pronounced that the jaw needed to be wired shut.
So the next day, after blood had stopped flowing and things had stabilized a bit, Cranky was back at the oral surgeon’s. The last thing he remembers is a needle going into his arm.
Well, the procedure was done but Cranky was still out cold. His wife and a nurse got him into the car for the trip home. There, his wife and two neighbors maneuvered him from the car into the house.
At this point, Cranky began to regain consciousness. His first memory is standing in his living room trying to make a desire known to his wife and the two neighbors: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
The onlookers were perplexed.
“Upstairs, do you want to go upstairs?”
“Do you want something to drink?”
“I think he wants to lay down.”
But they weren’t comprehending Cranky’s need: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
Finally, Cranky attempted graphics. With his hands, he traced an hourglass shape in the air in front of him: “AUF PUFF, AUF PUFF!”
Someone understood: “He wants an au pair!”
Yes, Cranky wanted an au pair to help in his recovery, preferably young and Scandinavian, but really, any nationality would do. Having made his need known, Cranky returned to unconsciousness.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
WHAT THE GRAPH IS TELLING US
Specifically, the graph in the previous post shows that since sometime in the 1980s financial assets in the U.S. economy have grown faster than U.S. Gross Domestic Product. The beginning of this faster growth by financial assets coincided with the proliferation of computers. The Information Age is a term often applied to our computer-dependent society, and a variety of sources suggest the 1970-90 time frame as the beginning of the Information Age.
Thus one might conclude that the acceleration in the growth of financial assets over the last 20 years has been due to computers and is a byproduct of the Information Age. How have computers accelerated the growth of financial assets? First, computers facilitated the construction of complex, multi-layered financial products. Where there had once been a one-to-one ratio between a tangible asset--such as a house--and an intangible asset--in the case of the house, the mortgage held by a financial institution--there now could be a one-to-many ratio. The financial institution holding the mortgage could combine it with other mortgages to produce another financial asset, which could be sold to investors or other financial institutions, who could repeat the process. The total amount of financial assets grew faster than the amount of tangible assets supporting them.
The second way computers might have accelerated the growth of financial assets is similar but does not involve such an obvious pyramiding effect. Computers exponentially increased both the ability to create new financial assets and to process existing financial assets. The sheer increase in speed may have resulted in an increase in quantity.
But the graph suggests not just that the accelerated growth of financial assets to 2007 was a byproduct of the Information Age. What has transpired since? A financial debacle. So the graph suggests this causation trail: computers, accelerated growth of financial assets, financial debacle.
In other words, it's all the fault of computers.
Thus one might conclude that the acceleration in the growth of financial assets over the last 20 years has been due to computers and is a byproduct of the Information Age. How have computers accelerated the growth of financial assets? First, computers facilitated the construction of complex, multi-layered financial products. Where there had once been a one-to-one ratio between a tangible asset--such as a house--and an intangible asset--in the case of the house, the mortgage held by a financial institution--there now could be a one-to-many ratio. The financial institution holding the mortgage could combine it with other mortgages to produce another financial asset, which could be sold to investors or other financial institutions, who could repeat the process. The total amount of financial assets grew faster than the amount of tangible assets supporting them.
The second way computers might have accelerated the growth of financial assets is similar but does not involve such an obvious pyramiding effect. Computers exponentially increased both the ability to create new financial assets and to process existing financial assets. The sheer increase in speed may have resulted in an increase in quantity.
But the graph suggests not just that the accelerated growth of financial assets to 2007 was a byproduct of the Information Age. What has transpired since? A financial debacle. So the graph suggests this causation trail: computers, accelerated growth of financial assets, financial debacle.
In other words, it's all the fault of computers.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
APOSTLES AND TROJANS
A long, long time ago, many decades before he qualified for Medicare, Cranky attended elementary, junior high, and high school, in that order. The school he attended was a small Catholic school. Cranky wasn’t a Catholic. In fact, his mother was a staunch Episcopalian, meaning she attended church regularly but mostly out of habit and because at that time and place it was expected. But she was staunch.
Why Cranky (incidentally, he wasn’t called Cranky at the time) ended up at a Catholic school was never clear, but Cranky pretty much liked it. His relationships with the good nuns who ran the place were mostly positive. He has none of those memories of a ruler across the knuckles or over the skull that many others apparently have. And the school’s small size enabled Cranky to participate in sports to a much greater degree than if he had been at the substantially larger public school, which had bona fide jocks. Actually, “sports” is a misnomer because there was only one sport, basketball. But it was enough for Cranky, who in his high school years lived, slept, and ate b-ball. Well, maybe not ate, but you get the picture.
There was only one downside to the situation: the team’s name. The team was called the Apostles. It was bad enough playing at other Catholic schools, none of which saw the need to be so blatant in calling attention to their religious connections. Playing at a public school Cranky found downright embarrassing. Fortunately, the name was not on the basketball uniforms. Unfortunately, the Apostles’ cheerleaders saw to it that no one was ignorant of who the team looked to for inspiration:
Cranky eventually graduated, moving on to a life involving some things of which the good nuns would approve, and some things otherwise. His ties with the locale of his youth were not cut completely, but they were intermittent and tenuous. So it was only in the last few years that Cranky learned the Apostles were no more. Sometime in the intervening years, the name had been changed. The Apostles are now the Trojans.
That’s right, the Trojans.
Certainly, Trojans is a name found in the sports world, the Trojans of the University of Southern California, for example. But if you were picking a name for your team in this day and age, would you really pick Trojans?
Cranky wishes he had the story on how the Apostles became the Trojans. Perhaps someday he will do a little research. In the meantime, the questions hang in the air. Were the good nuns so clueless as to not be aware of all the implications of the new name? Was the PTA too embarrassed to tell them? Or were the girls and particularly boys on the teams given a little too much freedom and input, leading them to one of those jokes that youngsters have been known to play on their elders?
Why Cranky (incidentally, he wasn’t called Cranky at the time) ended up at a Catholic school was never clear, but Cranky pretty much liked it. His relationships with the good nuns who ran the place were mostly positive. He has none of those memories of a ruler across the knuckles or over the skull that many others apparently have. And the school’s small size enabled Cranky to participate in sports to a much greater degree than if he had been at the substantially larger public school, which had bona fide jocks. Actually, “sports” is a misnomer because there was only one sport, basketball. But it was enough for Cranky, who in his high school years lived, slept, and ate b-ball. Well, maybe not ate, but you get the picture.
