Controversation.com http://controversation.com/ If opinions were cool, I'd be Fonzi. en Copyright 2008 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:01:53 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.2ysb5-20051201 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Oil, Gas, and Gusts of Hot Air
Are the oil companies no longer evil?

After all, several months ago it was the greed of evil oil company executives that caused record high gas prices, right? Therefore, does this present plummeting in prices mean that big oil CEOs have had a come to Jesus moment? Have they been visited by three spirits in the night? Have their consciences finally caught up with them?

Perhaps this is a manifestation of the watchful eye of a democratic congress. Perhaps Pelosi is double-fisting her Speaker’s gavel, ready to play whack-a-mole with any greedy oil executives that dare pop their heads up and announce price increases. I’ve even heard murmurs that there is a dastardly plot by the Bush administration to artificially decrease prices until he leaves office, and prices will spike again when Obama takes over. Sigh.

Or perhaps… wait for it… Oil prices have nothing to do with greed. *Gasp!* But how can this be so? We’ve been told over and over that board room fat-cats are the cause of all our pump-price woes! Could we be so wrong?

Think about it... If greed were the primary driving force behind oil prices, and prices were adjusted at the whim of a faceless and money hungry corporate aristocracy, why on earth would we be seeing such dramatic price plunging? Wouldn't keeping oil prices level, or offering a minimal reduction, do more to sate a voracious greed than selling at record lows? Truly, I am at a loss. If anyone here maintains that greed hold the reigns of the oil industry – more so that any other industry, of course – please share with me a narrative that properly reconciles your assertion with the prices we currently enjoy.


In my estimation, there are two primary reasons that oil prices have dropped. Neither has anything to do with greed or lack thereof, and neither is difficult to understand:

1) The value of the dollar continues to climb, meaning that US oil companies enjoy greater purchasing power vs. foreign oil producers. As the dollar gets stronger, US companies are able to buy more oil from the Middle East, South America, and Canada for the same amount of money. Since oil companies operate almost entirely on percentages, that difference is passed on to us at the pump.

2) The continuing pressure on Washington to increase domestic oil production is producing a market-wide cooling effect. Since the future supply of oil is now likely to grow at a faster rate than demand, a declining oil price is a safe prediction. Speculation on oil futures is down, and oil producing nations are anticipating an increase in production from US domestic sources, meaning the overall oil market is preparing for more competition – always a good thing for the consumer - and adjusting prices accordingly.


Of course, there’s no guarantee that the value of the dollar will continue to climb, or that an increase in domestic production will actually happen. If the dollar sinks, or if local sources remain untapped, we will surely see oil prices climb back up the chart.

When and if that happens, I’m sure that the greed of Big Oil will again be trumpeted as the culprit. But, if you’re reading this, maybe you won’t fall for it next time around.

]]> http://controversation.com/2008/11/oil_gas_and_gusts_of_hot_air.html http://controversation.com/2008/11/oil_gas_and_gusts_of_hot_air.html Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:01:53 -0800 Your Move, Mr. President
Those on the left hail the coming of a newly anointed Democratic paragon; one more capable and confident than any since JFK. Those on the right bemoan a national shift toward proto-socialist policies that will further depress the economy and chip away at the American Dream.

Both sides are partially correct.

Obama is indeed a verbal magician; the ostentatious flourishes and anecdotal grandeur of his speech-craft rival any who have ever stood behind a podium. His campaign was masterful, coupling a tenacious and well executed grass-roots effort with the agility to avoid being tied to policy specifics or dubious associations. His message was simple but powerful, ‘hope and change’, at a time when our nation is in dire need of both. It is easy to see why the Democrats are energized, and Obama’s political proficiency cannot be impugned.

But…

Obama ran on an anti-war ticket. No one on his campaign anticipated the overwhelming successes we’ve seen in Iraq since last summer. During the primaries, Obama promised a 16 month timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Now that both the Bush administration and the Maliki government have proposed similar strategies, Obama’s promise is far less potent than it was last year.

Instead of the war, Obama’s central rival is a floundering economy – again, something no one on his campaign predicted early on. While hope and change are wonderful words to use when taking an anti-war position, such expressions have little effect on collapsing credit markets. Faced with economic downturns, the Obama presidency simply will not have the money to pursue the broad and sweeping social reforms previously promised. Instead, they will be forced to delay, or perhaps abandon, the oft-discussed tax increase on the top 5%. To initiate this tax increase could prove to be the final straw on our struggling economy, leading to a meltdown that would grievously injure the new administration at the outset. My prediction is that Obama is savvy enough to know this, and will act accordingly, moving towards the center in his economic policies.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have picked up several seats in Congress, providing them with a comfortable majority. Both Pelosi and Reid have begun to whisper about applying the $800 billion in bailout funds to prop up the floundering auto industry. In this, Pelosi may actually turn out to be more of a rival than an ally to the new President, since her movement left is taking place at exactly the time when Obama is compelled to move towards the center.

Obama steps into the Oval Office on January 20th, and until that day he must ponder his opening gambit. Will he move to satisfy his liberal base or the popular majority? To slake the thirst of the far left, he must embrace the nationalization agenda of Pelosi and Reid. However, America is still a center-right country, and a step slightly toward center will do much both to suture the wounds of our hemorrhaging economy, and to appease the baying hounds on the far right.

If Obama is as intelligent as he seems – and he seems extremely intelligent – the hair-pulling tantrums and gloomy countenances on the right may prove to be unwarranted overreactions.


]]> http://controversation.com/2008/11/your_move_mr_president.html http://controversation.com/2008/11/your_move_mr_president.html Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:58:22 -0800 Marriage of Convenience, Take 2 The maelstrom surrounding Proposition 8 here in California, and the resulting flurry of messages I have received concerning said, have cajoled me into writing a second piece on this topic.

If you have not read my previous article concerning homosexual marriage, titled "Marriage of Convenience," you may want to go through it, as well as the associated comments, before reading further.

This is a long one, so strap in. If you need to go get a beverage before we start, I'll wait.

--

Forward

We must acknowledge that there is indeed discrimination against homosexuals from a portion of our population. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who abhor differences in appearance, behavior, religiosity, and taste. To counteract this agency, we must, in good faith, dissect arguments for and against homosexual marriage as objectively and accurately as possible.

I have discussed this topic with many proponents of homosexual marriage who are disappointed at the overtly dogmatic religious stances that make up the bulk of the arguments against gay marriage rights.

Also, many opponents of gay marriage lament that if they voice their dissent, they are immediately labeled as religious fundamentalists, ignorant bigots, and/or insensitive jerks, regardless of the substance or merit of their arguments.

I aim to remedy both of these complaints forthwith.


Purpose

The purpose of this writing is not to 'win' the argument for or against gay marriage rights, but to properly frame the most effective and rational arguments in favor of maintaining the classical one-man-one-woman definition of marriage.

At no point in this writing will you find Biblical quotes, nor any commentary on whether or not homosexuality is good or evil, right or wrong. This is an entirely secular writing, and I have labored to keep the language as rational and scientific as possible.

You may find, however, comments or assertions that test the limits of your emotions. While I make no claim to be an expert on all facets of this argument, there is a wealth of over-emotional and wrongheaded thinking concerning the facts in this debate. My attempt here is to separate what is true from what is comfortable. As such, I openly accept and appreciate any disagreements with what follows, assuming such assertions are properly presented and corroborated.


