During last night’s debate, you answered that you’d support a death penalty moratorium if you were elected governor of the state of Texas even though our state constitution doesn’t give the governor that much authority (many people continue to belabor under the false assumption that a Texas governor has broad powers to commute or pardon sentences when, in fact, the state constitution only allows such authority if the Board of Pardons and Parole recommends such to the governor). You elaborated by saying that “a lot of innocent people have been killed.”
I have two questions:
- How many “innocent people have been killed” via the death penalty in Texas?
- What are their names?
I’m not going to hold my breath awaiting an answer to either question but I’d really like to see the media follow up this claim, particularly with stronger “evidence” than has been cited in possibly exonerating Cameron Todd Willingham. Shami’s claim is plural; I want a list of “a lot of” names, otherwise I think Mr Shami owes the state — and its juries, judges, and appellate system — an apology for maligning the state in a most despicable fashion. It’s one thing to support a moratorium, but it’s something else to exaggerate and engage in hyperbole and outright lies. The former isn’t incompatible with serving in public office, but the latter should be grounds for anyone to dismiss such a candidate as a thoughtless crank.
Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, has reported to Congress that despite the softened blow to the financial sector there remain many problems that could expose US taxpayers to even bigger problems. His report specifies trouble in several areas, including mortgage lending (and security of mortgage debt backed by taxpayers) and exacerbation of problems he sees with respect to the fundamentals of the system such as “too big to fail” and executive compensation.
The report points out that companies “too big to fail” have actually enlarged due to TARP. This is one of the ironies of the post-Massachusetts senate race as Obama has shifted focus from health care reform to a populist bashing of the banking industry. What the fuck is he thinking if in 2008 and 2009 an appropriate “solution” is to force one company to take over another as a matter of national interest (e. g., Bank of America’s take over of Merrill Lynch at the “suggestion” of Hank Paulson) and in 2010 the remedy is to break it back up? I know this clown lacks any real world work experience (and has assembled a team around him with little more than he has outside of community organizing or teaching), but doesn’t he at least pay attention to his own level of intellectual consistency about such things?
Barofsky also warns that government may have actually exacerbated the housing market bubble:
The government has done more than simply support the mortgage market; in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor.
The fact that government wanted to intervene in the markets was alarming enough to me, but I knew the only reforms that would be attempted would be window-dressing at best and re-regulation of private industry at worst. We’re getting both of those. Government has done nothing to change its policies — such as Community Re-Investment — which encouraged risky lending practices banks and other institutions never would’ve gotten into if not for laws and regulations requiring such. Government also hasn’t shown a willingness to stop underwriting losses of bad businesses at the expense of the good ones. Not every bank and mortgage company had to be bailed out because some were principled enough to know that it’s folly to make a business out of loaning sizable amounts of money to people who have no ability to pay; accordingly, they passed up on Fannie/Freddie and had smaller exposures to sub-prime portfolios. It’s possible to make money loaning to people who can afford to pay you back, but it’s hard to make money off those who shouldn’t be buying houses, cars, and other large items without first establishing the ability and creditworthiness to pay off loans.
The most fundamental reforms the government needs to take remains getting out of two things:
- Insuring banking and financial industry losses, and
- Creating incentives or requirements for lenders to take greater risks than they can stomach.
Instead, the government continues to look at ways to regulate banks into doing things elected officials think they should or shouldn’t do. The administration isn’t offering new solutions, it’s still disallowing banks to make valid risk analysis of every borrower (and encouraging lending to those who are too risky), strong-arming lenders into lending when there’s little or no demand for loans (hint: right now there’s an abundance of cash on the sidelines and not enough borrowers — it’s not exactly an environment conducive to writing lots of loans because of the uncertainty peddled by and resulting from this administration), and determining how much executives should be paid rather than letting boards and shareholders decide.