There was only one downside to the situation: the team’s name. The team was called the Apostles. It was bad enough playing at other Catholic schools, none of which saw the need to be so blatant in calling attention to their religious connections. Playing at a public school Cranky found downright embarrassing. Fortunately, the name was not on the basketball uniforms. Unfortunately, the Apostles’ cheerleaders saw to it that no one was ignorant of who the team looked to for inspiration:
Everywhere we go
People want to know
Who we are
So we tell them
We are the Apostles
Mighty, mighty Apostles
Cranky eventually graduated, moving on to a life involving some things of which the good nuns would approve, and some things otherwise. His ties with the locale of his youth were not cut completely, but they were intermittent and tenuous. So it was only in the last few years that Cranky learned the Apostles were no more. Sometime in the intervening years, the name had been changed. The Apostles are now the Trojans.
That’s right, the Trojans.
Certainly, Trojans is a name found in the sports world, the Trojans of the University of Southern California, for example. But if you were picking a name for your team in this day and age, would you really pick Trojans?
Cranky wishes he had the story on how the Apostles became the Trojans. Perhaps someday he will do a little research. In the meantime, the questions hang in the air. Were the good nuns so clueless as to not be aware of all the implications of the new name? Was the PTA too embarrassed to tell them? Or were the girls and particularly boys on the teams given a little too much freedom and input, leading them to one of those jokes that youngsters have been known to play on their elders?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
WELCOME TO THE INFORMATION AGE
The current financial mess just might be the first large-scale disaster of the Information Age. Why? Because the fundamental cause of the crisis—setting aside, of course, human greed—is the tool that ushered in and is synonymous with the Information Age, the computer. The computer has given us great analytical power, increasing exponentially our computational capabilities. But it has also increased exponentially our ability to create mischief, much of it inadvertent, but mischief nevertheless.
What has been the computer’s role in the financial meltdown? At the center of finance are the concepts of return, risk, and leverage. Participants in the financial marketplace want a return on their money. They want to understand the risk involved. And they often use leverage, or debt, to increase the return, but at the expense of an increase in risk.
As a result of the computer, the tradeoffs and relationships among return, risk, and leverage have become increasingly difficult to understand. Megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, bytes almost without end, can be fed into the computer and massaged in an infinite number of ways. Data and assumptions can produce models, which in turn can produce predictions. The data, assumptions, models, and predictions can be pyramided upon one another to produce still more models and predictions. The process has few meaningful constraints.
The complexity enabled by the computer has made financial instruments and the strategies for trading them opaque in the extreme. The assets represented by a security might be a bundle of other securities, each of which might in turn be backed by its own bundle. At the bottom of this multilayered concoction might finally be assets representing ownership of something “real,” such as mortgage loans. In constructing a bundle, Wall Street’s financial engineers often sliced and diced the component assets into groups, called tranches by the professionals, of allegedly different degrees of risk. One result of all the bundling, layering, slicing, and dicing is that the determination of an accurate value for the resulting security has proven to be little more than guesswork.
Another result is that as financial assets were created and pyramided upon one another, the fundamental economic structure of the nation, and the world, changed. Financial assets, which include the whole range of financial products from the basic savings account, to stocks, to the most complex asset-backed security, came to comprise a much greater proportion of the economy. For example, in 1980 financial assets in the U.S. economy amounted to $13.9 trillion, or five times the gross domestic product. At the end of 2007, financial assets totaled $141.9 trillion, which was over ten times GDP. Considered another way, the annual average growth of GDP from 1981 to 2007 was 6.1 percent; the annual average growth of financial assets was 9.1 percent.
A more common group of statistics used to show the shift in the structure of the economy concerns debt. Debt, of course, is also a financial asset, a financial asset to the lending party. For the period 1981 to 2007 when GDP was growing at an annual average of 6.1 percent, total domestic debt was growing an annual average of 9.2 percent.
ROLE OF PATENTS
Evidence that the computer has increased the gap between the financial world and our understanding of it can be found at a place that at first glance seems odd: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO issues patents not only for tangible things but also for a variety of intangibles, many of which fall under the rubric of “business methods.” How these controversial business methods patents came about is a story in itself, a story that is ongoing but that is well beyond subject at hand. Suffice it to say that some patents issued for business methods support the assertion that the computer, the foundation of the Information Age, is not a totally benign instrument.
Remember Lehman Brothers? Its failure last September brought the growing financial problems front and center. Like many organizations in contemporary high finance, Lehman Brothers had been assigned patents for financial “inventions.” Presumably, Lehman Brothers and its fellow patentees were proud of their “inventions.” One of Lehman’s patents, issued in August 2007, was entitled “Methods and Systems for Analyzing and Predicting Market Winners and Losers.” The patent involved massaging, with a computer program, performance and volume data for securities. Perhaps this particular computer program wasn’t quite up to snuff, eh Lehman?
In December 2007, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., whose parent would rescue Bear Stearns a few months later, received a patent for a computer-implemented financial model involving asset-backed commercial paper. The model produced lower estimates of the liquidity—backup cash—allegedly needed to support a portfolio of assets financed in the commercial paper market. But insufficient liquidity has proven to be central to the current economic troubles. Some patent, huh JP?
Other notable Wall Street denizens that hold patents on alleged computerized improvements to high finance include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays Bank, and Credit Suisse First Boston. Big name Wall Street firms are not the only players. For example, IBM has a patent for a method to analyze financial derivatives. The Trustees of Columbia University have a patent for providing “Robust” investment portfolios. Indeed, with business methods patents in the financial field as sources, a decent history of the current financial predicament could be attempted.
The problem would be comprehending those sources. The patents are rife with dense mathematical and statistical jargon. For example, IBM’s patent for analyzing financial instruments describes a process involving the calculation of first and second density functions, calculus integration, and “a convex superposition of mutually-translated delta functions.”
Incidentally, IBM does not really like business methods patents, having railed against them on a number of occasions. But for defensive reasons Big Blue plays the game, and does so quite well.
The point is not to blame the world’s current financial difficulties on patents. The patents are just evidence of how the enormous computational power of the computer has been used to construct a financial system that we mere mortals do not understand and that is now crumbling.
Welcome to the Information Age. What’s next on the agenda?
What has been the computer’s role in the financial meltdown? At the center of finance are the concepts of return, risk, and leverage. Participants in the financial marketplace want a return on their money. They want to understand the risk involved. And they often use leverage, or debt, to increase the return, but at the expense of an increase in risk.