To The Supporters of Gay Marriage

For most people who champion gay marriage, there is a reflexive and instantaneous emotional push against any position to the contrary. It is understandable; emotion tells us that any argument against homosexual marriage is a direct attack on the entire gay community, most likely rooted in ignorance or bigotry, and therefore must be mercilessly repelled with all haste and vigor. Moreover, since such arguments are likely born of loathsome intentions, the character of the opposition can fairly be called into question.

I challenge you to temporarily shelve your emotions and wrestle with the substance of what follows. Even if you are absolutely, positively, unwaveringly in support of gay marriage rights, by understanding the best arguments against your position, you will make yourself more effective in communicating your stance, and more formidable in future debates.

I state again, my aim is not to impugn the homosexual lifestyle, but to properly paint the most effective secular and non-religious arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage.


An Ethical Conundrum

To begin with, I'd like to ask a couple of hypothetical question that highlight a deep divide on this topic – a divide that transcends partisanship and politics.

Question 1: If it were possible to detect and safely reverse homosexuality in the womb, would it be ethical and/or preferable for a parent to do so?

Question 2: If it were possible to safely reverse homosexuality in an adult, would mandating such a practice be ethical and/or preferable?

There is a wide consensus on both of these questions – a consensus that reaches beyond the camps for and against homosexual marriage. The vast majority, if answering honestly, will state that safely reversing homosexuality in a fetus would be an acceptable and understandable parental choice. Conversely, the vast majority would not support forcing the homosexual community to undergo sexual re-orientation. Our answers reveal much about how we collectively view homosexuality.

We intuitively understand homosexuality to be an anomalous behavior. Clearly, the human animal is biologically designed to sexually interact in male-female pairs. Homosexual behavior operates contrary to physiological mechanics in a way that does not benefit either the individual or society at large, and that is evolutionarily counter-intuitive. Moreover, members of the homosexual community (especially men) have both a lower life expectancy and a greater chance of acquiring harmful pathogens. Setting aside any cultural or social negatives, homosexuality is, physiologically, more perilous than heterosexuality. For this reason alone, given the option at birth, most parents would choose against inherent homosexual proclivities in their progeny.

However, we also understand that homosexuality is not a mere conscious choice, and that all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, enjoy common rights to life, love, and liberty. Therefore, forcing the homosexual community to undergo some sort of sexual reorientation would be unbelievably Orwellian, and directly contrary to the spirit of our nation.

This dichotomy shows that opposing views on this issue are not simply the result of a recalcitrant and overzealous religious movement, as is so often opined, but from a much deeper and more complex intellectual conflict. We understand that homosexuality, by definition, is a deviation from the physiological and psychological norms of human sexual behavior, yet as a people we shun any trampling of personal liberty, including sexual orientation.

How do we prioritize? If we openly label homosexuality a behavioral aberration, we risk deeply offending the gay community. But if we culturally redefine homosexuality as normative behavior, we severely hamper efforts to determine causation, and may as a result increase the propagation of behavior that is physiologically harmful to a significant portion of the population.


ARGUMENT I

This leads us directly into the first argument, the ARGUMENT OF UNKNOWN CAUSE.

As stated above, homosexuality is widely understood to be non-elective, meaning homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation. There are theories that attempt to ascribe some element of choice to homosexuality, but for the purposes of this writing, let's assume that the incumbency of sexual attraction exists beyond the conscious will. By removing choice from the equation, we can narrow down theoretical causes of homosexuality into two groups:

Inherent vs. Non-Inherent: If homosexuality is intrinsic, is it most likely a product a of majority/minority genetic expression, much like right vs. left handedness.

Environmental Vs. Cultural: If homosexuality is not intrinsic, it is either the result of unintended trauma, or it is learned behavior.

Each of these three possibilities – genes, trauma, and environment – provide tenable claims to authorship of homosexual behavior, but each falls short, on its own, of providing a theory of causation that can be invoked for all members of the homosexual community. I won't go into detail on arguments for and against each of these causes; such information is readily available via Google (and in my previous blog on the subject). Suffice to say that, since none of these causes has been shown to be a singular cause of homosexuality, homosexuality must be multifactorial, in that homosexual behavior emerges due to a combination of multiple factors – however the precise combination of factors is currently unknown.

If homosexuality turns out to be preventable, and the majority of us recognize homosexuality as A) biologically counter-intuitive and B) potentially physiologically injurious, we must conclude that C) homosexuality is categorically not preferable to heterosexuality, and thus we cannot rationally assign identical objective value to both types of behavior.

So long as the cause of homosexuality remains enigmatic, redefining the legal status of marriage to accommodate the homosexual population would mean including in an age-old and time-tested institution, rooted in the physiological realities of humanity, what is currently understood to be an anomalous and less preferable behavior.

If it can be proven that 1) homosexuality is a normal physiological state of Homo sapiens, or 2) that homosexuality is an unavoidable product of the human genome, then we would be justified in assigning full equivalence to homosexual behavior, and there would be no ethical grounds to contest homosexual marriage.

Until that time, however, rationality demands that we suspend our judgment.


On Culture

While the first argument against homosexual marriage was predominately physiological, the second is largely cultural.

It is often argued that the percentage of homosexuality in any community is a constant. Most often, this argument is used to bolster the claim that homosexuality is inherent, not chosen. Since we have already negated choice as a potential cause, we can safely debunk this false claim.

The number of homosexual men in ancient Greece, according to some reports, exceeded 50%. While this may be inflated, it cannot be argued that homosexual behavior was far more common, and encouraged, in ancient Athens than in modern Iowa. Conversely, the number of homosexuals in Iran, according to Ahmadinejad, is exactly 0%. Again, surely a false claim, but you get the idea.

The number of Americans who self-identify as homosexual has risen steadily since 1960, matching a gradual increase in acceptance of homosexuality nationwide. Clearly, there is not a stable population of homosexuality in any community, and culture appears to have some say in how pronounced it is. But before we assign culture as the impetus of homosexuality, we must be sure not to swap the cause with the effect. While it is possible that homosexual behavior may be linked to cultural acceptance, it is also possible that, as a culture becomes more accepting, individuals are more comfortable self-identifying as homosexual.

Positing culture as a possible cause for homosexuality produces a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Is our more accepting culture creating more homosexuality, or is it simply allowing more people to be open about their innate sexual preferences? Still, the influence of culture cannot be denied.


ARGUMENT II

This leads us into the second argument against homosexual marriage, THE ARGUMENT OF CONSERVATION.

Throughout the history of this country, and most of western civilization, we have adhered to the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage. The marriage of a man and woman is the foundation of the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is the basic building block of western society. We inherited this structure from the Christian immigrants who founded our country, who in turn inherited it from Judaism.

We are certainly not unique in adopting this model, but it is not the only possible model of familial structure. Polygamy and polyandry have long cultural histories in other countries, and many Native American tribes had massively extended families that sometimes comprised hundreds of people. One peek at an anthropology book will immediately dispel any notion that the nuclear family is in any way a human universal.

The purpose of any family structure is twofold:

Propagation: The family is tasked with producing the next generation of citizens. The importance of this is obvious – a new generation of workers is necessary to replace the previous generation. Zero or highly negative population growth will diminish and ultimately destroy any society from a purely mathematical standpoint.

Instruction: The family is responsible for teaching children language, customs, culture, morality and myriad other lessons they will require to properly integrate into society.

