Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Short Hiatus

The Blue South is going to be busy for a couple of weeks. In the meantime, enjoy these remixes courtesy of Ross over at the Indigo Journal:





Saturday, November 22, 2008

Quote of the Day


Stephen Jones, president of Bob Jones University, has issued an apology for the school's past racist policies. Let's see what he had to say:
We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it. In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry.

Source.
BJU's "culture conformity" included a policy against interracial dating that was in effect until 2000. According to The State:
The school had used the Bible to justify discrimination in the past, such as in a 1998 letter to a writer who questioned the school’s ban on interracial dating. Then, school officials noted that God had created oceans to keep men apart, as well as ethnic, cultural and language barriers.

I'm not sure which culture they were conforming to, since our culture was pretty clear about a need for racial equality beginning with the Civil War and culminating in the Civil Rights Movement, some 40 years before BJU ended it's anti-interracial dating policy. I guess Stephen Jones knew the time was right to issue the apology when his WWJD bracelet began glowing.

Monday, November 17, 2008

S.C.: the "Pay Toilet of the Nation"


At least according to Sen. John Courson, our lovely state has become a pay toilet. Source. Apparently it turns out that a loophole in the way that DHEC construes the landfill "needs" of counties allows our landfills to accept millions of tons of garbage from other states.

The State began a week long series on DHEC's ineptitude today, and we here at the Blue South have to say, it has started out with a bang. We're biting our nails, wondering what's around the corner as the State's hard-hitting investigative team has set it's sights on DHEC.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Five Headlines

(1) Catholic Priest, Father Jay Scott Newman has distributed a letter to his parishioners urging them not to take communion until they have done penance for voting for Obama. Source. See, this was a tough call for me because, on the one hand, if I voted for Obama my eternal soul was in peril, whereas on the other hand, if I didn't vote for Obama, Tinkerbell would die. It was a tough call, but I think I made the right one. And Tink, you're welcome.

(2) Wallace Scarborough is protesting the results of his election loss. Source. Scarborough, who lost by a scant 211 votes, has challenged about 700 votes on the grounds that some of the people voted at the wrong precinct and did not cast fail-safe ballots, others voted in the district even though they no longer lived there, one polling place reported 27 more votes than the total number of signatures on the poll list, and because, c'mon, he's Wallace freakin' Scarborough, a REPUBLICAN, running for office in SOUTH CAROLINA, obviously there's something fishy about that.

(3) Gov. Sanford was named chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Source. That's right, Marky Mark is going to Washington, pigs in hand, to retool the Republican party. Meanwhile, while Sanford's veto pen is distracted by his new job of promoting a Republican return to it's bed-rock principles of limited government and low taxes, the General Assembly will be holding clandestine meetings to pass much-needed legislation while they have the chance.

(4) The South Financial Group, S.C.'s largest bank, is on the dole. Source. Even though they claim they're in good financial condition, a bank spokesperson stated that it was too hard to resist $347 million in free money. Word on the street is that they plan to add a little bling to the teller lines, ATMs will get a fresh coat of paint, and departing executive Mack Whittle will get a roll of diamond encrusted toilet paper, a bejeweled scepter, and a custom velvet portrait of himself standing atop the hopes and dreams of his customers, doing a mean fist pump, that plays a constant digital loop of Jay-Z's "Diamonds are Forever."

(5) Prison Fashion: Inmates in S.C.'s prisons who "commit overt sexual acts in common areas" will have to continue to wear pink jumpsuits. Source. Inmate Sherone Nealous lost a court fight to ban the use of the pink jumpsuits, sighting the fact that the pink really clashed with his eyes and that he would "rather have a nice paisley or argyle pattern." S.C. Prisons Director John Ozmint has reportedly been looking into the viability of adding some ruffles and lace to the jumpsuits and maybe switching the jumpsuit out entirely to bring in some more up-to-date fashions. "It all depends on what I see on the runways at Fashion Week," Ozmint said, "Who knows, maybe we'll introduce some patent leather, anyway you look at it, these inmates will be looking fierce."

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Exclusive: The Blue South Lands an Interview with Embattled Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia


We here at the Blue South are proud as heck to publish our exclusive interview with Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia's 10th District. Some of you may know Rep. Broun for his recent comments comparing our president elect to Hitler and Stalin, saying that Pres.-elect Obama is a Marxist who wants to establish an American Gestapo. Turns out, Rep. Broun is sorry for making those comments and he didn't mean what he said at all. Here's our exclusive:
TBS: Rep. Broun it's a pleasure to talk with you today.
Broun: Thanks, I'm glad to be able to fully explain my recent comments.
TBS: Well, then let's cut to the chase. What did you mean when you called our next president a Marxist?
Broun: Well, not to bore you with a history lesson, but if you look at Obama's record and his speeches, then take the third word from every sentence that contains the words "hope" or "change", then those words begin to spell out the first words of the Communist Manifest, by Karl Marx.
TBS: But we thought you were going to apologize...
Broun: Now, let me finish. See, if you take the letters from the name "Barack Obama" and take their numeric equivalent, you get 2-1-18-1-3-11-15-2-1-13-1, and if you add that up it comes out to 68. You want to guess what year Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto? That's right, 1968.
TBS: But the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848...
Broun: Ohhhh, you just got served.
TBS: Ok, so didn't you want to...
Broun: Thanks for your time, it's been a pleasure.

We here at the Blue South have been proud to bring you our exclusive coverage of this incredibly important issue. We would like to extend our thanks to Rep. Broun for graciously agreeing to say really stupid things in public and then have to come up with some logical reason for saying them. Keep up the good work congressman, and people of Georgia, look at the name next to the (R) on your ballot next time.

Sadly Ironic Quote of the Day

This gem comes to us from David Ignatius column in today's WaPo. The topic: the upcoming G-20 financial summit. Here's the quote:
Bush administration officials support some items in this package, but they are wary of the unintended consequences of new regulations -- particularly ones that are rushed through during a crisis.

Source.
See, I thought the Bush administration, the same one that declared war on a tactic and then used the "I'm a wartime President" excuse to curtail civil liberties, justify torturing and holding detainees indefinitely without a hearing, passing the USAPATRIOT Act, passing a $700 billion dollar bailout that gives god-like power to the Secretary of the Treasury, etc., etc., etc., thrives on crisis-mode.

Guess I was wrong.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Future of the Republican Party

I had an interesting conversation today with an author/scholar who thinks the Republican party is no longer, nor has it been for quite some time, on the side of federalism. He said that he has not voted for a major party candidate for president since (and it took him a minute to remember) George H. W. Bush. He then related how he stood in line at his polling place for two hours this time around only to achieve some sort of individual catharsis, knowing his vote would not make a difference.

This got me thinking about the state of the Republican party in the aftermath of the Democratic tide that washed in on November 4. Jim DeMint was also thinking about this. Funny, I didn't know he had the capacity and it turns out, I'm right. DeMint wants the Republican party to turn back to its "Reagan-ite" roots of limited government and low taxes. Source. Was Jim DeMint conscious during the Reagan years? Does he not realize that we underwent an unprecedented expansion of our military that cost taxpayers money that we've only just begun to pay back? Last I checked, the military is part of our government and spending money means you can only delay increasing taxes for a short while.

The truth is that Reagan was merely a pawn in the neoconservative hijacking of the Republican party. The Republican party of limited government and low taxes has not existed for a very, very long time. Sure, they may cut taxes here and there, but every president tinkers with the tax system. In fact, capital gains taxes were higher during the Reagan administration than they were under the Bush (2nd) administration. Does that mean that DeMint will be belly-aching for a return to the Bush-ite roots of low taxes and limited government as well?