As a result of the computer, the tradeoffs and relationships among return, risk, and leverage have become increasingly difficult to understand. Megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, bytes almost without end, can be fed into the computer and massaged in an infinite number of ways. Data and assumptions can produce models, which in turn can produce predictions. The data, assumptions, models, and predictions can be pyramided upon one another to produce still more models and predictions. The process has few meaningful constraints.
The complexity enabled by the computer has made financial instruments and the strategies for trading them opaque in the extreme. The assets represented by a security might be a bundle of other securities, each of which might in turn be backed by its own bundle. At the bottom of this multilayered concoction might finally be assets representing ownership of something “real,” such as mortgage loans. In constructing a bundle, Wall Street’s financial engineers often sliced and diced the component assets into groups, called tranches by the professionals, of allegedly different degrees of risk. One result of all the bundling, layering, slicing, and dicing is that the determination of an accurate value for the resulting security has proven to be little more than guesswork.
Another result is that as financial assets were created and pyramided upon one another, the fundamental economic structure of the nation, and the world, changed. Financial assets, which include the whole range of financial products from the basic savings account, to stocks, to the most complex asset-backed security, came to comprise a much greater proportion of the economy. For example, in 1980 financial assets in the U.S. economy amounted to $13.9 trillion, or five times the gross domestic product. At the end of 2007, financial assets totaled $141.9 trillion, which was over ten times GDP. Considered another way, the annual average growth of GDP from 1981 to 2007 was 6.1 percent; the annual average growth of financial assets was 9.1 percent.
A more common group of statistics used to show the shift in the structure of the economy concerns debt. Debt, of course, is also a financial asset, a financial asset to the lending party. For the period 1981 to 2007 when GDP was growing at an annual average of 6.1 percent, total domestic debt was growing an annual average of 9.2 percent.
ROLE OF PATENTS
Evidence that the computer has increased the gap between the financial world and our understanding of it can be found at a place that at first glance seems odd: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO issues patents not only for tangible things but also for a variety of intangibles, many of which fall under the rubric of “business methods.” How these controversial business methods patents came about is a story in itself, a story that is ongoing but that is well beyond subject at hand. Suffice it to say that some patents issued for business methods support the assertion that the computer, the foundation of the Information Age, is not a totally benign instrument.
Remember Lehman Brothers? Its failure last September brought the growing financial problems front and center. Like many organizations in contemporary high finance, Lehman Brothers had been assigned patents for financial “inventions.” Presumably, Lehman Brothers and its fellow patentees were proud of their “inventions.” One of Lehman’s patents, issued in August 2007, was entitled “Methods and Systems for Analyzing and Predicting Market Winners and Losers.” The patent involved massaging, with a computer program, performance and volume data for securities. Perhaps this particular computer program wasn’t quite up to snuff, eh Lehman?
In December 2007, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., whose parent would rescue Bear Stearns a few months later, received a patent for a computer-implemented financial model involving asset-backed commercial paper. The model produced lower estimates of the liquidity—backup cash—allegedly needed to support a portfolio of assets financed in the commercial paper market. But insufficient liquidity has proven to be central to the current economic troubles. Some patent, huh JP?
Other notable Wall Street denizens that hold patents on alleged computerized improvements to high finance include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays Bank, and Credit Suisse First Boston. Big name Wall Street firms are not the only players. For example, IBM has a patent for a method to analyze financial derivatives. The Trustees of Columbia University have a patent for providing “Robust” investment portfolios. Indeed, with business methods patents in the financial field as sources, a decent history of the current financial predicament could be attempted.
The problem would be comprehending those sources. The patents are rife with dense mathematical and statistical jargon. For example, IBM’s patent for analyzing financial instruments describes a process involving the calculation of first and second density functions, calculus integration, and “a convex superposition of mutually-translated delta functions.”
Incidentally, IBM does not really like business methods patents, having railed against them on a number of occasions. But for defensive reasons Big Blue plays the game, and does so quite well.
The point is not to blame the world’s current financial difficulties on patents. The patents are just evidence of how the enormous computational power of the computer has been used to construct a financial system that we mere mortals do not understand and that is now crumbling.
Welcome to the Information Age. What’s next on the agenda?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
VIRGINIANS AND GIBBERISH
Virginians used to have an extraordinary facility with the English language. There was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, among other things, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And there was Patrick Henry, who succinctly stated “Give me Liberty or give me Death.”
And there was even Henry Howell, who castigated the monied powers with “Keep the Big Boys honest.”
Do any Virginians today have a comparable grasp of language? If any do, they are not to be found in the state legislature or Department of Taxation. For several years, Virginia taxpayers have had to deal with something called Special Fixed Date Conformity adjustments. A simple description of exactly what those are, or of the concept behind them, has not been provided, at least in any place that is readily evident.
Then there is the AFAGI, or adjusted federal adjusted gross income. This is defined on page 9 of the 2008 Virginia 760 Resident Individual Income Tax Booklet as “the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income, modified for any fixed date conformity adjustments, and reduced by any taxable Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Benefits.”
Virginia, how far she has fallen.
And there was Patrick Henry, who succinctly stated “Give me Liberty or give me Death.”
And there was even Henry Howell, who castigated the monied powers with “Keep the Big Boys honest.”
Do any Virginians today have a comparable grasp of language? If any do, they are not to be found in the state legislature or Department of Taxation. For several years, Virginia taxpayers have had to deal with something called Special Fixed Date Conformity adjustments. A simple description of exactly what those are, or of the concept behind them, has not been provided, at least in any place that is readily evident.
Then there is the AFAGI, or adjusted federal adjusted gross income. This is defined on page 9 of the 2008 Virginia 760 Resident Individual Income Tax Booklet as “the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income, modified for any fixed date conformity adjustments, and reduced by any taxable Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Benefits.”
Virginia, how far she has fallen.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
HE KEPT US SAFE
Defenders of W, the outgoing President, 43, Bush 2, Cheney’s mouthpiece, say that whatever his mistakes, at least he kept us safe.
This is ludicrous. Whoever happened to be President on September 11, 2001, would have “kept us safe.” Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Elmer Fudd (wait, he was President), any semi-competent individual would have “kept us safe.” The world changed on that day. Domestic security didn’t just step up a notch, it expanded exponentially. And it would have done so no matter who was in charge.
You think George was the only guy or gal under whom you would be taking off your shoes in order to board a plane? You think only George perceived the need to increase border security, to better monitor potential domestic terrorists, to make the CIA talk to the FBI?