The government — speaking here of federal, state, and local — has a very serious issue about its own creditworthiness right now. It has made promises it simply cannot back up. That includes all these programs and attempts to “save” the very industries its policies and laws encourage lenders to make “risky” (or at least “riskier”) loans as well as entitlement programs which are becoming increasingly top-heavy (with more “takers” than “payers”) and public sector pension programs. Never mind a massive spike in the budget deficit thanks to the reckless spending habits the Democrats running Congress said they’d stop in 2006 and haven’t yet; now with a president from their party, they’re out of control and raising debt limits on a frequent basis.
How bad would things have gotten if institutions hadn’t been deemed “too big to fail”? Lehman was allowed to fail. Yes, it made things rather unpleasant. Surely things could’ve been more unpleasant had others faced bankruptcy (which didn’t kill Citi) or sale of assets — toxic or otherwise. But at least those in the strongest position would’ve been able to consume any of the weaker companies, or at least the parts of their businesses with actual worth, and the weak would’ve been displaced. Instead, the government has shored up the weak at the expense of the strong and thereby made the whole economy as fragile as its shored-up weak links. Shouldn’t be a surprise considering government is filled with too many lawyers bent on various forms of “justice” that have nothing to do with justice and idealists who lack actual business experience; in their collective milieu, it’s noble to take from the successful and give it to the unsuccessful and consider it public service — they don’t care about the results of their programs.
And that’s a systemic problem: government policy isn’t about actual results, it’s only about placating interest groups whether policies ever actually live up to their promises. Our binary party system only results in a pissing match between which one will live up to its promises before corrupting itself and bankrupting the nation in catering to its ever-increasingly polarizing partisan interests. What it’s shown is that neither party can be trusted with power over any branch of government, and the American people should dread when the Congress and White House are run by one party. Too often, the parties prove themselves to be two sides of the same coin.
Barofksy’s report lauds government’s actions to some degree but at least is honest enough to admit that the bailouts created more risk in the system. When will those in government look at their own handiwork and see that it’s more often than not made things steadily worse instead of better?
The phrase that comes to mind is “irrational exhuberence.” I’m talking about the glee following the initial look at last quarter’s GDP, which the government pegs at a whopping 5.7%.
Why am I not impressed? Many reasons.
- This is quarter-to-quarter. Meaning, it’s comparing 2009Q4 to 2008Q4. If you don’t remember the last quarter of 2008, let me remind you that the economy had become paralyzed on the news of pending collapse of the financial sector and our entire economy. This resulted in subsequent massive government spending and interference in the markets to prop up the financial sector, flailing automobile sector (including the government take over of GM and taking it upon itself to sell Chrysler to Fiat) and “cash for clunkers,” stimulus plans which seem only to reward political cronies and punish political enemies, and a failed (thankfully) attempt to take over a sixth of the US economy via health care.
- Also related to 2008Q4, business spending ground to a halt due to uncertainty. Even with some certainty, it wouldn’t take much spending to create an inflated “improvement” in growth. How much certainty is there now? Confidence remains low. Companies aren’t hiring. The administration has tried repeatedly to strong-arm banks into lending again; the State of the Union speech included a platitude about the government lending directly to small businesses. This isn’t recovery — this is a half-assed attempt to continue reckless centrally-planned economic policies.
- Real final sales (GDP minus changes in domestic inventories) rose only 2.2% annualized. Consider that in relation to the next point because I believe it demonstrates that businesses aren’t expanding inventories at a sizable enough clip to begin hiring new workers any time soon.
- Consumer spending increased 1.44% quarter-to-quarter. Remember again where things were in the last quarter of 2008 with many people cutting back on expenses due to Paulson’s and Bernenke’s scare-mongering that led to the bailout of the financial sector.
- Housing grew by 5.7%, but this has been spurred on — like so many other things (e. g., car sales) — by government subsidy. Yes, growth via spending thanks to tax and other incentives always count in GDP but we’ve never had so much in the form of government subsidies and breaks accounting for GDP growth (remember this when you read the reports about the growing deficit: private sector economic growth is required to increase revenue to the federal government).
- Government has expanded. The private sector hasn’t yet.