My advice to Jim DeMint is to pull your head out of that place where all your thoughts seem to come from and look at the world around you. Limited government is a thing of the past. Federalism is dead. States are only as sovereign as the federal government tells them they can be. And lowering taxes at this point in our history is one of the most short-sighted panders I've seen in a long, long time. If people like Jim DeMint would quit pandering and misquoting history, take the reigns of Congress, and wield the power that was meant by our Constitution to be the most important power, then maybe, just maybe, our country could start climbing out of this mess we're in.

But hey, the Jim DeMint's of the world have to get reelected, right? Makes me sick. Where's the term limits lobby when you need them?

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Case for Raising Taxes (In a Nutshell)


There was a lot of campaign rhetoric about Barack Obama's tax policy being socialist, in that it seeks to redistribute wealth among the population. The problems with that characterization are legion, but the most glaring are: (1) true socialists seek to nationalize the means of production to harness the power of industry to redistribute wealth; (2) we have a progressive tax system, meaning that the marginal tax rate increases as income increases (e.g. tax brackets); and (3) (and I'll admit this is more editorial than factual) over the past two decades we have seen an enormous concentration of wealth in the upper echelons of our socio-economic structure that has lead to a real need to "redistribute" some of that wealth to a struggling middle class. Ok, so we are agreed, Obama is not a socialist. That's not really my point here, though.

We are going to end up spending trillions of dollars trying to grease the wheels of our credit markets over the next couple of years. We are fighting two wars. Our Congress sees fit to expand spending programs every time they get the opportunity. In short, we are spending a lot of money. So where's that money coming from?

In the macro-sense, that money can come from three sources: (1) we can borrow it; (2) we can print it; and (3) we can take it from our citizens. So far we have been borrowing vast amounts of money from China, Japan, and a few oil-producing countries to finance our wars and our deficits. I don't have time to verify this, but I'd be interested to see how much of our budget is spent each year just paying interest on those loans. My prediction is that when we hit the tipping point where the interest we pay on loans from other countries begins to outgrow our budget, those other countries will stop lending us money. So what do we do then?

Well, we can print the money...and watch the value of an already shaky dollar plummet. There are pros and cons to a weak dollar, but my point of view is that the cons vastly outweigh any perceived benefits. So if we need money to finance our entitlement programs and wars and economic recovery, I would say that printing more money to fill that need is a terrible idea.

So that leaves us with the problem of taxes. No politician that raises taxes can expect to keep his job. That's why we're in this mess. The problem is that the responsible thing for us to do as a society is to pay more taxes. But nobody wants to hear that. People like to drive on our roads, attend our schools, turn on their electrical appliances, talk on their cell phones, etc., but nobody wants to bear the burden of paying for all that. However, if we just raise taxes across the board, then we can all minimize the individual pain and begin building a road to a fiscally responsible government (provided they don't just spend all the new money on new toys, which is possible).

My point here is this: Obama's tax plan, to increase taxes on those making $250k or more is not some socialist, redistribute the wealth to those who didn't work for plan. It's really only a first step in a much needed journey toward fiscal responsibility. So when you see your taxes going up, don't just give the knee jerk reaction and vote in another George Bush who will refuse to raise taxes even when he and everyone around him recognizes that it is necessary. It will hurt us in the long run much worse if we don't start paying for our government services now and just keep running up interest on overseas bonds.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Goin' Rogue on the Daily Show

For anybody who didn't see this last night, it had me in stitches:

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Headline Innuendo-"Deep Boat"


Apparently one of our state's competitive grants for filmmaking has gone to a porn producer and the people are loving it. The State featured an article today entitled "Polls Find Deep Support for Drilling". I didn't bother to read the article, but from the headline, it's clear that "Drilling" is going to be a hit at the, wherever pornos are shown publicly place.

But on a more serious note, aren't we deluding ourselves a bit here people? I mean there's only about 20 billion barrels of oil out there. We use 20 million barrels every day. By my calculation, that keeps us burning that sweet sweet crude for only about another 3 years or so. Then we're right back where we started. Oh, and did I mention that it's going to take anywhere from 6 to 12 years to get the stuff on the market. Oh yeah, and it turns out that hurricanes come through a lot of those areas pretty regularly. Remember what Katrina and Rita did to gas prices? Oh yeah, and for those of you prone to hug a tree every now and then, it turns out that offshore drilling carries with it a significant risk of dumping a bunch of that black gold into the ocean and killing a whole bunch of animals, some of which we like to eat. Ooh, ooh, and I almost forgot to mention that pursuing this false solution is going to delay market forces that are driving innovation in new technologies to reduce our dependence on oil.

In sum, it seems like the whole offshore drilling debate is not much more than a red herring. My vote is to increase research spending on the stuff that can get us out of this mess permanently before we end up driving our cars like Fred Flintstone.

Everybody's Doing It...It Makes You Feel Good


Former Bush administration mouthpiece, Scott McClellan, seen here looking uncomfortable next to MC Karl Rove, has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Read the story here.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Quote of the Day


Alan Greenspan on why our economy is tanking:
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.

Oops.

So does that mean that Greenspan's mistake was trusting in one of the most basic tenets of capitalist theory? Talk amongst yourselves.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

From Wall Street to the Corner of Main and Gervais


So it turns out that reduced consumer spending means that we're going to have to cut about $500 million from the state budget this year. Apparently our state government receives about a third of its revenue each year from the sales tax. Oops. At least our legislature is cutting its budget instead of just running a deficit. That's refreshing.

Leaky Pipes and Our Growing Water Problem


Unless you have been living under a river rock for the past couple of years, you've noticed that we've been in a severe drought. Anyone who enjoys spending time on any of our numerous lakes and rivers can provide anecdotal evidence of the decline of water levels over the past few years. One of the most stark reminders for me of this phenomenon is the floating dock at the landing on the Congaree at the end of Rosewood Drive here in Columbia. The pilings to which the dock is attached tower over my head as I pull my kayak to the end of the boat dock, reminding me of the potential torrent the Congaree can become. Then, as I paddle into the middle of the river and get out of my boat I find I'm only standing ankle-deep in water. It's depressing.

However, despite my own selfish concerns for the river levels, there are also real concerns for Columbia and cities across the Southeast. Today American Rivers, a conservation group whose website can be found here, released a report outlining possible solutions for our drought-based water supply problems. The report, which can be found here, outlines 9 basic conservation measures that can save Columbia up to 27 million gallons of water per day. Those conservations measures are: (1) fixing leaky pipes (which account for up to 14% of our total yearly water use); (2) retrofitting buildings with new appliances (which account for about 20% of our total yearly water use); (3) smart landscaping (we use about 30% of our drinking-quality water watering lawns each year); (4) increasing the cost of water (we are capitalists after all, despite what Hank Paulson tells you); (5) metering all water users instead of allowing shared-use buildings to charge a flat fee for water usage; (6) increasing public understanding of our water challenges; (7) returning more of our saved water to rivers (they liken it to a water "savings account"); (8) involve water users in decisions about water policy (localized democracy...scary to the elites); and (9) build smarter in the future.