Who was the enemy on September 11? A bunch of guys with box cutters who took over airplanes and crashed them into buildings. This tactic didn’t even survive until noon on that awful day, and it wasn’t George who led the way in countering it. A handful of citizens on the fourth hijacked plane gave their lives, but they prevented their plane from being used as a missile. The box cutter-airplane-building tactic worked for a few hours one morning, but a repeat is unlikely.
Would another President’s expanded domestic security program have taken a different shape? At the margins, certainly. And with more concern about Constitutional niceties, hopefully. But anyone who thinks things would have returned to pre-9/11 conditions has a screw loose. Whoever the President, a massive expansion of domestic security programs would have occurred, and their short-term success would have been very probable.
The world remains an unsafe place. The real dangers are not guys with box cutters but guys with nukes or germs. Preventing the bad guys from getting their hands on these types of weapons is the challenge for the years and decades ahead.
In the domestic security field, W deserves credit for doing his job, for doing what any competent individual in that position would have done. But implying that he did something extraordinary is nonsense
This is ludicrous. Whoever happened to be President on September 11, 2001, would have “kept us safe.” Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Elmer Fudd (wait, he was President), any semi-competent individual would have “kept us safe.” The world changed on that day. Domestic security didn’t just step up a notch, it expanded exponentially. And it would have done so no matter who was in charge.
You think George was the only guy or gal under whom you would be taking off your shoes in order to board a plane? You think only George perceived the need to increase border security, to better monitor potential domestic terrorists, to make the CIA talk to the FBI?
Who was the enemy on September 11? A bunch of guys with box cutters who took over airplanes and crashed them into buildings. This tactic didn’t even survive until noon on that awful day, and it wasn’t George who led the way in countering it. A handful of citizens on the fourth hijacked plane gave their lives, but they prevented their plane from being used as a missile. The box cutter-airplane-building tactic worked for a few hours one morning, but a repeat is unlikely.
Would another President’s expanded domestic security program have taken a different shape? At the margins, certainly. And with more concern about Constitutional niceties, hopefully. But anyone who thinks things would have returned to pre-9/11 conditions has a screw loose. Whoever the President, a massive expansion of domestic security programs would have occurred, and their short-term success would have been very probable.
The world remains an unsafe place. The real dangers are not guys with box cutters but guys with nukes or germs. Preventing the bad guys from getting their hands on these types of weapons is the challenge for the years and decades ahead.
In the domestic security field, W deserves credit for doing his job, for doing what any competent individual in that position would have done. But implying that he did something extraordinary is nonsense
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
SO WHERE HAS CRANKY BEEN?
So where has Cranky been? Well, he’s been on Sabbatical. He observed that election we just came through. And he watched his modest investments become his pathetic investments. And he attempted to offset his financial decline through a new profession: document reviewer. And he contemplated the meaning of it all.
As for the election, wasn't it great how the party of self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness, incompetence, and anti-intellectualism got its comeuppance? I mean really, the Republican party of today is not the broad tent of Cranky's youth, which was back in the 1950s. Maybe the defeat will help it find itself and reconnect with the center of American society, culture, and economics.
Concerning the financial turmoil, the important question is, have we reached the bottom? That is also the unanswerable question. How did we get here? Well how about greed, ideological rigidity on the part of a sizeable portion of the nation's leadership, and stupidity? Wait, weren't similar characteristics in the preceding paragraph?
And document review? This is the unpleasant underbelly of the legal profession. It is a product of the computer age. Computers may have eliminated a tiny bit of paperwork, but their electronic records have made up the difference and added exponentially more garbage to the world. So big legal cases require worker bees to wade through hundreds of thousands—even millions—of assorted computer detritus: emails, memoranda, spreadsheets, whatall. The worker bees are an eclectic group of recent law school graduates, part-timers, between-jobbers, trying-to-find-themselves’ers, retirees, and other assorted riff-raff. They sit at computer terminals on long tables, supervised by young lawyers talented enough to get hired by a big time law firm but inexperienced enough to barely have a clue. But the pay ain’t bad, the jobs are temporary, and you get to see how the upper crust lives.
As for the meaning of it all, maybe another Sabbatical is in order.
As for the election, wasn't it great how the party of self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness, incompetence, and anti-intellectualism got its comeuppance? I mean really, the Republican party of today is not the broad tent of Cranky's youth, which was back in the 1950s. Maybe the defeat will help it find itself and reconnect with the center of American society, culture, and economics.
Concerning the financial turmoil, the important question is, have we reached the bottom? That is also the unanswerable question. How did we get here? Well how about greed, ideological rigidity on the part of a sizeable portion of the nation's leadership, and stupidity? Wait, weren't similar characteristics in the preceding paragraph?
And document review? This is the unpleasant underbelly of the legal profession. It is a product of the computer age. Computers may have eliminated a tiny bit of paperwork, but their electronic records have made up the difference and added exponentially more garbage to the world. So big legal cases require worker bees to wade through hundreds of thousands—even millions—of assorted computer detritus: emails, memoranda, spreadsheets, whatall. The worker bees are an eclectic group of recent law school graduates, part-timers, between-jobbers, trying-to-find-themselves’ers, retirees, and other assorted riff-raff. They sit at computer terminals on long tables, supervised by young lawyers talented enough to get hired by a big time law firm but inexperienced enough to barely have a clue. But the pay ain’t bad, the jobs are temporary, and you get to see how the upper crust lives.
As for the meaning of it all, maybe another Sabbatical is in order.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
THINGS THE CANDIDATES SHOULD STOP SAYING
McCain:
“My friends.” I ain’t your friend, John. I’m just a cranky old man like you.
“Maverick.” James Garner was Maverick. Tom Cruise was Maverick (in Top Gun). You just have trouble getting along with your peers.
Obama:
“I’ll go through the federal budget line-by-line.” No you won’t. You have a whole bureaucracy for that, the Office of Management and Budget. Stop making the federal government sound simple. It ain’t and never will be.
“Deregulation caused our problems.” No it didn’t. The sectors of the financial industry that caused our problems—investment banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, mortgage brokers—weren’t deregulated. They couldn’t have been because they were never subject to much regulation in the first place.
Biden:
“I’m from the heartland of America, Scranton, Pennsylvania.” With all due respect to Scranton, we’ve gotta have a better heartland than that.
Palin:
Everything. The voice, the inflections, the dropped gs, remind us of (1) the movie Fargo and (2) the current droppin' gs President, and ya betcha ya know where he has taken us.
“My friends.” I ain’t your friend, John. I’m just a cranky old man like you.
“Maverick.” James Garner was Maverick. Tom Cruise was Maverick (in Top Gun). You just have trouble getting along with your peers.