The nuclear family is the smallest possible family structure, providing more parent-to-child contact than any other type of family. Moreover, biological parents have an extremely personal investment in their children, so much so that we recognize biological parents to be, as a rule, preferable to any other type of guardian. By centering the family structure on a single man and woman and their biological children, the nuclear family produces an extremely effective and efficient child rearing environment.

Keep in mind, I'm speaking in general terms. We've all witnessed the devastating effects of broken homes and negligent parents, and we all know childless couples. These examples do not negate the simple truth that biological and personally invested parents are categorically the best source of care and education for children.

Marriage is the public recognition of this truth. It is a special legal status granted to those who choose to propagate society by investing in the next generation. Regardless of circumstances that keep parents from procreating, or even the intention not to procreate, the special legal status of marriage is reserved for male-female couples out of a reverence at the societal level for the sacrifice and importance of biological parenting.

Allowing the inclusion of couples that are as a group incapable of biological procreation fundamentally alters the core purpose of marriage. Marriage is no longer chiefly concerned with creating the best possible environment in which to raise children, but with publicly celebrating the love of the married couple. So, instead of a tradition focused on effective child rearing, marriage becomes focused on the subjective emotions of the parents.

With the importance of biological parenting sundered from marriage, the nuclear family is no longer the superior model to which we should aspire, but simply one choice among many equivalent choices This change would lead to a decrease in the overall care and education of children, a fact that is tragically observable in inner city neighborhoods where the majority of children are born out of wedlock, and the resulting increase in crime and illiteracy is inarguable.

Regarding childless couples – you may ask "What about them? They don't procreate, why should they be allowed the same legal status as those who do?" The answer is simple. The act of marriage, even when there are no resulting offspring, is in itself a lesson to the next generation: that it is good and proper for a man and woman who are in love to make a public commitment to each other. Children who see men and women engage in marriage are likely to follow suit. This increases biological parenting, reduces the number of children born in less preferable familial structures, and therefore reduces crime and illiteracy.

Please notice that there is nothing – nothing – intrinsic to this argument that requires hatred of homosexuals or a desire to see gay people suffer. In fact, retaining the traditional definition of marriage is not concerned at all with the propriety of homosexuality; it has to do with an overall reverence for parenting, and recognition that biological parents are categorically preferable to any alternative.

Those who disagree with this argument are effectively stating that, as a rule, 1) biological parents are not the best source of shelter and education for children, and/or 2) increasing the number of children born outside a nuclear family does not increase crime and illiteracy.


ARGUMENT III

This is more of a response than a classical argument.

The pursuit of homosexual marriage rights is often painted as a fight for civil rights, in that the demand for gay marriage is identical to the demand for racial equality.

This is a compelling argument in favor of homosexual marriage, because we are all aware of the injustice of racial discrimination, and because homosexuality is largely understood to be an uncontrollable trait, much like race.

This brings us to the ARGUMENT AGAINST FALSE COMPARISON:

While we are all aware of (and perhaps revel in) the differences between men and women, there is no qualitative difference between the races. A white man has the same drives, emotions, and mental faculties as a black, brown, or red man. This is not true of men and women – there are known and notable differences in physiology, brain chemistry, and hormonal systems.

Moreover, there is a significant amount of cultural programming in America regarding gender. This programming reminds us that, while there are unmistakable differences between the sexes (again, differences we typically enjoy), we are equal in all legal respects. So, while we recognize that men and women are equal, we also realize that they are qualitatively different.

Simply put, separate bathrooms for men and women is good, while separate bathrooms for whites and blacks is bad.

A proposed granting of gay marriage rights to blacks but not Asians would be a clear civil rights violation, since there is a definitive separation based solely on race. But this issue concerns a rights claim being made by a group comprised of all races and both genders, meaning this is not a clear civil rights issue.

In short, while we cannot legitimately make cultural distinctions based on race, we can, with complete rational justification, make cultural distinctions based on gender. This debate centers on gender, therefore comparing homosexual marriage rights to racial equality is erroneous.


Regarding Civil Unions

To my knowledge, all states now have the option under law to provide a civil union to any two citizens who choose to legally merge into a social partnership. This union is identical to marriage in all respects except name.

Additionally, social gatherings for civil unions are certainly not illegal. This means that, for both a civil union and a traditional marriage, a ceremony can be performed, witnesses can be present, cake can be served, bouquets can be tossed, and the only difference between the two would be the type of paperwork filled out after the reception.

Far be it from me to suggest that any two people be kept from a public celebration of their love and commitment. For my part, the more people who do so, the better. Civil unions being what they are – identical to marriage in all respects except paperwork – why is the homosexual community fighting tooth and nail for a mere difference in diction?

The reason is clear: the gay community wants homosexuality to be fully accepted into the mainstream, to be completely socially transposable with heterosexuality. I understand the motivation – no one wants to be a pariah. No one wants to live as an outcast, separated from 'normal' society by a scarlet letter or a derogatory label.

The existence and availability of civil unions crystallizes the argument – the gay community is not fighting for the right to marry, but for acceptance. This is a noble aim, truly, and all those who desire a peaceful society are in the right to pursue such a course.

In this effort, the gay community would do well to remember that the core of the arguments above – culture, physiology, and child-rearing – are straightforward and rational bulwarks against redefining marriage. These arguments must be overcome in the same spirit they are presented here: with an objective and practical mind.


My Pontification

In my estimation, it is not in the pursuit of sameness that we will find salvation, but in the acceptance of differences. If we can enjoy different forms of religion, politics, music, food, ethnicity, and ideology, why can we not enjoy different forms of social pairing?

Homosexuality cannot be rationally viewed as a nefariously 'evil' or 'bad' behavior, however it must be just as rationally recognized as a divergence from the norm.

In attempting to force-feed the opposing majority a redefinition of an ancient and hallowed tradition, the gay community is succeeding only in marginalizing itself and further closing the minds of those opposed to homosexual marriage. If the gay community expects to gain respect from the opposed majority, they must be ready to reciprocate.

By extending an olive branch and accepting the civil union as the vehicle for homosexual marriage, even if only temporarily, the gay community places the onus on the rest of society to accept and acknowledge homosexuality as an intrinsic part of our culture. In time, just as we have learned to value and cherish other threads woven throughout the complex tapestry of America, so too will the gay community find a rightful place of dignity and respect among the many peoples and proclivities of our nation.


In Closing

If you would like to take issue with any of these points, please feel free to do so. That's the whole reason I'm posting them here.

I hope we're past hurling insults or playing "who can be most offended." If the best riposte you can find for these arguments is an accusation of homophobia, you are missing the importance of the issue: the first step to making gay marriage a permanent feature of this country is to defeat any and all rational arguments against it.

To assume that anyone who opposes homosexual marriage somehow hates the gay community is an intellectual diminution of this conversation. If, after everything you've read here, and after hearing my plea to set aside emotion and think objectively, you are still unable to divorce yourself from the view that any opposition to gay marriage is rooted in some form of discrimination against gays, then – and I say this with all due respect – you simply are not ready to contribute anything meaningful to this conversation. If this is the case, I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting or messaging me until you are able to clear your head and speak with purpose.

Homosexual marriage rights cannot be forced upon the public, nor can the gay community be summarily dismissed without an evenhanded response to their claim. To reach an accord on this issue, both sides must begin with the earnest intention to find an equitable solution.

Pejorative remarks and hyper-sensitivity will only move us backward.