Sounds like a good plan, especially considering that a healthy supply of water is absolutely necessary to preserve any shred of our current way of life. My prediction, though, is that we'll build more dams and pray for rain. See, I'm beginning to realize that human nature tends to be reactionary. No matter how much we understand a problem, we are not apt to fix it until we feel the consequences. This is a sad truth, mainly because we have very smart people spending their time coming up with reports like this one and a whole bunch of people who will promptly ignore them. This complacency is endemic to our representative, republican form of government. We give more power than we have to to people and trust them to make these decisions for us. The problem is that we groan when those people actually ask for our money to implement the solutions and god forbid they start telling us to do things like fix our pipes or buy a new dishwasher.

For too long America has tried to have it both ways. We entrust our government to strangers and resist them when they do their jobs. In turn, they give up trying and just try to find other ways out of the problem. We end up with a massive national debt and a weak economy, then we turn to them to fix it. This is why I think the single greatest recommendation made by American Rivers is to involve the end consumers in the process of formulating water policy. This will cause people to become better educated through a public debate, they will see the consequences of the decisions before those consequences arise, and the people can have their solutions they way the people want them to be.

Direct democracy is not an easy thing to pull off. We are busy people and often perceive that we have little time to govern ourselves. But if we want to remain a free society, we must begin to democratize parts of our lives that we once entrusted to representatives.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

The quintessential American moderate has spoken. The video is worth a look. Sorry I can't get the embed to work right, so here's the link.

Update. Let's see if this works:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Gambler's Fallacy and Economic Collapse


I have play a lot of poker in my day...a whole lot. I used to sit around and watch the World Series of Poker on ESPN when I didn't have a game going. I marveled at the skill of the poker pros, the ones who made it time and time again to the final table. They carried an enormous amount of respect from the growing number of amateurs who found their way into the tournament. The commentators would profile the pros, tell us why they were so good at the game. Some of them were mathematical geniuses, they told us. They could figure the odds of winning at the drop of a hat. Some of them had an uncanny ability to see into the thoughts of their opponent, reading the twitch of an eye, or betting patterns, or some ephemeral glow about them that told the pro exactly what that person was holding.

I too once suffered from the hubris of believing myself to be a good player. I approached the table with an air of confidence, pushed more and more money into the pot until I came out ahead. But over time I learned something about poker. Players have varying degrees of skill that allow them to gain certain advantages, but ultimately, to win you have to have the cards.

Let's shift gears for a moment. The gambler's fallacy is the false belief that as a certain result occurs more and more over time, the gambler believes that the probability of that event happening again rises. The classic example is the coin flip. If I flip a coin 20 times and it comes up heads twenty times then, if I fall prey to the gambler's fallacy, I begin to believe that the probability that the coin will land on heads again is greater than 50%. The problem is that no matter if I flip a coin every minute until the day I die and it always lands on heads, the probability of it landing on heads never rises above 50%. However, my confidence that it will land on heads goes up each time, causing me to believe more and more that the coin is destined to land on heads no matter what.

It's the same thing with derivatives. The contracts were structured in such a way as to allow for such a small probability that their inherent risks would manifest themselves that the people engaging in these agreements began to fall prey to the gambler's fallacy. The problem with derivatives is the same problem with any investment: greater risk = greater (possible) reward. Thus, the companies entering into derivative contracts made enormous profits from them and managed to avoid the risk factors. But then home prices began to decline and the risk reared its ugly head.

We can only hope that our government learns that if it looks like a security, and quacks like a security, then it needs to be regulated like a security. There is a reason that the SEC was formed in the 1930s. There is a reason that we still abide by the Securities Act of 1933 and 1934. We learned a lot about the pitfalls of unconstrained finance in those years. Let's not forget those lessons.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

I Put a Spell on You...And Other Headlines


This week in unbelievable headlines comes the most unbelievable of all: Voodoo Priestess from Blythewood Hired to Kill? Oh man, you've got to read that story if you haven't already. I don't want to spoil it for you, but let's just say when you write a check to a voodoo priestess for putting a spell on your political opponent, make sure it doesn't bounce.

In other news, it turns out our state revenues are going to be about $550 million short of the 2008-2009 budget. I guess for all those people who wanted small government and never voted, congratulations, you win.

Howard Rich, in his attempts to become the next king of South Carolina, has sent threatening letters to notable SC Democrats, including former DNC chairman and USC professor Don Fowler, stating that their contributions to "a wide variety of leftist organizations" are being monitored. Rich also grew a pair of fangs and sprouted bat wings over the weekend.

The Boogie Man Cometh


"Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story" is about to open in theaters around the country. It is still playing at the Nickelodeon through October 14. For those of you who have not heard about the movie, it chronicles the rise and fall of S.C. native Lee Atwater. Atwater made his name as a win-at-all-costs campaign manager for George H.W. Bush and later as the chairman of the RNC.

The film follows Atwater from his early days in South Carolina through his death in 1991. Throughout the film, Atwater comes across as a lovable, yet sinister figure. Atwater was eulogized by James Baker as Machiavellian "in the best sense of the word." The film portrays Atwater as someone who was fiendishly adept at manipulating others, including the press, and who would stop at nothing to gain victory for his candidate.

For anyone who plans to vote on November 4, this movie is a must see. The ugly underbelly of election politics is juxtaposed with the dying plea of one of its most successful and ruthless purveyors that the slimy tactics must stop. It really makes you think, as a voter and a human being, about the process that elections have become. It makes you wonder how we allow our politicians to get away with being liars and thieves, with shirking any moral or ethical responsibility or dodging accountability through scapegoating others.

Atwater was a villain- there is no doubt about that. However the film has a way of humanizing the villain so that we can see ourselves in him. We can see our potential for evil, we can see our glaring imperfections, we can see how pathetic a life lived like Atwater's looks in the end.

Friday, October 03, 2008

You've Got to Know When to Hold 'em


There's a great article at Slate.com (here) that describes those all-too-complicated derivatives in terms we can all understand: gambling, baby, yeah! Turns out somebody smarter than me looked at what the banks were doing, figured out a mathematical probability of the investment banks making money versus total financial meltdown and came to the conclusion that what the Wall Street folks were doing was essentially a game of double-or-nothing. See, it turns out that, statistically, higher risk means a chance of higher reward, whereas lower risk leads to lower rewards. What the Wall Street folks were doing was concentrating risk in a way that makes it highly unlikely that their bets would fail, but, in the event that they did fail, well, armageddon. I don't really have much to add to the article, so I just suggest you read it and discuss.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Bailout Alternative Offered


Many of us are skeptical about the wisdom of the proposed $700 billion bailout. Turns out a few House Democrats share the sentiment. Enter Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) and his No BAILOUTS (Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security) Bill.
Aside: Is it just me, or is anybody else sick of the cheesy, strained acronyms that are forced onto just about every piece of legislation that comes out of Congress these days? Hey Congress, I've got your acronym: The DYJASWTCUWAA Act (DO YOUR JOBS AND STOP WASTING TIME COMING UP WITH ASININE ACRONYMS)

I won't bore you all with the details, which can be found here, but let's just say the price tag doesn't involve a 7 and 9 zeros. DeFazio's bill calls for increased oversight through the SEC (hey, at least he's not proposing yet another federal agency with yet another asinine acronym for a name), a popular increase in the FDIC insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000, and a "Net Worth Certificate Program" (and, in the spirit of this post, those are hereinafter referred to as NWCP's). The NWCP basically allows the FDIC to make loans to banks in exchange for a promissory note. A similar program was initiated in 1982 with much success.