I’m not saying the sky is falling. I didn’t believe it was in 2008 — and I don’t think we’d be in such bad shape now if the economy hadn’t been psychologically crippled by however many billions of dollars those overseeing our financial sector insisted we pay to prevent said sky from falling. We’ll never know for sure, but we can be sure that spending all this money has so far proven to keep the economy weak enough that we have over 10% unemployment, shrinking revenues (and the pledged folly of higher taxes) to all levels of government, and a federal government floating an unprecedented amount of debt in an environment in which debt obligations are hard to sell. Recessions and slow downs aren’t always tied to rational, fundamental issues; it’s easier to get out of recessions where fundamentals are allowed to sort themselves out. Psychologically-driven recessions — in which irrationality is the order of the day despite the fundamentals — are harder to get out of because nobody wants to take that first step in hiring new people, adding inventory, or doing other things which reflect faith that the economy either has or will soon improve.
So what I am saying, however, is that we shouldn’t delude ourselves that we’re recovering well or even that we’re out of recession. Technically, we weren’t in one when our “experts” scared us into believing the sky was falling. We took their bait and sure as shit ended up in a recession. Technically, if these numbers on top of last quarter’s are true, we’re no longer in a recession.
If so, will government begin to contract and pull its hand back from meddling so the private sector can expand? Or, as I now fear, are we stuck with power-hungry central planners who think we need even more meddling? All indications are that this administration remains hostile to the private sector and their actions and plans for spending even more money (like building high-speed train lines — how’s Amtrak doing, btw? — while floating balloons about meager spending freezes) tell a different story.
Just like I think the new GDP figures do.
A 5.8 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of the Cayman Islands at 9:23am US/Eastern (which is also local time in the Caymans). Updates and weird explanations for this earthquake to follow on tomorrow’s 700 Club with Pat Robertson.
Christopher Hitchens hits the nail on the head with his latest column, which looks at natural disasters (in general) and Haiti (in particular) in a more rational manner than Pat Robertson did:
…[P]lease do not forget that Mother Teresa came to Port-au-Prince in 1981 to receive the Haitian Légion d’honneur from “Baby Doc,” as well as to accept stolen money from him, and that the Vatican protected the foul system for as long as it was able. In September 1992, exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide denounced the Vatican from the podium of the United Nations, correctly pointing out that it maintained the only embassy that still recognized the continuing post-Duvalier dictatorship. Unfortunately, Aristide’s own brand of religious populism was a failure. Still, one cannot believe that the Almighty has recently slaughtered so many Haitians because of the unbelievable squalidness of their competing priesthoods.
Hitchens also notes that “the heaviest lifting will, in fact, be done by nonreligious outfits like UNICEF and the International Red Cross (which may sound Christian, but isn’t)” and “[t]he biggest work of all will be performed by carrier groups and airborne brigades of the United States, the taxpayer-financed forces of a secular republic.”
Ignoring scientific explanations like plate tectonics, Pat Robertson yesterday blamed the earthquake in Haiti on “a deal with the devil” over Haiti’s freedom from France. The “deal” — involving the US, not Satan (unless you share an Iranian view of the world) — is explained in this article and came following a protracted civil war and slave uprising.
Haiti’s ambassador to the US last night gave a broader historical perspective of the reparations Haiti paid for its freedom from France and how it ties the United States and Haiti together. Were it not for the conflict over freedom in Haiti, Napoleon’s price for Louisiana would’ve been much higher and could’ve resulted in a protracted conflict between the US, Britain, and France in the middle of the continent. Haiti’s fight for independence — and ending slavery — is an intractable part of our own history. Not only did the fledgling US expand westward, it eventually led to our own Civil War to end slavery.
Haiti is an impoverished nation today because of the costs of reparations to France, and also because of its domestic politics. These problems haven’t occurred in a vacuum. US policy has long exacerbated the problems with high-interest loans, and we looked the other way during the Duvalier family’s oppressive reign. The Times article linked above attributes 45% of Haiti’s continued debt obligations to the looting of the Haitian treasury by the Duvaliers.