I look forward to hearing from you.]]> http://controversation.com/2008/10/marriage_of_convenience_take_2.html http://controversation.com/2008/10/marriage_of_convenience_take_2.html Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:40:02 -0800 Showdown: The VP Debate [NOTE: here's a transcript and a video of the debate, should you need them]

Palin wins. I'll just get it out of the way so you can chew on it for a while. Contrary to the hastily posted CNN and CBS polls, Palin won this debate.
 
Most of you know I'm voting for McCain, so my announcement may seem less than compelling. Allow me to prove my point.
 
 
Purpose
 
First of all, let's define the purpose of this debate.
 
A vice presidential debate is not a decision maker - meaning those who are undecided going into a VP debate likely remain undecided coming out. For those who have not yet chosen a candidate, most decisions will be made after the final Presidential debate.
 
This being so, the purposes of a VP debate are:
 
1) Support the principal on the ticket (Obama and McCain) by clearly defining the policy differences between the two sides
 
2) Energize the base
 
 
Or, more simply:
 
1) Make your side look good
 
2) Make the other side look bad
 
This being so, the 'winner' of any debate is largely in the eye of the partisan beholder. Like a baseball game, we all have a tendency to overlook the mistakes of our home team and maximize the mistakes of the adversary.
 
Regardless of how well Palin or Biden did, or how poorly, there was no real chance that current supporters of either party were going to change colors. On each side, the best possible result is gaining momentum for the campaign, thereby motivating the base to show up at the polls; the worst result would be discouraging the base, thereby keeping them home on election day.
 
 
Vetting
 
There was one additional purpose to this debate that applied only to Palin - to finalize the vetting process. Due to her recent string of gaffes, the conservative base needed to be convinced that Palin is up to the task.
 
Coming in to this debate, Palin's poll numbers were bottoming out, she was being openly mocked in the media and popular culture, and she had collected demerits from several voices on the right - including prominent conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and George Will. In effect, she entered the debate in a nose dive, while Biden has remained relatively level throughout the campaign.
 
Biden certainly does not need vetting, so this was a solo effort by Palin to provide a clear message to the American people, and to demonstrate her understanding of the central issues.
 
That she clearly pulled out of her nose dive, and managed to dogfight Biden on the way up, heralds a massive momentum gain for Palin and the McCain camp. Conservatives are in wide agreement that she displayed satisfactory knowledge of the issues, and we will surely see a decline in concerned voices from the right.
 
 
Energizing
 
Like many conservatives, I began watching this debate with one hand covering my eyes and a finger near the pause button. With her recent gaffes (Russia and foreign policy, ouch), I found myself pessimistically anticipating a downward spiral of embarrassing Jerry-Lewis-style verbal slapstick. Thankfully, I was wrong.
 
Palin's charisma advantage was undeniable. Not only her physicality, but her likeability - her folksy air may offend the upraised nostrils of aristocrats in the media and academia, but these people are not her base. She spoke to the "Soccer moms" and "Joe Sixpacks" of the nation, not in lofty overtones, but in a frank and casual vernacular. She actually pulled out a "Bless their hearts" in a VP debate… and it worked. That's unheard of.
 
In all, she was overwhelmingly effective in reaching, and charming, her target audience.
 
 
On Joe Biden
 
Truthfully, I am a fan of Joe Biden. If such a thing were possible, I would love to see Joe Biden at Secretary of State. His willingness to challenge party orthodoxy has always been a mark in his favor.
 
While I award the win in this debate to Palin, I cannot call Joe the 'loser.' He relayed his agenda admirably, pounded home his points convincingly, and showed himself as both earnest and likeable.
 
Near the end of the debate, Joe revealed something about himself that directly reflects the depth of his character. He said he "no longer questions the motives of congressmen he disagrees with, only their judgment."
 
It certainly seems that shallowness and ad hominem attacks rule political discussions of late. While I disagree with Joe on the majority of his policy, it is enormously comforting to see someone on the opposite side of the aisle demonstrate such integrity. It gives me hope.
 
 
Scoring
 
Presidential debates are much like jiu-jitsu or fencing matches. The pressure is constant as each side grapples to gain the advantage. The spins, twists, parries, and dodges, while verbal, are every bit as fluid as a physical competition between trained fighters.
 
Since the core values and policy stances on each side are at odds, there can be no objective scoring based on accuracy. As Biden said during the debate, "If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution." The important thing to remember is that the two sides largely diverge on assumed causes. Therefore, each side can say the other is 'factually incorrect' when positing different theories.
 
Example: climate change. Biden maintains that climate change is solely the result of man-made emissions. Palin says emissions are part of the cause, however the weather cycle of the planet must also be taken into account. On this issue, both sides can point to the other and call them factually incorrect. Who is right? This debate is not the place to answer that question.
 
Since a VP debate does not go into any depth on discerning factuality of causes - there simply is not enough time - points must be awarded on a metric that is not based on accuracy in identifying causes.
 
Scoring in a professional boxing, fencing, or wrestling match is based on the control one side exerts over the other, and on the solid hits they land. I'm going to score this debate in much the same way.
 
After all, the primary purpose of this debate, as stated above, is to generate momentum - to look good, and make the other side look bad. Let's take a look at who did a better job of doing exactly that.
 
 
The Main Event
 
I'm going to go through the 16 questions asked of both VP candidates and give my take on the action. If you have not yet seen the debate: Firstly, shame on you. Secondly, much of what follows will make no sense at all, so if you plan on reading further, you might want to check it out. The debate is viewable on youtube, I encourage you to follow along.

There's the bell, let's begin!
 
 
Question 1: the bailout bill
 
Biden opens by stating that we must focus on homeowners, inferring relief for those who are facing foreclosure, and invokes the anti-CEO mantra of the left, by promising to keep corporate salaries down.
 
Palin moves in with a 'soccer mom' and a 'betcha' - music to the ears of middle America - and empathizes with our financial fears. She also reminds us that McCain sounded the warning bell on Freddie and Fannie several years ago.
 
Score:
2 points to Biden for a strong start and comprehensive answer.
1 point to Palin for starting up her charisma engine.
 
 
Question 2: partisanship
 
Biden advances with an assurance that he can reach across the aisle, and offers two pieces of bipartisan legislation he has championed to reinforce his claim. He lashes at George Bush for the first time, and assails McCain for being out of touch when he called the economy 'fundamentally strong' during the onset of the credit crisis.
 
Palin strikes back at Biden on the 'fundamentally strong' comment, simultaneously praising middle class America. She hammers at the party-line voting record of Obama, then turns the tables and cements herself as a reform candidate by reminding us that Biden is a career politician: "I do respect your years in the Senate..." She also slips and says maverick twice.
 
Score:
1 point to Biden on a solid answer
2 points to Palin on expertly reversing Biden's attack and questioning Biden's ability to reform.
- ½ point to Palin for saying Maverick twice within 30 seconds.
 
 
Question 3: blame for the subprime crisis
 
Palin bashes predatory lending, but also shows guts by chastising Americans, and challenging us to live within our means. She also refers to 'Joe sixpack' - more music to the base.
 
Biden retorts that McCain's 'deregulate' mindset was the impetus for corruption on Wall Street, and shares an anecdote about Joey Danco and his unfilled gastank.
 
Palin advances fiercely, points to Obama's 94 votes to increase taxes, including households making a modest $42,000 per year, and decries tax increases as harmful to the economy.
 