Here's what I like about DeFazio's plan: (1) it doesn't just throw a whole pile of money at a big problem and hope that makes it better; (2) it attempts to establish oversight in the trading of securities, no matter what they're called; and (3) it doesn't bail out irresponsible companies that probably need to go by the wayside in order for our economy to truly recover.

This bill's definitely not as sexy as its $700 billion counterpart, but it's worth a look. More importantly, people are using their brains to find creative solutions to this problem instead of taking yet another Bush power grab and pretending it's going to save the nation from financial ruin. Our economy is screwed because there are fundamental problems with the way we've been doing business for quite sometime. Throwing a whole bunch of money at it is only a bandaid. The time has come to address the fundamental problems with our economy such as the fact that "service economy" really means that we don't produce anything and simply pass money between ourselves, continually putting a bigger number on it, when it really retains the same value.

Adding Insult to Insult

So the Senate has proposed its own version of a bailout bill, aimed at garnering more Republican support. My immediate reaction was that the new bill would include the erection of a golden statue of Ronald Reagan standing between the World Trade Center Towers waving an American flag that constantly plays a loop of Toby Keith's "Angry American (Courtesy of The Red White and Blue)". Turns out I was wrong, but that would totally be a bad ass statue. By the way, reader(s), I hereby commission artistic renderings of such a statue. These can be sent via email to thebluesouth@gmail.com. I'll post the winning submission on the site.

However, it turns out the Senate, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to attract Republicans with the old faithful of Republican support-garnering devices- tax cuts. That's right, our Senate decided to make a $700 billion economic rescue package (that's $700 billion dollars coming from the government) more appealing by reducing the amount of money the government can collect.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Please fire these people. Please, voters, fire these people.

Monday, September 29, 2008

The House Bails on the Bailout



The House of Representatives voted 228-205 today against the massive $700 billion economic bailout (or "buy-in" if you choose Rep. Pelosi's preferred nomenclature). Below are a few gut reactions:

(1) Hank Paulson won't get his chance to do the Scrooge McDuck backstroke in a room piled 8 feet deep with dollar bills (which, by the terms of the failed bill, he literally might have been able to pull off without congressional, judicial, administrative, executive, or any other type of oversight);

(2) The stock market fell 700 points, signifying what I've been thinking all along: these companies aren't really worth what we thought they were when that flashing number on TV kept going up and we kept buying stock based only on the flashing numbers instead, oh say, SEC filings and the like;

(3) According to minority leader John Boehner, he couldn't muster the Republican support for the bill because Nanci Pelosi hurt their feelings before the vote (if that is really true, I'm jumping off a bridge);

(4) We are still a semi-capitalist society (high five to the Invisible Hand);

(5) Giant corporations still can't borrow millions of dollars in day-to-day loans to pay for their operating costs;

(6) Giant corporations have to borrow millions of dollars in day-to-day loans to pay for their operating costs?;

(7) My power is still on, and I get cable TV and the internet, food supplies are steady, I own a shotgun, two serviceable fishing poles and a whole bunch of camping equipment, and there are no riots in the streets. All-in-all, not a bad day.

Ok, so on a more serious note, I'll explain why I don't support the $700 billion bailout (other than the 700 billion reasons I just gave, or, for my part, my $2,000 piece of it). Ever since September 12, 2001, the Bush administration has been pushing legislation down our throats via a weak, ineffectual and compliant Congress (both Republican and Democrat) in the name of perpetual crisis. September 11 was a crisis and it demanded swift action (which we never took). The Bush administration has found a great source of power in perceived crisis and has used that perception to demolish the traditional role of the executive branch in our government and the role of the government in our lives. Their latest escapade has been to push a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation down Congress' throat in the name of yet another in a long string of "crises." Bravo to the lawmakers who finally stood up (what took you so long?).

It is true that our economy is in bad shape. It is true that there are several fundamental economic problems that need to be solved and, if the markets are left alone to work themselves out, things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better. However, what we don't need is another 11th hour bill, rushed through Congress and signed by Bush's golden pen (subject, of course, to his signing statement) that ends up becoming yet another piece of regrettable crisis legislation.

Absurd Quote of the Day that Brought Me Out of Hiatus

You can hear the panicked screams emanating from Capitol Hill all the way down here in South Carolina. Lawmakers are suddenly faced with a very tough decision- how are we going to spend this $700 billion crisis money? Turns out that the bailout is deeply unpopular among the public, but hey what do we know?

This brings us to our absurd quote of the day that brought me out of hiatus. This gem comes from Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), who hails from the conservative 8th District of Georgia- the fightin' 8th. To set up the irony of this quote, I need only cite to Rep. Marshall's own website, the title of which claims: "Jim Marshall: Representing the People of Georgia's 8th District". Source. Seriously, check the link, its in the title, in big, bold letters. So imagine my surprise when I'm reading through the WaPo's coverage (Source) of the bailout this morning and I see Rep. Marshall saying this:
I am willing to give up my seat over this.
That's right, REPRESENTATIVE Marshall is willing to give up his seat to pass an incredibly unrepresentative piece of legislation that just happens to vastly extend the power of our federal government and enables our economy to continue down the road of becoming a full fledged Ponzi scheme, all because people (and by "people" I mean people in the Treasury Department and corporate America) got all freaked out because what is the equivalent of a large scale, corporate pay-day lending scheme stopped working. Gotta love it, folks!

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Quote of the Day & A Little Background

A gem like this:
“This thing is moving fast, and it’s impossible to predict,” Rainey said of the factors affecting the economy. “It’s hard to understand.” Source

prompted me to ask the question: who is John Rainey, and why is it so hard to understand?

John Rainey is this guy:



He's also chair of the SC Board of Economic Advisors, chairman of the board of Easlan Capital Inc., has not one, but two law degrees (USC, Georgetown), and, apparently, doesn't understand why SC's economy is tanking.

More to come later.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Random Bits of News

(1) NBC Nightly News, 6/26/08, 6:40 pm, view the story here.

NBC ran a story about North Korea's recent compliance with international demands that they make their nuclear program transparent. Pres. Bush has announced that he will remove North Korea from the official "State Sponsors of Terror" list in light of North Korea's recent actions. Sen. Sam Brownback responded: "We're legitimizing a genocidal regime." Ok, I'm not a North Korea apologist. People have legitimate and justifiable worries about North Korea's treatment of its own citizens. But what does nuclear transparency have to do with state sponsorship of terrorism? We haven't proven that North Korea did, or attempted to provide nuclear technology to terrorist groups. The closest anybody's has come is suspicion that a POSSIBLE nuclear site in Syria was erected using information and technology from North Korea. But the fact that North Korea found Jesus in regard to their nuclear program doesn't necessarily mean they've quit sponsoring terrorism. And further, in regard to Sen. Brownback's comments, can people please stop misusing the term "genocide"...please. "Genocide", according to the United Nations, means "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Source. There is no proof that North Korea's government has engaged in such practices, despite their despicable treatment of their own people. Like I said, I'm not apologizing for North Korea, I only want my government officials to accurately characterize world events.

(2) US Supreme Court hands down a couple of interesting rulings:

(A) Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker - the Court ruled that, at least in the context of maritime cases, punitive damages are limited to a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages. While the ruling was not a constitutional ruling and therefore not mandatory outside of the maritime context, the Court made clear that the problem of unpredictability of punitive damages (in this case, $5 billion against Exxon) extends into all civil cases and left the door open for similar challenges to other punitive damages awards. Source.