Obama:
“I’ll go through the federal budget line-by-line.” No you won’t. You have a whole bureaucracy for that, the Office of Management and Budget. Stop making the federal government sound simple. It ain’t and never will be.
“Deregulation caused our problems.” No it didn’t. The sectors of the financial industry that caused our problems—investment banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, mortgage brokers—weren’t deregulated. They couldn’t have been because they were never subject to much regulation in the first place.
Biden:
“I’m from the heartland of America, Scranton, Pennsylvania.” With all due respect to Scranton, we’ve gotta have a better heartland than that.
Palin:
Everything. The voice, the inflections, the dropped gs, remind us of (1) the movie Fargo and (2) the current droppin' gs President, and ya betcha ya know where he has taken us.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
WHO GETS LEHMAN'S PATENTS?
Okay, Lehman Brothers, a premier investment bank, a venerable Wall Street institution, a key component of the nation’s financial system for over a century, has gone belly up. Now the question is, who gets its patents.
Patents!? What patents would a company that deals in intangibles—stocks, bonds, advice, financial derivatives whose acronyms span the alphabet—have? Aren’t patents limited to things you can touch, feel, get an electrical shock from? Well, my friends, if that is your view of patents, you are so 20th Century.
Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office grants patents for fuzzy, nebulous things like tax strategies; and financial securities that are just a little bit different than existing financial securities; and systems for, allegedly, making money in the buying and selling of stocks, bonds, and other financial products, including the goofy ones that have contributed to our present troubles.
Last year, In July, Lehman was assigned patent 7,249,083. The subject of this patent is “a novel investment vehicle for increasing the flexibility of select convertible bonds and other equity-linked securities.” The description contained in the patent is convoluted in the extreme and if the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case could easily result in nine separate opinions. But the essence seems to be a debt instrument that, upon the happening of various contingencies, the purchaser could convert into an equity security that the issuer in turn would have an option to purchase.
Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose thing.
The next month, August 2007, Lehman was assigned patent 7,263,502 for a method of selecting winners and losers based on their market positions. The method used a “volume/turnover filter” that would supposedly enable investors to predict “when to hold some stocks long and others short over various time period[s], thereby maximizing the profitability of a portfolio.”
Maybe you should have used it yourself, Lehman.
And in December 2007, Lehman was assigned patent 7,310,618 for a method of creating a loan delinquency database. The method involves the massaging of historical loan data and various factors concerning loans to arrive at probabilities of delinquencies. The description in the patent asserts that the method “simplifies the underwriting of . . . sub-prime loans.”
Immortal words, those.
Although granted in 2007, the applications for these patents had been filed much earlier, in the years 2000 to 2004, suggesting that the methods and systems described had been in use for some time.
Lehman Brothers is by no means the only financial firm with patents on financial practices that have turned out to be dubious at best. The list of others includes Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and good ol’ Freddie Mac. The troubled Washington Mutual, Inc., even has a patent, 6,681,985, for the arrangement of furniture and equipment, including the provision of “kid’s area,” in a branch office.
Many of these patents are called business methods patents, and the growth in their numbers can be traced to the 1998 State Street decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.). For the financial industry, these patents provide evidence of the muddled thinking, grand expectations, poor oversight, and outright greed that have brought Wall Street to its knees.
For the U.S. patent system, business methods patents are a beloved child who is growing into a rampaging, out-of-control teenager. The Patent Office contends that it does not grant patents for computer software, but a large proportion of business methods patents contain little more than software. Tweak a bit of existing software and you have a new patent.
The good news, at least for those who think the patent system needs reining in, is that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an important case on the matter in May. The case was In re Bilski, and the patent was for a method enabling energy consumers to hedge risk. A decision is expected anytime, and commentators in the patent field say the court will likely narrow the field of what may be patented.
And as for Lehman’s patents? The financial system might be better off if they join Lehman Brothers in Potter’s Field.
Patents!? What patents would a company that deals in intangibles—stocks, bonds, advice, financial derivatives whose acronyms span the alphabet—have? Aren’t patents limited to things you can touch, feel, get an electrical shock from? Well, my friends, if that is your view of patents, you are so 20th Century.
Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office grants patents for fuzzy, nebulous things like tax strategies; and financial securities that are just a little bit different than existing financial securities; and systems for, allegedly, making money in the buying and selling of stocks, bonds, and other financial products, including the goofy ones that have contributed to our present troubles.
Last year, In July, Lehman was assigned patent 7,249,083. The subject of this patent is “a novel investment vehicle for increasing the flexibility of select convertible bonds and other equity-linked securities.” The description contained in the patent is convoluted in the extreme and if the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case could easily result in nine separate opinions. But the essence seems to be a debt instrument that, upon the happening of various contingencies, the purchaser could convert into an equity security that the issuer in turn would have an option to purchase.
Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose thing.
The next month, August 2007, Lehman was assigned patent 7,263,502 for a method of selecting winners and losers based on their market positions. The method used a “volume/turnover filter” that would supposedly enable investors to predict “when to hold some stocks long and others short over various time period[s], thereby maximizing the profitability of a portfolio.”
Maybe you should have used it yourself, Lehman.
And in December 2007, Lehman was assigned patent 7,310,618 for a method of creating a loan delinquency database. The method involves the massaging of historical loan data and various factors concerning loans to arrive at probabilities of delinquencies. The description in the patent asserts that the method “simplifies the underwriting of . . . sub-prime loans.”
Immortal words, those.
Although granted in 2007, the applications for these patents had been filed much earlier, in the years 2000 to 2004, suggesting that the methods and systems described had been in use for some time.
Lehman Brothers is by no means the only financial firm with patents on financial practices that have turned out to be dubious at best. The list of others includes Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and good ol’ Freddie Mac. The troubled Washington Mutual, Inc., even has a patent, 6,681,985, for the arrangement of furniture and equipment, including the provision of “kid’s area,” in a branch office.
Many of these patents are called business methods patents, and the growth in their numbers can be traced to the 1998 State Street decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.). For the financial industry, these patents provide evidence of the muddled thinking, grand expectations, poor oversight, and outright greed that have brought Wall Street to its knees.
For the U.S. patent system, business methods patents are a beloved child who is growing into a rampaging, out-of-control teenager. The Patent Office contends that it does not grant patents for computer software, but a large proportion of business methods patents contain little more than software. Tweak a bit of existing software and you have a new patent.
The good news, at least for those who think the patent system needs reining in, is that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an important case on the matter in May. The case was In re Bilski, and the patent was for a method enabling energy consumers to hedge risk. A decision is expected anytime, and commentators in the patent field say the court will likely narrow the field of what may be patented.