Biden is knocked on his heels and goes on defense: "The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes." He also throws a wild punch by accusing McCain of increasing taxes 477 times (a charge which will slide off the back of the conservative base, they know who wants to raise taxes), and circles back to deregulation.
 
Palin throws a one-two combo by affably correcting Joe on the 'tax thing', following up with a list of her tax decreases as Governor. As she reaches back to deliver McCain's regulations on tobacco and campaign finance reform, Biden is saved by the bell.
 
Score:
2 points to Biden for a stiff deregulation jab and an effective anecdote.
4 points to Palin for guts, music, and a one-two combo.
 
 
Question 4: taxes and class warfare
 
Biden starts off the round with the infamous class warfare offense, embracing fairness, and accusing McCain of favoring tax cuts for the wealthy over the middle class.
 
Palin ripostes that small businesses will suffer under Obama's plan, sneaks in an elbow on Biden's comment concerning taxes and patriotism, and finishes with a reminder that Obama plans a trillion dollars in new spending.
 
Palin then tries unsuccessfully to press the attack with a shaky explanation of McCain's health care plan, but does manage to work in 'budget neutral' and 'competition', two words that will perk up the ears of her base.
 
Biden misses his opening and stumbles in his counterattack - a $4 billion dollar tax cut for oil companies measured against the $700 billion on everyone's mind is small potatoes. He continues to lose his footing as he attempts a fragmented critique of the McCain health plan, but finishes strong as he calls McCain's health plan the "ultimate bridge to nowhere."
 
Score:
1 point to Biden for feeding his base
1 point to Biden for a strong finish
-1 point to Biden for a poorly executed health care challenge and wimpy tax rhetoric
2 points to Palin for a solid tax combo
½ point to Palin for a conservative vocabulary
 
 
Question 5: what promises are forfeit as a result of the bailout
 
Biden pauses, unable to make any offensive headway. He rattles off his previously mentioned talking points, throws a bone to education, and takes a feeble swing at McCain's tax regulation policy. He ends by calling tax dodges unpatriotic, twice.
 
Palin capitalizes on Biden's lack of momentum, and bursts out of her corner with a vicious attack on Obama and his vote on the '05 energy plan. She recaps her battles with CEO oil executives, referring to them by name, and lands a jaw shattering 'bless their hearts.' She keeps the pressure on by emphasizing her reluctance to allow tax breaks for multinational corporations, and finishes with a brazen but risky reminder that she's a rookie to presidential politics.
 
Biden remains defensive, again accusing the McCain campaign of conspiring with big oil. He forfeits the round, and contradicts himself, by applauding Palin's windfall tax program on oil companies in Alaska.
 
Score:
½ point to Biden for maintaining his composure during Palin's withering assault.
½ point to Biden for having the chutzpah to agree with Palin's windfall taxes.
- 1 point to Biden for contradicting himself.
4 points to Palin for her unrelenting assault on the energy issue.
1 point to Palin for calling out the CEOs of two oil corporations by name.
 
 
Question 6: bankruptcy law
 
Palin takes a safe stance by informing us of her distaste for the greed and corruption on Wall Street, and reminds us that McCain stands against both.
 
Biden finds his feet and offers another morsel to homeowners facing foreclosure: "we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe."
 
Palin jukes back into the energy arena, and suggests that dependence on foreign energy directly affects our economy.
 
Score:
1 point to Biden for establishing his bankruptcy position
½ point to Palin for working in energy independence
 
 
Question 6: climate change
 
Palin begins with a statement that Alaska feels the effects of climate change more than any other state, and bravely stands her ground against the popular notion that man made emissions are the only cause. She measures off Biden with her history of combating climate change as Governor, embraces an 'all of the above' approach to containing global warming, and reiterates the importance of energy independence.
 
Biden squares his shoulders by asserting that global warming is solely man-made, and throws out a rejoinder that America consumes a disproportionate amount of the world's fossil fuel. He minimizes the effectiveness of Palin's initiatives by questioning McCain's commitment to alternative energy, and highlighting his faith in clean coal.
 
Palin returns with a salvo on the importance of domestic energy sources, and Biden finishes by repeating his accusation that McCain's support of alternative energy is dubious.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for holding to her party line on climate change
1 point to Biden for holding to his party line on climate change
 
 
Question 8: same sex benefits
 
Biden begins strongly by brandishing the Constitution as the source of same-sex rights, and by tying those rights to fairness.
 
Palin responds by setting her position against redefining marriage, but shows flexibility by touting the importance of tolerance.
 
Biden steps forward and agrees with Palin on not redefining marriage, and Palin touches gloves with Biden.
 
Score:
No points this round (and the only ones who lose points are homosexuals who want to get married).
 
 
Question 9: Iraq exit strategy
 
Palin connects early by recalling Obama's lack of faith in the surge, and snaps out a nasty backhand by praising Biden for disagreeing with Obama at the time. She goes off balance as she states that "we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq" - a questionable assertion - but regains her composure somewhat by reminding Americans that we are not quitters.
 
Biden takes advantage of Palin's imbalance and moves in: "with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan." He continues with a punishing attack invoking agreement between Obama and Maliki, and contending that McCain voted exactly as Obama did on the war funding bill. He finishes with a brutal combination: Our $10 billion vs. their $80 billion. They have 400,000 troops. For McCain and the war, there is no end in sight.
 
Palin quickly recovers from Biden's onslaught and stymies him by opining that Obama wants to wave the white flag of surrender. She backhands again by referring to Biden's comment in the primaries that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, and extolls him for his son's military service.
 
Score:
1 points to Palin for a strong start
3 points to Biden for an unyielding attack on Iraqi war policy
1 point to Palin for a full recovery
 
 
Question 10: Middle East diplomacy
 
Biden begins with a clear outline of his campaign stance on Pakistan and Iraq, and a strong repudiation of McCain's stance on Iraq as the central battleground against terrorism.
 
Palin parries by reminding us both Petraeus and bin Laden agree that Iraq is indeed the central battleground. She seems rehearsed as she moves through her chain of cue card factoids, and ends by spurning Obama for wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad, sans preconditions.
 
Biden deflects the brunt of her attack by calling into question the source of military command in Iran, and continues to batter the McCain campaign on weak diplomatic policy.
 
As the subject shifts to Israel, Palin holds up an amateurish defense, riddled with cliché.
 
Biden breaks this defense easily, and lands a series of heavy blows in quick succession: regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, the predictions of his party have come to fruition.
 
In a final and dazzling finale to the round, Palin manages to slip out of Biden's headlock and gets him in a reversal: "there's a time… when Americans are going to say, 'Enough is enough with your ticket,' on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game."

With catlike agility, Palin admits the blunders of the previous administration, frees her campaign from the shackles of Bush fatigue, and applies her own pressure to the Obama camp by accusing them of obsessive partisanship.
 
Biden reacts reflexively with a shotgun of anti-Bush rhetoric, barely managing to free himself before the bell.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for invoking agreement between Patraeus and bin Laden about Iraq
4 points to Biden for a highly damaging sortie on Middle East policy
1 point to Palin for a stunning reversal
 
 
Question 11 - non-proliferation
 
Palin begins on the defensive, and adjusts her guard by showing a comprehension of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, not a usable force. She intentionally shifts to Afghanistan to suggest surge principles would work, and slashes at the Obama camp by accusing them of saying we have been  'air raiding villages ' there.