As far as storms and earthquakes go, these aren’t signs of a curse. These are natural disasters which have scientific explanations. The Caribbean is far from a placid, homeostatic region. It is in flux. It has active volcanoes (e. g., Montserrat) and hot springs. It marks the convergence of several plates; it has major faults just like the one Port-au-Prince was built upon. It’s in the middle of one of the most active spots on earth for tropical storms (including hurricanes).
All these things preceded the deal in 1804 Haiti made to purchase its freedom from France. They were there long before Columbus reached the New World. All these things precede Biblical history. And they don’t have a fucking thing to do with Pat Robertson or his crazy beliefs.
During times of crisis and a gut-wrenching disaster affecting millions of our hemisphere’s poorest residents, blaming things on the devil is an explanation which deserves nothing but contempt.
I have some ribs out in my smoker — breaking my first resolution of 2010 (to eat healthier). The funny part is, there’s no way a year ago I would’ve used an electric smoker. Now I can’t see myself ever fiddling around with wood, charcoal, or flames again.
I used to only smoke over real wood. I thought all that work led to superior results. No so. I find that I have more stable heat control and better control of smoke by using an electric converter. It is far less work with at least similar, if not better, results. I used to think electric smokers were for novices, but I appreciate the fact that I can set the thing up and forget about it for a few hours while I go do something else. The one thing I despised about BBQing or smoking before was checking my fire to make sure it was neither too hot nor too cold — which is difficult in el cheapo water smokers like mine.
Moreover, my local fire codes forbid the use of a fueled pit within a certain distance of structures. Those rules do not apply to electric smokers so long as there is no fuel added. Since I live in a condominium, that means I’m not required to find a space a legal distance from buildings. I still keep it some distance from structures, but my primary concern now is proper ventilation. I could legally even put it on my deck but I think it’s much safer not being on or even near wooden structures.
I made a dry rub yesterday consisting of a mild chili powder (meaning strictly ground chilis, not a mix containing other spices), salt, pepper, cayenne, garlic powder, and onion powder. The meat smelled very good when I put it in the smoker. I’m using pecan, which is a hickory. It should take about eight hours for them to cook. I’ll have them with the superstitious legume du jour (blackeyed peas), baked potato, and salad. That’s it. Real BBQ doesn’t need or come with sauce.
Camera and phone need to be charged so I’ll try to post some pics later. Now I have a resolution to keep: exercise.
Edit: Finally got a chance to get the pics uploaded. This is about an hour before I took them out.
The meat was super moist. And like I wrote earlier, there’s no need for any sauce. All it would do is mask the smoke, seasoning, and natural flavor.
Several sites I’ve read this morning have linked to the Pew Forum’s survey of how religious Americans are by state. First, I was a bit surprised that Utah wasn’t the most religious state (12th) considering the role of the Mormons in founding and running that state. Second, I was surprised border states — with influxes of mostly Catholic immigrants — were further down the list; Texas was 11th, New Mexico 29th, Arizona 33rd, and California 35th. I wasn’t too surprised by the polarization between North and South: the most religious state was Mississippi, the least (aggregated) were Vermont and New Hampshire.
I quickly found some csv data at datamasher.org for some other facets of American life to see if there are any possible correlations. Here are a few charts I made in OpenOffice.org. The top five religious states are highlighted in red.
First, poverty rates. No big surprises here. Correlation? You be the judge.
Next, let’s look at graduation rates. I already knew from the 1992 election that Arkansas was an anomaly among Southern states. The bigger surprise in this chart was the low rate for Nevada. No wonder a fucktard like Harry Reid has been elected repeatedly over there.
Finally, let’s see the chart for teen pregnancy rates. I suppose a lot of these religious kids are taking the command to be fruitful and multiply very seriously.
I don’t know enough about the data to make direct correlations between religion and these three issues to the same degree of certainty that I think is established between one of them (poverty) and the other two. I also wish I’d had more time to chart data for other things like crime rates (non-violent especially), divorce rates (though I’m very familiar with the link and other studies which show that states where people tend to get married at earlier ages have higher rates of divorce and remarriage), and perhaps other things like time spent reading versus watching television.
I may revisit this subject in the near future.