And as for Lehman’s patents? The financial system might be better off if they join Lehman Brothers in Potter’s Field.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
LIPSTICK ON A PIG
This lipstick on a pig thing has gotten out of hand. To recap, in her speech before the Country Club (Republican) convention, Sarah Palin aroused the audience and much of the right wing media, some apparently sexually, by saying that the only difference between hockey moms and pit bulls was lipstick.
Then Barack Obama gave a speech in which he listed the many ways in which John McCain is trying to resell failed or questionable Country Club (Republican) positions and policies. Obama finished with an oft used analogy: trying to pretty up the failed and questionable policies from the past is like putting lipstick on a pig, a phrase, by the way, that John McCain has himself used on occasion.
Country Clubbers (Republicans) gleefully countered by charging that Obama was making a derogatory reference to Sarah Palin. The Obama campaign has of course denied that.
But instead of being defensive the Obama people, in the opinion of the Cranky Old Guy, should go on the offense. Here’s a suggestion for a new campaign ad.
Clip 1: Sarah Palin is making one of her cute statements that has turned out to be inaccurate at best; for example, the statement that she rejected Congress’s attempt to fund the bridge to nowhere when in fact she was for it initially and only became against it after Congress had already turned thumbs down.
Clip 2: John McCain is shown making one of his lipstick on a pig statements.
Clip 3: Another of Sarah’s half-truths is shown, such as her implication that she disposed of the Alaskan Governor’s plane on ebay.
Clip 4: John McCain utters another lipstick on a pig statement.
Clip 5: Another Sarah half-truth.
Clip 6: Another John McCain lipstick on a pig.
Clip 7: “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”
And that’s how Cranky would put lipstick on a pig.
Then Barack Obama gave a speech in which he listed the many ways in which John McCain is trying to resell failed or questionable Country Club (Republican) positions and policies. Obama finished with an oft used analogy: trying to pretty up the failed and questionable policies from the past is like putting lipstick on a pig, a phrase, by the way, that John McCain has himself used on occasion.
Country Clubbers (Republicans) gleefully countered by charging that Obama was making a derogatory reference to Sarah Palin. The Obama campaign has of course denied that.
But instead of being defensive the Obama people, in the opinion of the Cranky Old Guy, should go on the offense. Here’s a suggestion for a new campaign ad.
Clip 1: Sarah Palin is making one of her cute statements that has turned out to be inaccurate at best; for example, the statement that she rejected Congress’s attempt to fund the bridge to nowhere when in fact she was for it initially and only became against it after Congress had already turned thumbs down.
Clip 2: John McCain is shown making one of his lipstick on a pig statements.
Clip 3: Another of Sarah’s half-truths is shown, such as her implication that she disposed of the Alaskan Governor’s plane on ebay.
Clip 4: John McCain utters another lipstick on a pig statement.
Clip 5: Another Sarah half-truth.
Clip 6: Another John McCain lipstick on a pig.
Clip 7: “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”
And that’s how Cranky would put lipstick on a pig.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
HAIRCUT
Every now and then—actually, quite frequently—Cranky is reminded how the culture is passing him by. The latest reminder occurred recently at a barber shop.
You remember barber shops, right? Those places with red and white poles outside where guys go to get haircuts? That is, unless you’re the kind of guy that goes to a “hair stylist” place.
Cranky has always thought that things were pretty simple at a barber shop. The barber asked how you wanted it cut. You replied with something like, “Just a trim,” or maybe “Medium.”
Sometimes the barber might asked, “Tapered in back?” Cranky has never known quite sure what that meant, so he always answered “Yes.” And then after electric clippers on the sides and back and some scissors action, you were done. You felt some haircuts were better than others, but they were all mostly okay. Very infrequently, maybe once a decade, you thought the result was really odd, and family and friends snickered a bit, but new growth soon returned you to a familiar state.
So for most of Cranky’s life, barber shops have been places of stability in a world of bewildering change. The stability hasn’t been absolutely complete. For example, female barbers are much more numerous nowadays—a welcomed development, in Cranky’s view—but for the most part the barber shop of today is not much different than the barber shop of yesteryear.
Thus Cranky was not prepared for what transpired during his most recent trip to the barber shop. Shortly after Cranky was seated and bibbed up, another patron took an adjacent chair. The barber asked, “How do you want it?”
Which was the trigger for a dissertation. “Just clippers on the side except for ‘round the ears where scissors only. And scissors only on the top. Go easy on the neck shave in back. And just light scissors on the sideburns. Don’t shave below them.”
What the heck!? Cranky stole a look sideways. He was a youngish dark-haired dude with one of those spiked hair situations. Not a multitude of spikes, just a small one in front. Late thirties at the most, he looked at the peak of his game, a master of the universe. All success thus far. Life had not gotten around to those kicks in the groin.
The real question was, what was he doing in a barber shop? Hair stylist was where he belonged, pure and simple. “Hey Dude, this place is for us ancient types. There’s a fru-fru joint down the block, just the thing for you and other pretty boys, like John Edwards.”
You remember barber shops, right? Those places with red and white poles outside where guys go to get haircuts? That is, unless you’re the kind of guy that goes to a “hair stylist” place.
Cranky has always thought that things were pretty simple at a barber shop. The barber asked how you wanted it cut. You replied with something like, “Just a trim,” or maybe “Medium.”
Sometimes the barber might asked, “Tapered in back?” Cranky has never known quite sure what that meant, so he always answered “Yes.” And then after electric clippers on the sides and back and some scissors action, you were done. You felt some haircuts were better than others, but they were all mostly okay. Very infrequently, maybe once a decade, you thought the result was really odd, and family and friends snickered a bit, but new growth soon returned you to a familiar state.
So for most of Cranky’s life, barber shops have been places of stability in a world of bewildering change. The stability hasn’t been absolutely complete. For example, female barbers are much more numerous nowadays—a welcomed development, in Cranky’s view—but for the most part the barber shop of today is not much different than the barber shop of yesteryear.
Thus Cranky was not prepared for what transpired during his most recent trip to the barber shop. Shortly after Cranky was seated and bibbed up, another patron took an adjacent chair. The barber asked, “How do you want it?”
Which was the trigger for a dissertation. “Just clippers on the side except for ‘round the ears where scissors only. And scissors only on the top. Go easy on the neck shave in back. And just light scissors on the sideburns. Don’t shave below them.”