(B) District of Columbia v. Heller - the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms unconnected with any service in the militia. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, expressly overruled my April post on the issue (here), holding that the prefatory clause (e.g. the one about the militia) does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause (e.g. the one that says citizens can own guns). I'm honored that the Supreme Court saw fit to rule on one of my posts, even if they did get it wrong. Source.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Raw Data: Come to Your Own Conclusions

(1) Top 2 Oil Consumers in the World (Source):

U.S.: 20,730,000 bbl/day
China : 6,534,000 bbl/day

(2) The Dollar to the Chinese Yuan (Source):

March, 2003: 1 Yuan = 0.120192 USD
March, 2008: 1 USD = 0.141401 Yuan

(3) Of the $9T (that's $9,000,000,000,000) US debt, $5T is financed through treasury securities (as of 2007) (Source)

(4) The Dept. of Defense spent $666B in 2007 (Source)

(5) Top 5 Foreign Holders of US Treasury Bonds (Apr. 2008) (Source):

Japan: $592.2B
China: $502B
UK: $251.4B
Oil Exporters: $153.9B
Brazil: $149.5B

Saturday, June 14, 2008

McCain is Going to Lose Unless...

He runs against this guy:

McCain's people haven't figured this out yet. He is unelectable on Iraq and the economy and those are going to be the decisive issues this time around.

It's a pretty well-accepted phenomenon that candidates pander to the far right/left during the primaries and tend to move more toward the middle in the general. That's why I wasn't surprised to hear McCain's bad Iraq policy and bad economic policy up until he sealed the nomination. But he's been the Republican candidate for a while now and I don't see him moving toward the middle.

But moving toward the middle is not going to be enough of a winning strategy for McCain. He needs to move away from Bush's policies. Far, far, away. Miles away. If the world is a playground and Bush is in the sand box, McCain needs to be headed toward the jungle gym, pronto. This is his only real chance of winning in November.

Over the next month or so you'll see Obama begin to solidify his base and stake his claim to the Clinton voters. Even the ones that said they wouldn't support him will see McCain as an unacceptable alternative. Obama's already been playing the "Bush's third term" card against McCain. McCain deftly countered that Obama would be a second Jimmy Carter term, but the problem with that is that Carter's blunders are not fresh in the minds of every American.

If McCain truly wants to be the president, and not just a lame duck candidate in a year that his party doesn't think they have a chance (a la John Kerry, maybe?), then he's going to have to run against W. He needs to forget about Barack Obama, because this election is about George Bush.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Update: Some Speculate that Speculating is the Problem

WaPo Article Here

According to some lawmakers and some deep-pocketed investors, speculating on the futures markets is at least contributing to the higher prices. Apparently the regulations restricting futures trading to those who actually have a stake in the market (e.g. airlines, farmers, etc.) were lifted at the behest of companies (including Enron) in 2000. So, let's see, if we account for the policy lag, let's give it about, oh, 7 to 8 years, and here we are. Look's like the neo-cons' economic policies are about as useful as their foreign policies.

Basic law of economics: if it's cheap, demand goes up; demand goes up, price goes up; price goes up, supply goes up, price goes down. Ah, but what happens when the supply doesn't go up, or actually goes down? What happens when some players think they can manipulate the market to their own ends? A bubble, that's what.

If you read the article linked above, you'll see that the main concern of a commodities bubble is the effect it might have on financial institutions. So, what does this mean to the average consumer? Did it hurt your wallet when Bear Stearns collapsed? Is Wachovia's struggling margin really making it hard to put food on the table? No.

The real fear is that there will be a run on the banks like the one that happened during the Great Depression. If people don't have confidence in their banks, those people will take their money out of the banks. However, we have the FDIC that is supposed to insure runs on banks (or at least assure those who make deposits).

No, what is going to happen, and is already happening in the mortgage markets, is that credit will become more and more difficult to obtain. This is because we have become accustomed to living beyond our means and the financial institutions that have supported our habits are running out of suckers who will buy our debt.

Ultimately, when all is said and done, I expect to see a moderate adjustment in the standard of living for the average American, the poor will suffer the most (as they always do), and the concentration of wealth that has been building over the past decade will recede a bit. Then the banks will feel a little more comfortable lending us money, and the cycle will start all over again. Welcome to the bubble-bust economy. Without fundamental changes in the way we see money and credit, it will be a self-perpetuating phenomenon.

Friday, May 30, 2008

CFTC: "There Will Be Blood"

The US Commodities Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") has announced that it has been, and will continue to be, monitoring oil futures markets, both at home and abroad, more closely to ensure that the process reflects "fundamental economic forces of supply and demand, free of manipulation and fraud." Apparently the investigation began in December of 2007, just after oil prices hit $90 per barrel. The CFTC stated that they normally conduct these types of investigations in secret, but because of the extraordinary leap in the price of oil over the past few months, were announcing their investigation to the public.

We all know what pervasive fraud on the market can do to a micro-economy (see WorldCom, Enron). What is interesting in this case is, first, that the CFTC is actually investigating oil futures market practices before any bad actors get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and, second, that the CFTC has announced its investigation.

We are used to seeing the feds investigate bad actors in the financial markets. Anyone who has taken a look at the SEC rules can attest to the fact that the Feds have set up an elaborate scheme of regulations and pitfalls for would be fraudulent traders. What we are not used to seeing is a large-scale investigation of an entire market, especially one that occurs before the investors dump their shares and send the market plunging into oblivion (some might argue that's not such a bad thing for oil prices; I am not one of those people). Several possible explanations come to mind for why the CFTC might have launched its investigation in December instead of, say the day after oil prices plunge to mid-1990's levels and the futures market crashes. I don't want to speculate about the CFTC's motives, but it seems that either there was some evidence of fraudulent practices on the futures market that surfaced around Dec. 2007 or the CFTC is taking a more proactive approach than market regulators have in the past, oh let's say 7 years.

The fact that the CFTC actually announced its investigation is, at least according to the CFTC, a fairly extraordinary measure. Apparently they normally keep their investigations quiet and it is only after the recent massive jumps in the price of oil (30% or so in 5 months) that the regulators have disclosed their interest in the oil futures market. The CFTC's motivations for this one seem a bit more obvious- this is probably a shot across the bow for some institutional investors to go ahead and start cleaning up their practices and abandoning any market positions that might appear, well, fraudulent or manipulative. I'm interested to see where this goes, but, given the fact that the Feds have warned any investors who might be engaged in illicit practices, I'd say that we'll either see a gradual withdrawal from the market by those who might be tempted to engage in fraud or manipulative practices (most likely), or we'll see one or more big-time investors dump their shares suddenly, and send the price of a barrel of oil plummeting.

For my part, I'll keep watching the prices of oil, natural gas and other commodities with bated breath, and I am hopeful that we will see a gradual decline in prices that keeps a relative stasis between supply and demand because a sudden drop in prices, or a period of extreme volatility can be just as damaging as the unprecedented increases of late.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Interesting Story Related to My Last Post:

James Howard Kunstler, author of "World Made by Hand", a book about America's post-oil future, predicts a much bleaker future for our way of life. Read the story.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Economists Don't Understand High Oil Prices

A story in today's Washington Post centers around what seems to be a growing consensus that economists and industry "experts" don't understand exactly why oil prices are rising as rapidly as they are.

The Saudis refused Bush's entreaty to boost production because they didn't want to get caught holding the bag when the prices inevitably drop. They stated that supply and demand are currently balanced and that they didn't want to disrupt the equilibrium.