Biden attacks forcefully, but recklessly, by suggesting that our commanding officer in Afghanistan has stated surge principles would be ineffective. He follows through with a powerful wallop: "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan." But Biden loses the advantage when he trips over his nuclear-test-ban-treaty explanation - the language of which is lost on most Americans.
 
Palin raises the wrong shield - the general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan - but the block appears to work anyway, since Biden doesn't notice the mistake.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for a sturdy defense
- ½ point to Palin for using the wrong shield
3 points to Biden for a forceful attack
- ½ point to Biden for tripping over himself
 
 
Question 12: interventionism
 
Biden begins by donning a polished aegis, decorated with experience and tempered by wisdom. He regales us with his knowledge of Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, and Chad, and qualifies his vote in favor of war in Iraq by stating it was a diplomatic tool to maintain sanctions. Strangely, Biden does not make any overt advances toward the McCain camp.
 
In the single most devastating assault of the evening, Palin capitalizes on the opening and lays into Biden: "It's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice-versa."
 
Palin continues to rain down blows as she reminds us that Biden supported McCain's strategies and opposed Obama's during the primaries. Finally, Palin bolsters her own defense by emphasizing legislation she passed in Alaska that pulled money out of Sudan as a response to the atrocities in Darfur.
 
Biden reels and attempts to muster his guard, desperately attempting to deny the accusations and to compare McCain to Cheney.
 
Palin ignores this feeble flailing: "Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the debates." She presses on by recounting McCain's military history and his knowledge of war. She dashes aside the reference to Cheney by concurring with the blunders of the present administration, and again Biden is saved by the bell.
 
Score:
2 points to Biden for his substantial knowledge of geopolitics
6 points to Palin for a completely one-sided and demolishing offensive.
 
 
Question 13: a heartbeat away
 
The round begins tilted in Biden's favor, and he quickly lines up his troops against the McCain platform. He skirmishes successfully on several fronts by bringing up bin Laden, fairness, and the Bush Doctrine.
 
Palin arranges her forces to counter Biden by referring to ANWR, Wasilla, and a minimalist approach to government.
 
Biden breaks through Palin's Maginot line, and routs her garrison with references to Union Street, Wilmington, Katie's Restaurant, and Home Depot. He presses on by repudiating the last eight years of failed Bush economics.
 
In a classic pincher maneuver, Palin brings her troops to bear on Biden's overextended forces: "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards… Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we [can] do for them in the future." She cuts off Biden's advance by lauding his wife's teaching career: "Your wife [has been a] teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?" Palin finishes off Biden's offensive by throwing a 'shout out' to the third grade class of Gladys Wood Elementary School: "You get extra credit for watching the debate."
 
Score:
1 point to Biden for his precise troop formation
2 points to Biden for breaking the line and routing his opponent
3 points to Palin for a clever ambush, decisive reversal, and charismatic finish
 
 
Question 14: the job of the vice president
 
Palin begins by attempting to level the field with levity, but moves forward on wobbly feet. She attempts to stabilize herself by brandishing her strongest weapons - energy independence and special needs children.
 
Biden hangs back and raises a strong bulwark by reasserting his extensive experience, thereby strengthening the Obama camp: "Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern."
 
Palin misses a cue from the referee on Cheney, and staggers into a weak and vulnerable position.
 
Biden takes advantage of Palin's slip and storms in, sweeping her off balance and connecting with several solid hits - Cheney was dangerous, Article I of the Constitution, separation of powers, and legislative authority of the VP. His mastery of the topic plainly wins him the round.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for levity
1 point to Palin for bringing up special needs children
-1 point to Palin for missing her cue
1 point to Biden for taking control
2 points to Biden for a knowledgeable offense
 
 
Question 15: Achilles heels
 
Palin begins the round carefully, circling the ring by restating her history as an executive in both the public and private spheres, and her experience with energy policy. She appeals to her base by relating her marriage, children, health care, and talks at the kitchen table. She refuses to engage directly, however, and skirts the Achilles heel issue altogether.
 
Biden moves in forcefully with a charming self-effacing remark: "You're very kind suggesting my only Achilles Heel is my lack of discipline." He stays on the offensive by invoking his passion, his record of change, and firing off another list of his bipartisan Senatorial efforts. He finishes with a crushingly emotional and truly heartfelt reference to his own personal tragedies.
 
Palin desperately tries to marshal a response, and stumbles by again overusing the word 'maverick.' She partially recovers by clearly relating the most important issues of the day and by impugning the partisanship of the current Democratic congress.
 
Biden responds by charging in and attempting to dismantle Palin's 'maverick' defense, an effective tactic, and finishes with his own reference to kitchen table talks.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for a strong yet elusive start
4 points to Biden for a dramatic and emotional counterattack
- ½ point to Palin for overusing maverick (again)
½ point to Palin for a partial recovery
2 points to Biden for a powerful finish
 
 
Question 16: flexibility
 
Biden begins with an account of his legal history and the importance of judicial philosophy. While the topic is important, his explanation is long winded, esoteric, and ultimately ineffective.
 
Palin steps in and takes control by brandishing her experience on bipartisan budget management, and flaunts her desire and ability to reduce taxes.
 
Biden retaliates with an anecdote explaining his method of challenging judgment, not motive, in his congressional dealings - a noble trait.
 
Palin sticks to her mainstay, recalling the importance of lowering taxes and acquiring energy independence. She finishes with another reference to the trillion dollars spending proposals of the Obama camp.
 
Score:
1 point to Biden for bringing up the judiciary
- ½ point to Biden for doing so ineffectively
1 point to Palin for taking control
2 points to Biden for nobility
2 points to Palin for again taking control and finishing strong
 
 
Closing Statements
 
Palin starts by throwing a dagger at the mainstream media, calling it a 'filter', and turns on the charm as she speaks directly to the American people. She scores more points by glowingly relating her pride in America, by quoting the venerable Ronald Reagan "Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction", and by reminding us that vigilance is a crucial requirement for those who love liberty.
 
Biden overestimates his offense by claiming "this is the most important election you've ever voted in your entire life" - a declaration Americans hear far too often. He repeats his condemnation of the $4 billion oil company tax cuts proposed by McCain, still a weak attack, and alludes to America as 'knocked down' and needing to get up again. He ends with a Godspeed to our troops in harm's way.
 
Score:
1 point to Palin for her shot at the media.
1 point to Palin for quoting Reagan.
½ point to Biden for a weak finish.
 
 
FINAL SCORE:
 
Biden: 34.5
Palin: 36
 
 
Wrap up
 
Of course, many will take issue with my numbers. While this piece has largely been for entertainment purposes (although, I'm probably the only one who finds it entertaining), I made an honest attempt to be objective in scoring.
 
I hope, at least, we can all agree that this was a close debate - neither side can claim a complete victory.
 
What cannot be argued is that Palin took away a much larger political victory than Biden. Her drooping support in conservative circles has been bolstered, and suspicions that she would not be able to perform the job are blunted. Biden's numbers jumped as well, though there has been no real doubt on either side that he is suited for the task at hand.
 
Plainly, this debate was more about Palin than Biden, and therefore she had more to gain, or lose, from her performance.
 
They both did well, but I score Palin the overall victor - both in selling herself to her base, and in overall political gain for her party.

]]> http://controversation.com/2008/10/showdown_the_vp_debate.html http://controversation.com/2008/10/showdown_the_vp_debate.html Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:00:02 -0800 700 Big Ones That's 700 Billion dollars, meant to be leveraged from our taxes, to bail out the financial institutions that are wavering as a result of the present mortgage crisis. What the heck is going on? Who is this Freddie guy? And where exactly is this money going to be spent?