What the heck!? Cranky stole a look sideways. He was a youngish dark-haired dude with one of those spiked hair situations. Not a multitude of spikes, just a small one in front. Late thirties at the most, he looked at the peak of his game, a master of the universe. All success thus far. Life had not gotten around to those kicks in the groin.
The real question was, what was he doing in a barber shop? Hair stylist was where he belonged, pure and simple. “Hey Dude, this place is for us ancient types. There’s a fru-fru joint down the block, just the thing for you and other pretty boys, like John Edwards.”
Sunday, July 27, 2008
TIMES ARE HARD AND YOU'RE NOT
In recent radio advertisements in the Washington, D.C., area, a local erectile dysfunction clinic has found in the troubled financial situation a reason to seek the clinic’s services. The advertisement says that in these difficult times, you need “intimacy” more than ever. The unspoken follow on is that apparently you can’t have “intimacy” without a great big throbbing, well, you get the picture.
So how about some other ad slogans linking the economy and ED:
Times are hard and you’re not.
Need a new stimulus package?
Are you as soft as the economy?
The job market isn’t the only thing shriveling up.
Mortgage loans and you: both subprime.
Shafted: the economy yes, you no.
The economy limps along, and you’re just limp.
The difference between you and the stock market? The stock market occasionally rises.
You and your portfolio, both shrinking.
Interest rates rise, interest rates fall. You just fall.
So how about some other ad slogans linking the economy and ED:
Times are hard and you’re not.
Need a new stimulus package?
Are you as soft as the economy?
The job market isn’t the only thing shriveling up.
Mortgage loans and you: both subprime.
Shafted: the economy yes, you no.
The economy limps along, and you’re just limp.
The difference between you and the stock market? The stock market occasionally rises.
You and your portfolio, both shrinking.
Interest rates rise, interest rates fall. You just fall.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
WORST FLUSH PERCENTAGE
Over the last year and a half, Cranky has had four different jobs. It's not that Cranky can't hold down a position, it's just that. . .well, it's complicated.
Anyway, the four jobs mean that Cranky was in four different workplaces. Being the observant guy he is, Cranky discerned that things were not always the same. One thing that was different among the four workplaces was lavatories.
Lavatories can be measured in various ways. For example, for a given system of commodes over a given period of time, what is the flush percentage? If a system has five commodes and they are all five operable for the whole period of time, the system has a flush percentage of 100 percent. If one commode is out for the whole period, the system has a flush percentage of 80 percent. If three commodes are each out for one-half the period, the system has a flush percentage of 70 percent (Cranky thinks this calculation is correct, but you’d better check the math.)
The last place Cranky worked had one commode for about forty users. One might expect that this many users would result in a significantly low flush percentage (and in forty uncomfortable individuals.)
But such was not the case. This commode took all that was dropped and kept right on flushing.
No, the place with the worst flush percent was an office building of, drum roll please, the United States Senate. In spite of surrounding walls, ceilings, and floors of first rate material—stone, fine tile—and top-of-the-line models, Senate commodes seemed to spend a lot of time just fermenting noxious nastiness.
A wiseacre might be tempted to say that with such a concentration of BS, no wonder the Senate commodes were constantly clogging up. But Cranky is not a wiseacre.
Anyway, the four jobs mean that Cranky was in four different workplaces. Being the observant guy he is, Cranky discerned that things were not always the same. One thing that was different among the four workplaces was lavatories.
Lavatories can be measured in various ways. For example, for a given system of commodes over a given period of time, what is the flush percentage? If a system has five commodes and they are all five operable for the whole period of time, the system has a flush percentage of 100 percent. If one commode is out for the whole period, the system has a flush percentage of 80 percent. If three commodes are each out for one-half the period, the system has a flush percentage of 70 percent (Cranky thinks this calculation is correct, but you’d better check the math.)
The last place Cranky worked had one commode for about forty users. One might expect that this many users would result in a significantly low flush percentage (and in forty uncomfortable individuals.)
But such was not the case. This commode took all that was dropped and kept right on flushing.
No, the place with the worst flush percent was an office building of, drum roll please, the United States Senate. In spite of surrounding walls, ceilings, and floors of first rate material—stone, fine tile—and top-of-the-line models, Senate commodes seemed to spend a lot of time just fermenting noxious nastiness.
A wiseacre might be tempted to say that with such a concentration of BS, no wonder the Senate commodes were constantly clogging up. But Cranky is not a wiseacre.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
PREACHERS AND POLITICS
One beneficial result of the brouhahas caused by some religious leaders over recent weeks and months just might be a lower role for men (and women) of the cloth in the political arena. For some years now, words from at least a few pulpits have had a decidedly secular tinge. Yes, the ostensible theme may have been how to achieve eternal salvation. But the means have included the proper stances on political issues, and political figures.
Concerning religion, the First Amendment to the Constitution is often described as mandating the separation of church and state. But the specific language is a little more one-sided: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Note that the prohibitions are directed at Congress. Nothing in the First Amendment explicitly prevents religions and their adherents from seeking to impose their views on government. On some questions, the views may coincide with those of many other citizens. On other questions, however, a position pushed by a religion and its adherents may not be much evident in other elements of the population.
Moreover, nothing in the First Amendment explicitly prevents political pronouncements, economic theories, diatribes, rants, absurdities, and whatall from the pulpit. Many citizens, whether church goers or not, may have been unaware that from a few pulpits strange words are heard, and that in a few pulpits are strange individuals, narcissistic, self-absorbed, playing to the crowd.
The exposure of such words and individuals to the judgment of a broader audience could tarnish somewhat the halo that a few religious leaders have attempted over the years to wear around the political arena. To be more explicit, Preachers are like the rest of us: some good, some bad, some rational, some not. If such long time political evangelists as the departed Jerry Falwell and the still with us Pat Robertson are seen not as just a step removed from the mainstream but as just a step removed from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, more people might be less inclined to accord them and their views respect.
Concerning religion, the First Amendment to the Constitution is often described as mandating the separation of church and state. But the specific language is a little more one-sided: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Note that the prohibitions are directed at Congress. Nothing in the First Amendment explicitly prevents religions and their adherents from seeking to impose their views on government. On some questions, the views may coincide with those of many other citizens. On other questions, however, a position pushed by a religion and its adherents may not be much evident in other elements of the population.
Moreover, nothing in the First Amendment explicitly prevents political pronouncements, economic theories, diatribes, rants, absurdities, and whatall from the pulpit. Many citizens, whether church goers or not, may have been unaware that from a few pulpits strange words are heard, and that in a few pulpits are strange individuals, narcissistic, self-absorbed, playing to the crowd.