Some people are blaming speculators, citing some $90 billion of investment money being pumped through the markets in the last two years.

Everybody points the finger (at least partially) at China, which has become the flagship for the rapidly developing world. Certainly China, India, Brazil, and other rapidly developing countries are putting stress on demand, but then, at least according to the Saudis, supply is in balance with demand. Many of those same developing countries are heavily subsidizing oil and China particularly has been cited for hoarding oil in preparation for the Olympics.

Congress seems to think that OPEC is the problem in that they are keeping prices artificially high. The problem with that thesis is that it seems more likely that the weak dollar is to blame for OPEC's high prices. After all, can we really expect the OPEC countries to continue accepting $20 per barrel that is worth about half as much internationally as it was just a couple of years ago?

Further circumstantial evidence that it is actually our own fault that oil prices are rising so rapidly in this country is that, if you'll notice, every time that crude prices hit a new high the Dow drops about 200 points or so (270 yesterday). My theory in the correlation between oil price spikes and stock market tumbles is that all that money being leeched from the stock market is being pumped into the commodities markets which have seen exponential price growth, not just for oil, but also for corn, rice, and natural gas. As the demand for commodities futures rises, so does the price.

Ultimately, I think that high oil prices are a function of a confluence of factors: irresponsible financial policies on our part, both at the macro- and micro-levels (e.g. the credit markets and hyper-consumption); rising demand around the world as former 3rd world countries begin to industrialize and compete; different rules for different players (e.g. China buys its oil through state-negotiated contracts and does not pay market price); and over investing in commodities market as the boom and bust cycle that has plagued Wall Street over the past 20 years creeps into new territory.

The US solution is probably not going to lie in a business as usual approach, but rather we will need to innovate. We will need to move past the oil economy and into a new age. The problem is that no one really knows what resource will fuel the next era. Interestingly, this seems to be the first time (at least that I can think of) that humans have needed to transition from the fundamental mover of the economy (e.g. stone, bronze, copper, iron, etc.) due to pressures on the resource pool instead of simply using the technological gains of one age to bring about another.

The clock is ticking on the oil age. Global warming threatens the relative environmental stasis we have enjoyed throughout most of human history. Oil supplies are dwindling as new sources become more and more scarce. The question is whether or not we can transition from the oil age before it happens on its own.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

I Know Its Almost Summer And All...

But let's take a look at futures for natural gas and heating oil.


Crude oil prices are also hitting record highs almost every day. Bush just got back from Saudi Arabia where he asked the sheiks to boost production of crude oil. Know what they told him?
Demand does not justify increasing production at this time.

And, if you look at the above graphs, it seems the prices of heating oil and natural gas are also going up without the conventional pressures on demand (e.g. cold weather). My prediction: demand for blankets will spike around January 2009 when people begin to find that heating their homes is becoming prohibitively expensive.

Special thanks to my friend for bringing these graphs to my attention.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Let the Red Herrings Abound

First off, I do not think its a vast right-wing conspiracy that state supreme courts keep ruling in favor of gay marriage during election years. They're not nearly organized or principled enough to pull that off. However, I'm anticipating a blitz of media coverage on the recent California Supreme Court decision that not allowing gays equal rights to marry is unconstitutional (at least under California's Constitution). Here's the story I read. Of course its a sign of things to come when you google "massachusetts gay marriage decision" and the first 10 pages of hits are different articles about the California decision.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gay marriage. I applaud the California Supreme Court decision and, although I haven't actually read the text of the decision yet, their reasoning, as portrayed in the Washington Post was sound.

What bothers me about this decision is simply the timing. Here's what's going to happen: for the next couple of days the networks will be milking this story for all its worth in their traditional manner. Then something will happen. They will realize that there's a presidential election going on and that the candidates haven't spoken out on their positions on the issue in a while. John McCain will be asked and he'll say he's against it. Barack Obama will be asked and he'll say something to the effect that he supports it while trying not to irritate those of his supporters who might abandon ship if he comes out strongly for gay marriage rights. Hillary Clinton will say something similar to Obama and nobody will pay her any attention as the election train passes her by. But then the media will begin to harp on it. And they'll drive it into the ground, parsing every single word out of the candidates mouths, figuring out what blue collar white voters think about it, what black voters think about it, what moderates think about it, what Chris Matthews thinks those people think about it. We are going to be hearing about this through November, mark my words.

So, to do my part, absent some actual newsworthy story apart from today's headline, you won't hear anything else about it here. My take: good decision on the part of the California Supreme Court, I think they nailed the equal protection argument that's convinced me for quite sometime. Not sure how they got around the fact that, to my knowledge, homosexuals aren't a suspect class, at least according to the US Supremes, but I think the argument is there to make them one.

So there you have it. I'm not talking about this anymore.

Everybody's Got a Crazy In Their Corner

McCain supporter John Hagee has officially apologized to Catholics for "any comments that Catholics have found hurtful." Source.

Couple of Things:

(1) What a lame apology. If Hagee were apologizing to his wife for "any comments she might have found hurtful," he would still be sleeping on the couch. A true apology takes responsibility for one's words or actions, Hagee's shifts the blame to oversensitive Catholics.

(2) Catholics? Really? When did bigots start hating Catholics again? I really thought that was behind us.

(3) Here's the money quote from Hagee, exposing him for the true idiot that he is:
In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholics and Protestant relations with the Jews," Hagee wrote. "In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not.


(4) Hillary Clinton, if she is going to maintain any slim chance at garnering the nomination, is apparently going to have to gain the support of at least one crazy religious zealot. Given her disadvantage in virtually every category of electoral results, I suggest she go deep for her pick. I suggest Warren Jeffs. Now I know what you're thinking: Jeffs doesn't really say too many crazy things in public. But if Hillary really wants to make a splash, the leader of a polygamist cult who is currently serving time for aiding and abetting statutory rape is the guy for her. Nothing says "I've got a crazy minister in my corner too" like the potential first female president accepting the endorsement (maybe even marriage? I'm just saying...) of a guy who performs wedding ceremonies for 14-year olds.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

This Just In...Clinton W.Va. Landslide Bolstered by the Banjo Vote


W.Va. union United Banjo Pickers of Americky have put their support behind Hillary Clinton. According to the group's spokesman, their support was garnered due to suspicions about Barack Obama's ties to uppity banjo-picker Bela Fleck and his refusal to wear a West Virginia flag pin on his lapel.

Clinton was happy to accept the endorsement of the union, saying "We're going to fight on now that we have the majority of banjo-pickin' unions on our side, because everybody knows you can't win in November without the support of the Nascar dads and the Banjo moms/cousins." Clinton added: "Now that my campaign has the support of the majority of banjo unions we have clear evidence to bring to the superdelegates and an easy path down the river to deliverance (of the democratic nomination)."

Barack Obama refused to comment, but an inside source said he's already gearing up for Oregon's primary, courting the coveted granola-vote through his own special trail mix recipe.

John McCain couldn't be woken from his nap for comment (even though the phone rang like 30 times).

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Quote of the Day

This, from a story about Hilton Head dealing with the problem of over development of its shoreline:
The solution, like so many other things in Hilton Head, came on the back of a golf cart.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Exercises in Futility


One priceless picture and a few Sunday headlines that may make you shake your head:

In W. Va., Clinton's Disciples Persevere

That's right, the Clinton faithful(est) are still pushing the rock up the hill.