Full Disclosure 

I've been trying to put off this piece until I could claim a definitive position, but I've been swamped with messages on the topic, so I'm writing this in an attempt to cut through the chatter and provide an accurate picture of what exactly is going on.

I'll tell you up front that I personally have not made a decision on whether or not this bailout is a good thing. I'm still doing some digging, and I'm waiting to see what the final draft of the proposal is before making a call.

I'm intending this to be largely a non-partisan piece - I'm looking to clarify, not maneuver. Near the end, you'll find a short section that contains my political analysis. I'm also going to try to keep it as simple as possible, so there will be details that I minimize in an effort to provide a comprehensive picture of this mess without subjecting you to a long, boring snorefest.

That said, let's define a couple terms, look at some history, and see what exactly the fuss is all about...


Definitions

- Bubble

The term "bubble" has been thrown around like a dodgeball in gym class lately, so I'll start by nailing this term down.

When bond, security, or similar asset begins trading at a volume higher than its intrinsic value, a financial bubble is created. After a time, the trading value will fall back in line with the actual value – often quickly and violently – causing those who have most recently invested in the asset to lose their investment.

Example: let's say you have a business worth $1 million dollars, and you sell 500,000 shares for a dollar each. The press thinks you're a wonderful person, so they start talking up your business. All of a sudden, your shares start trading for 5, 10, and then 20 dollars each. At $20 per share, that means the market values your business at $10 million – much higher than its actual value.

Then some wise guy decides to look at your books, and realizes that your business isn't worth anything near $10 million. The press reports this, and suddenly everyone starts trying to sell your stock. The more people selling, the less it's worth, and overnight your shares fall back down to $1. Anyone who purchased your stock at the $20 mark gets soaked.

This is a simple example of a bubble being created and then bursting. A recent real world scenario would be the 'dot com' boom and bust – very similar to the example above, however the bubble affected an entire industry, not just one small business, and therefore the resulting lost money detrimentally affected a great number of investors.

Bubbles are generally negative, because when they burst, they produce an overprotective atmosphere in the credit industry. Loans become less common as lending institutions try to shore up and recover from the bad debt and bankruptcies resulting from money lost during the burst. Since our economy needs credit like a body needs blood, a large reduction in new credit puts the economy in recession, just like a lack of blood flow results in unconsciousness – or worse.


- Subprime

Originally, a 'subprime' loan meant a loan that was issued with an interest rate lower than the prime interest rate. Today, 'subprime' refers to any loan issued to a borrower with less than average credit.

Categorically, subprime loans are more risky than prime loans (loans to borrowers with good credit), and therefore carry higher interest rates. Higher risk, higher cost – this is a simple fact of lending.


- ARM

Adjustable Rate Mortgage. This type of mortgage is built on two different interest rates – an initial or 'teaser' rate, and then an adjusted rate. Typically, the mortgage has a low payment for the first few years, and then increases significantly for the remainder of the life of the loan. Depending on how the rate is adjusted, payments can double or even triple after the expiration of the initial rate.

While this type of loan can be seen as predatory if pitched to a family of five, it is still a viable form of mortgage. Those who wish to purchase property, improve it, and resell it are prime candidates for this type of loan.


- Primary and Secondary markets

The Primary market is the place where securities (aka stocks) are initially sold to investors. When a company goes public, and investors buy shares directly from the company, the Primary market is where they do it.

The Secondary market is for non-initial sales and purchases. Firms and individuals buying and selling securities amongst themselves do so here.

Very simply, if you are buying shares of a brand new company, you are buying on the Primary market. If you're buying shares of Nike, you are buying on the Secondary market.


- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created by FDR in 1938 as part of the 'New Deal.'

Fannie was privatized in 1968, and in 1970 the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was chartered.

Both of these companies are designed to provide liquidity to the mortgage market by buying up mortgage debt from smaller firms, pooling it, and issuing securities against that debt on the Secondary market. Also, Fred & Fan both guarantee these securities in the event of mortgage defaults.

This is important, because it allows smaller institutions to liquidate loans, freeing up capital. See, if a bank issues a loan, the loan is considered an asset, but the bank does not have immediate access to the associated capital. If something comes up – an emergency, a growth opportunity, etc. – the bank needs to be able to liquidate that loan and get access to said capital. That's where Fred & Fan come in.

By purchasing the mortgage at a fair market rate, Fred & Fan allow the lending bank to reclaim the capital it put out on the loan. Meanwhile, Fred & Fan hold the paper on the mortgage. This allows banks to issue more loans, keeps the interest rate down, and puts more people in homes.

Example: I have a bank. I issue you a home loan. I'm out 200 grand – the amount of your home loan – but I have the asset of your 30 year mortgage, valued at somewhere around 500 grand over the life of the loan.

Then let's say I go to Fred and Fan and sell them your mortgage for 300 grand. I've made a profit, Fred & Fan will make a profit over time, and your mortgage doesn't change. Then I take that 300 grand I got from Fred & Fan to issue another loan, and the cycle continues.

Moreover, Fred & Fan take your mortgage debt, bundle it with a bunch of other mortgages, and then sell shares in that bundle on the Secondary market. This allows Fred & Fan to maintain liquidity, just as Fred & Fan allow smaller banks to maintain liquidity, and those who invest in the securities make a modest percentage as well. Everyone wins.

Between the two of them, Fred & Fan own or guarantee half of the $12 trillion dollar US mortgage market.


Changes in Lending

In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed under President Carter. This Act compelled loan agencies to provide credit and home ownership opportunities throughout their entire market area, and prohibited them from targeting only affluent borrowers. The aim was to provide affordable housing for low income Americans – a noble goal, if somewhat puerile.

In 1995, under Clinton, the government implicitly guaranteed a federal bailout of Fred & Fan, and lowered their necessary capital backing requirement to 2.5%, vs. 10% for standard banking institutions. As big as these institutions are, freeing up this much capital created a mortgage industry gold rush, and there was an explosion of small non-banking firms that specialized in loans, without the security of attached savings or money market accounts.

These small loan-only shops would sell prime loans to Fred & Fan, while the riskier subprime loans were packaged by other large financial institutions to be sold on the Secondary market as securities. With the higher interest rate inherent to subprime loans, these securities had mouthwatering percentages and were scooped up hungrily across the board.

Eventually, the securities anchored on subprime loans would turn out to suffer from debilitating insolvency, leading directly to our present market woes.


Paying the Piper

Roughly 21% of all mortgages issued between 2004 and 2006 were subprime, up from 9% between 1996 and 2004. Subprime mortgages totaled out at $600 billion in 2006, accounting for about one-fifth of all outstanding home loans in America.

If you're as old as I am, you will remember, during the late 90's and early 00's, the hundreds of real estate classes, lectures, and late night how-to manuals hoisted on the public, all revolving around the use of the ARM to 'flip' houses and make millions. Of course, the house-flipping industry revolved around an unspoken faith in the continuing rise of real estate value.

As we can see now, it was a shell game, a ponzi scam, and a bubble waiting to burst.

Earlier this year, it finally did. The startling increase in mortgage defaults, coupled with the disproportionately high number of outstanding subprime and ARM loans on the market, convinced lending institutions to raise the drawbridge on new loans, and thereby send real estate values into free-fall.