The exposure of such words and individuals to the judgment of a broader audience could tarnish somewhat the halo that a few religious leaders have attempted over the years to wear around the political arena. To be more explicit, Preachers are like the rest of us: some good, some bad, some rational, some not. If such long time political evangelists as the departed Jerry Falwell and the still with us Pat Robertson are seen not as just a step removed from the mainstream but as just a step removed from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, more people might be less inclined to accord them and their views respect.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
JOHN McCAIN, PLEASE STOP TALKING LIKE THAT
John, you have got to stop talking like last century. Most recently, you said something to the effect “I will never surrender in Iraq.”
Hey John, there is nobody to surrender to in Iraq! It is not that kind of war. You and the guy you want to replace keeping talking about victory, surrender, and other things that just don’t apply to the situation. If we left Iraq tomorrow, hook, line, and sinker, not leaving a single American soldier, it would not be surrender. We would just be quitting. Maybe not a good thing to do, but surrendering is not what it would be.
Here’s the problem, John. A good number of Americans, probably at this point most Americans, realize Iraq is not a World War II kind of war. Whatever the ending is, there is not gonna be a peace treaty signed on the battleship Missouri as the Navy stages one humongous flyover. For years, probably decades, and maybe even centuries, Iraq, and indeed the whole Middle East, will continue to be one messy place.
Democracy as we understand it in the U.S.? Forget it. Stability? Precarious at best. Our goal in Iraq and the Middle East should be modest: keeping the lid on as the people, hopefully, mature politically.
John, if you keep talking like a George Bush clone you will get the votes of a certain hardcore constituency. But I would be plenty surprised if the World War II era talk gets you to the White House.
You are a bona fide American hero, John. But being a hero doesn’t mean you have an understanding of what makes the world tick.
Hey John, there is nobody to surrender to in Iraq! It is not that kind of war. You and the guy you want to replace keeping talking about victory, surrender, and other things that just don’t apply to the situation. If we left Iraq tomorrow, hook, line, and sinker, not leaving a single American soldier, it would not be surrender. We would just be quitting. Maybe not a good thing to do, but surrendering is not what it would be.
Here’s the problem, John. A good number of Americans, probably at this point most Americans, realize Iraq is not a World War II kind of war. Whatever the ending is, there is not gonna be a peace treaty signed on the battleship Missouri as the Navy stages one humongous flyover. For years, probably decades, and maybe even centuries, Iraq, and indeed the whole Middle East, will continue to be one messy place.
Democracy as we understand it in the U.S.? Forget it. Stability? Precarious at best. Our goal in Iraq and the Middle East should be modest: keeping the lid on as the people, hopefully, mature politically.
John, if you keep talking like a George Bush clone you will get the votes of a certain hardcore constituency. But I would be plenty surprised if the World War II era talk gets you to the White House.
You are a bona fide American hero, John. But being a hero doesn’t mean you have an understanding of what makes the world tick.
Monday, May 19, 2008
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS
At their best, conservatives want the status quo.
At their worst, conservatives want yesterday’s status quo.
At their best, liberals want a better tomorrow.
At their worst, liberals want a perfect tomorrow.
At their worst, conservatives want yesterday’s status quo.
At their best, liberals want a better tomorrow.
At their worst, liberals want a perfect tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
TORTURE, PUNISHMENT, AND GUNS
To have a successful blog, the blogger should be up bright and early. She or he should exhaustively peruse news and commentary sources. Then she or he should pound out her or his thoughts, opinions, and whatall.
Cranky is much too lazy for all this. He’s usually up late. He does peruse news and commentary sources, but it takes him most of the day. And only occasionally does he burden you with his thoughts. (Be thankful for small favors.)
All of this is by way of explaining why Cranky is just getting around to commenting on an event that occurred a couple of weeks ago. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes. Among the subjects that intellectual giant Leslie Stahl discussed with Honorable Antonin was the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Honorable Antonin contended that the Eighth Amendment does not necessarily prohibit torture because torture is not necessarily punishment. Pulling fingernails to make some alleged terrorist spill his guts is apparently just trying to get information; it is not punishment.
Talk about nitpicking on the meaning of words. Honorable Antonin is definitely one heckuva nitpicker.
Okay, but if you’re gonna be a nitpicker, you should nitpick all the way. For example, let’s take another Constitutional Amendment, the Second, you know, the one that says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Here's the nitpick. Strictly construed, really strictly construed, “arms” should have the meaning it had at the time the Amendment was adopted. And at that time, the meaning was ye olde musket.
So the Second Amendment permits you to have all the muskets you want. But forget about that AK-47, or even that .22.
Some might contend that Cranky’s reasoning is defective. His Second Amendment interpretation is a time warp thing, which is different that Honorable Antonin’s torture is not punishment thing. But Cranky contends that at the heart of both arguments is nitpicking in the extreme. If you’re gonna pick a nit between torture and punishment, you should be consistent and pick a nit over the meaning of “arms.”
Back to you, Antonin.
Cranky is much too lazy for all this. He’s usually up late. He does peruse news and commentary sources, but it takes him most of the day. And only occasionally does he burden you with his thoughts. (Be thankful for small favors.)
All of this is by way of explaining why Cranky is just getting around to commenting on an event that occurred a couple of weeks ago. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes. Among the subjects that intellectual giant Leslie Stahl discussed with Honorable Antonin was the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Honorable Antonin contended that the Eighth Amendment does not necessarily prohibit torture because torture is not necessarily punishment. Pulling fingernails to make some alleged terrorist spill his guts is apparently just trying to get information; it is not punishment.
Talk about nitpicking on the meaning of words. Honorable Antonin is definitely one heckuva nitpicker.
Okay, but if you’re gonna be a nitpicker, you should nitpick all the way. For example, let’s take another Constitutional Amendment, the Second, you know, the one that says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Here's the nitpick. Strictly construed, really strictly construed, “arms” should have the meaning it had at the time the Amendment was adopted. And at that time, the meaning was ye olde musket.
So the Second Amendment permits you to have all the muskets you want. But forget about that AK-47, or even that .22.
Some might contend that Cranky’s reasoning is defective. His Second Amendment interpretation is a time warp thing, which is different that Honorable Antonin’s torture is not punishment thing. But Cranky contends that at the heart of both arguments is nitpicking in the extreme. If you’re gonna pick a nit between torture and punishment, you should be consistent and pick a nit over the meaning of “arms.”
Back to you, Antonin.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)