U.S. Legal Work Booms in India

This one truly amazed me: we are now outsourcing our legal work to India. They do everything but sign the papers and appear in court (because they are not licensed to practice in America). The upshot of this is that, if we continue sending high value business to India, eventually their wages will rise and it will no longer make sense to outsource (you know, a rising tide lifts all ships, etc.).

Growing Deficits Threaten Pensions: Accounting Tactics Conceal a Crises for Public Workers

Oops, looks like Arthur Andersen-style accounting has found its way into the public sector. Wait, you mean that government-run businesses are subject to the forces of ecnomics too?

Losing a Home, Then Losing All Out of Storage

People are losing their homes to foreclosure, putting all their stuff into storage facilities, and then losing their stuff when they don't pay their storage bills. Who's gonna stop those predatory sub-prime storage facilities?

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Am I Missing Something Or...

Isn't the Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Holiday supposed to occur during this summer, while George Bush is still president? Do they really think they can pass that legislation in a month without clear support from the Whitehouse or either chamber of Congress?

Of course not, because Clinton and McCain, along with every other economist, pundit, and average American citizen, recognizes that the idea is foolish and nothing more than a very transparent election year pander. I try very hard to believe what politicians say during election years, but the gas tax holiday proposal is such a pie-in-the-sky idea that even my most optimistic brain cell refuses to accept it as a well-reasoned policy stand taken by not less than 2/3 of the people claiming to be qualified to lead our country through the next four years.

I may be able to accept that the gas tax holiday is the offspring of McCain's overall economic policy. After all, he freely admits that he doesn't understand economics at all and, supposing in his economic ignorance he just tows the party line, well we've seen enough irresponsible tax cuts and deficit spending over the past eight years to get used to it.

But Hillary Clinton has no business supporting the gas tax holiday at all. By all accounts, she is probably one of the most well versed policy wonks on the Hill right now. Surely her "elitist" ivy league education provided her with a rudimentary understanding of basic macro economics. But nobody ever won over a vote by telling the American people that high gas prices are a function of increased global competition for a limited natural resource and refining capacity that, somewhat inexplicably, has not been increased since Hurricane Katrina exposed its weakness. Nobody won over a vote by explaining the hard truth that the days of dollar-a-gallon gas are long since gone in this country.

Here's an idea. Instead of proposing band-aids that don't even cover the wound, why not propose what we Americans have shown we do best in times like these: innovation. Hmm, I wonder what candidate has spurned the gas tax holiday and repeated his or her calls for expanded energy research programs? Oh that's right, the one who is winning.

Desperation is a Stinky Cologne...

Hillary Clinton before last night's pyrrhic victory:
"There are going to be the rest of these contests, which are very significant, and then in June, if we haven't done it already, we're going to have to resolve Florida and Michigan," she told reporters during a daytime event at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. "They were legitimate elections."


Source

Friday, April 25, 2008

Comment Period is Open on Vista Farms

The 30-day public comment period is open on the issue of flood zones and Vista Farms. If you are a resident of Cayce or own property there, now is your chance to let your voice be heard. Comments may be submitted through Cayce City Manager Johnny Sharpe. They are due by 5 pm on May 6 and can be mailed to Johnny Sharpe, 1800 12th St. Extension, Cayce, SC 29171.

I'll be posting more details on this story as I come across them.

UPDATE: Looks like this issue isn't important enough to make it onto the City of Cayce's website (apparently, neither is the month of April, they're still showing March's calendar). I've posted on the striking similarities between the Vista Farms Disinformation Project and the News site on the City of Cayce's official website. Previous post here.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

What Would Jesus Do?


Apparently JC has taken a side in the democratic primary. And his endorsement is...(drum roll, please)...Hillary Clinton. Who knew JC's political consultant was Carl Rove?

Props to Not Very Bright for the story and pic.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Sometimes the truth smells funny

This gem came from WaPo columnist Bill Kristof in today's Post:

Solar power is one of the most hopeful technologies but still produces about 0.01 percent of U.S. electricity. The U.S. allocates just $159 million for solar research per year — about what we spend in Iraq every nine hours.


Source.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

This Just In...Elitist Obama Can't Bowl; Clinton Found Drunk in Darlington Infield


Not only has barrack Obama lost his title as Kingpin of the Democratic Party, but now, in what can only be rationalized as a moment of disgrace and shame, has taken out his elitist anger on the little guy. That's right, for all you little guys who cling to your guns and bibles and immigrant hate in lieu of your economic interest and political ideals, Obama's not the guy for you (well, that shouldn't really be news).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton recalls how her "diddy" took her out behind the cottage and taught her to shoot. She then proceeded to get wasted with disenchanted PA voters. But did anybody notice what she ordered for her shot? Crown Royal. That's right, good ole gal Hillary went all top shelf on those voters. And let's just guess who picked up the tab. Think she sprung for it with a couple of her $109 million confirmed dollars (many of which I'm sure she earned at her job at the mill...before it closed *sob*)?

So here's the skinny on this "elitist" tag that's been stamped on Obama's forehead. John Kerry went hunting. John McCain gave the commencement address at Liberty University. Hillary Clinton got drunk. Connecticut aristocrat George W. Bush talks with a thick Texas accent. When it comes to black people, Bill Clinton "feels your pain." John Edwards is the son of a mill worker. Mitt Romney joined the NRA. All pandering to overgeneralized perceptions of their target constituencies. All Barack Obama did was identify a problem, call it what it was, and attempt to find a solution. Who wants a president who does that?

Sunday, April 13, 2008

The Problem With Fortune 500 Conservatism

I would like to issue a challenge to any neo-con out there to square his/her views with traditional conservative ones (e.g. Edmund Burke, NOT Rush Limbaugh). In the title of this post I am borrowing a phrase I heard during a course on business crimes - "Fortune 500 Conservatives". I have given a lot of thought as to what that phrase means and I have decided that it is best applied to those who identify with the "neo-conservative movement".

To make this conversation relevant, here are a few things that sicken me about the neo-con hijacking of our government that has occurred over the past 7 years:

(1) People at the FAA have been threatened with their jobs for...well, doing their jobs. Source.
(2) The Dept. of Justice has been politicized to the point that their legal opinions have become little more than punditry. Source. Source. Source.
(3) The FDA is in bed with pharmaceutical companies. Source.
(4) The Fed bailing out a failing investment bank that got caught in a tangle of irresponsible investments. Source.
(5) The privatization of our military. Source. Source. Source.

And those are just a few.

My beef with the Fortune 500 Conservatives is that their "political philosophy" is completely self-serving, disingenuous, and serves as an eroding force to the underpinnings of our system of governance. The proper role of government regulatory agencies such as the FAA and FDA is to ensure that the public safety remains a concern to corporations who are increasingly more concerned with the bottom line and who do not seem to mind a little collateral damage, so long as the venture remains profitable. Putting industry insiders in charge of regulatory agencies is a classic case of the fox watching the hen house.

Fortune 500 Conservatives are disingenuous in that they distract their "base" voters with red-herring issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and flag-burning to attain positions of power and then proceed to loot the government power coffers for their own benefit. All this comes at the expense of the American public and causes a significant portion of voters to continually vote against their own interests. And what is more insulting is that when a political candidate calls these people out, such as here, that person is immediately tagged as out of touch or elitist.

Over the past 7 years we have witnessed a large scale hijack of our government, particularly the agencies that are supposed to be guarding the public from being savaged by powerful corporations and inhuman forces of the private sector. For example, after telling us over and over how scared we should be of terrorist threats our government set up the Office of Homeland Security. Sounds like a good idea. I'm all for "homeland security". Of course what most of us did not realize is that in the process the director of the DHS, now Michael Chertoff, has the power to waive laws that get in the way of his intended projects.

Let's think about that last fact for a moment. One guy, who was never elected, has the power to unilaterally circumnavigate laws passed by Congress (all elected) to further projects that he and his army of bureaucrats have initiated. And for what do you think DHS uses this vast power? Stopping the latest Al-Quaeda threat? Strengthening the security around nuclear power plants? Nope, they're waiving environmental regulations to expedite the building of a fence along our border with Mexico. Source. If that is not eroding the separation of powers, the single-biggest check and balance on government provided our Constitution, then I don't know what is.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

And Castles Made of Sand...

So here I am, flogging the dead horse about flood insurance and risk and coastal/riverine development, and then there's this. Not only are we subsidizing the flood insurance for high cost/high risk development on the coast at the federal level, but we are also spending upwards of $100 million state tax dollars to subsidize the sand on which those monstrosities are built. And why are we renourishing the beaches? Because they are made of sand and sit directly next to nature's most powerful erosionary force- the ocean. I guess we'll never learn.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Louisiana Supreme Court Rules for Insurance Company in Katrina Lawsuit

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently decided a case involving private insurance of the flood damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina. The insurance policy at issue, like almost every other insurance policy that is not subsidized by the NFIP, contained the standard exclusionary clause for flood damage. The trial court and court of appeals both ruled that the word "flood" as used in the policy was ambiguous and, therefore to be construed against the insurance company. Those courts further found that because the flood that caused the damage resulted from failed levees and because "flood" as construed by the courts did not exclude flood damage from man-made causes, the policy covered the damage. The total judgment against the insurance company was upwards of $800,000.

The Louisiana Supreme Court overturned the lower courts, however, and declared that "...the entire English speaking world recognizes that a flood is the overflow of a body of water causing a large amount of water to cover an area that is usually dry
land," and that "flood" was therefore not ambiguous.

The disaster in New Orleans of 2005, due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, should serve as a warning to all of us that building things in the path of destruction is a bad idea. Insurance companies caught onto the idea years ago and began excluding certain types of damage from their coverage. Because of the greatly heightened risk factors associated with buildings in flood-prone areas, private insurers got out of the business of insuring flood damage. Our federal government, in all of its wisdom, took the place of the market-driven insurance industry and began subsidizing the development of high flood risk areas. Not surprisingly the program is now close to bankrupt, with a Congressional overhaul in the works that, instead of cutting back the program and acknowledging that some areas simply do not conduce to development, adds wind coverage to the mix and puts the NFIP in arguably worse shape than it ever has been.

Meanwhile, we have sensible courts like Louisiana's Supreme Court who read private policies as they were intended to be read and continue to allow private insurers to contract out of covering flood damage. On the whole, its an untenable situation that seems to have no good end in sight.

Here in SC, meanwhile, we have continuing coastal development (that is not only increasing in volume, but also in size and value) as well as developers trying to build on our riverine flood plains. All this in the wake of some of the worst floods on record in the Midwest.

The Louisiana Supreme Court opinion can be found here.

Mike Gravel is Crazy

Monday, April 07, 2008

SC Rule for Adverse Possession

Google Analytics tells me that a lot of people wind up on my site when searching for the SC rule for adverse possession. I suppose that's because of a post I wrote a while back called "Rule By Adverse Possession," which really has little to do with the actual rule. So, in order to satisfy the masses, here it is, the SC Rule for Adverse Possession:

"To constitute adverse possession, the possession must be continuous, hostile, open, actual, notorious and exclusive for at least ten years." Knox v. Bogan, 322 S.C. 64, 472 S.E. 2d 43 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996).

There it is, the people wanted it, and the people got it.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Individual Gun Rights and 6th Grade Grammar

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments over the Washington D.C. ban on handguns in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The reason the story is big news is that people seem to think that the time is right (e.g. we have enough Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices on the bench) to challenge the Court's long-held view that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee and individual's right to bear arms, but rather guarantees a collective right to bear arms- that is, in a nutshell, the right to raise a state militia.

Before I get into the 6th grade grammar lesson, here's a bit of Enlightenment political theory for you. The founding fathers of the U.S., and consequently our Constitution, were heavily influenced by Enlightenment-era political thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, Burke, and Rousseau. One of the fashions of the time was to write about theoretical, political utopias, the most influential of which (at least in terms of our Constitution) centered around democratic theory- that is, the logic behind democracy. The fashion was to begin the book with a picture of man in "the state of nature," and to show how man came out of that state and into civilized society, most often via a social contract. The idea was that man, while in the state of nature, was perfectly free, however harsh life might be without civilization. Rousseau, in particular, picked up on this notion and espoused the idea that man only left that perfectly free state when resources around him became scarce and the need for collaboration with his fellow man arose. Then they entered into the social contract.

After man enters into a social contract, the dual nature of his existence arises (that is the separation of "man" and "state") and a problem arises. How much of his liberty does man cede to the state? Locke thought that man retained a significant amount of liberty (or at least ought to), while Burke espoused a strong state wherein man retained very few liberties. One of the liberties that received a good bit of debate between the theorists was the so-called right of revolution. That is, the right of the people to declare their government illegitimate and shirk its chains (often very violently, see e.g., Burke's classic Reflections on the Revolution in France, wherein he argues a very weak, if nonexistent, right of revolution and points to the bloodshed and chaos of the French Revolution to illustrate his point).

This brings me to the 2nd Amendment. If you accept the proposition that our country was founded on Enlightenment political ideals, then it is not difficult to view the 2nd Amendment as the protection of our right of revolution. However, when you view our Constitution as it was originally intended, that is as the structural centerpiece of our national government, it is probably more accurate to say that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the States' right of revolution against the federal government. State constitutions, then, would be the proper outlet for any individual right to bear arms.

And now for the grammar lesson. With all that historical context in place, it is time to look at the text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


So let's separate the clauses. (1) A well regulated Militia; (2) being necessary to the security of a free State (notice that "State" is capitalized, this is how the States were referred to in the Constitution); (3) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (notice that "people" is not capitalized); (4) shall not be infringed.

There is no question that clause 1 modifies clause 2. Let's keep those aside for a moment. There is also no question that clause 3 modifies clause 4. The central question in the argument over individual or collective rights to bear arms, then, is whether clauses 1 and 2 are independent of clauses 3 and 4. What's the 6th grade way of figuring that out? Switch them around: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." Oops, that sentence doesn't make any sense. In this formulation, the formulation necessary to bolster the individual right argument, clause 2 is dangling. It doesn't stand alone. Thus, clauses 1 and 2 (which we've already agreed modify each other) must modify clauses 3 and 4. And there you have it, a 6th Grade grammatical analysis of the COLLECTIVE right to keep and bear arms.

Now, before members of the NRA start picketing my front yard, I would like to qualify my argument by noting that just because the right to bear arms is, in my view, a collective one, does not mean that the federal government has the power to pass a law banning all weapons. It does allow the states to regulate the ownership of weapons in a manner consistent with the 2nd Amendment (hence the proper prohibition of felons or mentally insane people from owning guns, or good laws that prohibit people with concealed weapons permits from bringing them into places that serve alcohol). We are far, far away from a time when the government will knock down the door of a law-abiding citizen and seize his firearms. We Americans, by and large, love our guns and the political will to take them away from us simply does not exist.