But now this crisis threatens to expand. The market-wide reduction in new lending has created a shortage of capital that is beginning to affect industries completely unrelated to real estate. Without new money being circulated by the banks, the entire economy is wheezing from financial asphyxiation.

Most ironically of all, with the announcement of the proposed federal bailout, the market appears to be completely befuddled on whether or not to sell off the toxic mortgage debt securities at fire sale prices, or hold onto them with the hope that the government will purchase them for full value. The shadow of $700 billion, in and of itself, has created a churning froth of tiny market bubbles that grow and burst on a daily basis.


Why so Fast?

There certainly does appear to be an air of urgency surrounding the passage of this bailout. Why is that?

First of all, the market is much like a roller coaster. Inertia is a very real force – if a large upswing or downswing happens, it tends to gain momentum as more people jump on board. Likewise, a stable market can absorb a fair degree of good or bad news without significant change. As unstable as the market is right now, a solid negative hit could conceivably lead to a massive crash. Much like a gunshot wound, pressure needs to be applied immediately and forcefully to staunch the loss of blood.

In my estimation, another significant reason that the proponents of the bailout are so itchy to move forward is because they know the longer the bill sits on the table, the longer it is discussed, the more money will be earmarked for various special interest and constituent happiness programs. This is a massive amount of money to put at the fingertips of the government. If you are anywhere near Washington DC, you can probably hear the silverware clattering and the napkins rustling.

In fact, we've already begun to hear from various lawmakers who say that this bailout should be extended to protect homeowners who are facing foreclosure. While this is certainly a wonderful idea for a Senator's re-election campaign, it is a horrible idea for fixing the problem. Why?


The Purpose of the Bailout

Because this bailout is not meant to be a handout for investors, lending agencies, homeowners, or anyone else – as tempting as it may be to see it that way, it's simply not true.

The entire point of this bailout is to reverse the trend we are now seeing – a huge reduction in new loans and a contraction of credit. If this contraction continues, we will begin to see jumps in unemployment and a systemic decline in output from business and industry across the board – not just in the financial and real estate sectors – as everyone goes into survival mode. If this happens, inertia takes over, and we have a picture that is very similar to the onset of the Great Depression. I am not trying to be dramatic, but this is indeed exactly how the market looked in 1929.

The good news is that in 1929 we did not have Fred & Fan, nor did we have a federal budget anywhere near as large as the one we have now. Complaining about the ever-increasing tax rate may be my standard mantra, but in this situation it could be a saving grace.

$700 Billion is a hell of a big band-aid, and it is bittersweet that the government has access to such a colossal first aid kit. If applied soon, lending institutions will be granted the breathing room to raise the portcullis and allow new credit to flow into the economy, thereby averting the strangling of the private sector from lack of credit. Had the federal government been able to apply a bandage of this magnitude in 1929, there may have never been a Great Depression.

While it troubles me that the ultimate effect of this bailout is likely to produce a government more deeply entrenched into our economy, if for no other reason than the precedent it sets, the immediate alternative is far more harrowing. My hope is that we learn something from this, thereby benefiting both in the short and long run.


Learning a Lesson

Perhaps the most important aspect of this crisis is in properly assigning blame. While there is plenty to go around, first and foremost we must look to the practices and procedures of lending institutions, and re-examine the wisdom of considering home ownership an American right.

In hindsight, paying loan vendors a commission on new loans may turn out to be a damaging policy. A car dealer smooth-talking someone into an SUV that is a bit outside their pay grade is nowhere near as damaging as putting someone into a home they cannot afford. When someone gets a mortgage, the market expects them to pay it – car loans are not traded as securities.

Therefore, if someone is not able, willing, or likely to responsibly pay a mortgage, perhaps they should be encouraged to rent until they are in a better financial situation. The common middle-class myths that the cost of home ownership is somehow offset by tax benefits, or that banks should provide home loans to anyone who wants one, are harmful not just to the people who are now facing foreclosure, but to the entire US credit system.

The lesson we should take away from this catastrophe should be one of responsibility. Rather than simply wagging fingers in the face of the lending institutions and scolding them for granting loans to people who cannot pay them, perhaps we should consider better educating our population on the realities of credit, mortgages, and bankruptcy.

To this end, if we move in and bail out homeowners who are facing foreclosure, we have learned nothing.


Spin Cycle

As promised, I will now move to my thoughts on how the politicians are spinning this crisis.

As I said above, I could not have more contempt for those who are lining up to offer bailout money for homeowners facing foreclosure. Most of this nonsense comes from the left: Dodd, Pelosi, Reid et al, in an absolutely blatant attempt to buy votes. Shame on them, truly. It's not that they SHOULD know better, it's that they DO know better, and are still attempting to foist this rubbish onto the shoulders of the taxpayers. I did not sign Joe Foreclosure's mortgage contract, and therefore my dollars should not be used to pay for his mistake.

McCain's return to Washington in lieu of continuing to stump was to his credit. He is, after all, still a paid member of the Senate, and this legislation is probably the most important piece of paper that Congress has penned in the last 20 years. We are not paying McCain a salary of $157,000 per year to talk to waffle waitresses in Iowa while the mortgage market burns.

Conversely, Obama's flippant remark that "Presidents need to do more than one thing at a time" reeks of self-doubt. Clearly, he is still trying to justify his qualifications to be President. Would McCain or Biden ever say such a thing?

Moreover, his 'call-me-if-you-need-me' attitude towards Washington during this crunch is certainly less than inspiring. Do we want a President that says "Call me if you need me" during a national crisis? Surely, we can put the race on hold for a day or two while we keep the market from crashing entirely, can't we? No? I guess not.

As much as I would love to find something non-partisan or bi-partisan to share with you, I regret to say that the political reactions have been largely predictable. The Democrats are blaming Bush, the Republicans are blaming Clinton, and very few people seem to be interested in anything other than polemics. As usual, the talking heads talk, the pundits pund, and you and I are left crossing our fingers and toes.


Yea or Nay?

As I said above, I cannot give a thumbs up or down until the final draft of the bailout proposal comes through, although I must admit a slight lean towards the positive. And my gut tells me that the faster it moves through congress, the better.

While there are those who will certainly lament my apparent compromise on the free market, I recommend that you read through the proposal as it is currently written. You will find that this bailout is temporary; the 700 Billion is not a mere handout from the taxpayers to the government (well, at least not yet), and that the debt will be slowly reintroduced back into the market, allowing lending agencies enough time to eat the elephant.

As to the propriety of handing the management of this money over to a single agency, I say hear-hear. A single agency shepherding the bailout money means easier oversight, fewer layers of bureaucracy, and a shorter paper trail. If it must be done, let's keep the number of hands in the cookie jar to a minimum.


Wrap Up

As this situation evolves, and as the elements of the bailout proposal are refined, I'll try to continue posting follow ups on this blog.

Thanks for listening all, and please feel free to share your thoughts, ask questions, call me names, etc.


 

]]> http://controversation.com/2008/09/700_big_ones.html http://controversation.com/2008/09/700_big_ones.html Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:36:20 -0800 The Price of Liberty [As published in The Escalon Times, 9/17/2008]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

- Wendell Phillips

Years ago, I sat wedged into an uncomfortable plywood desk in the middle of my high school Government class, glaring at the clock. I was surrounded by sleepy-eyed teenagers, sheets of loose leaf paper, and number two pencils. While dreams of lunch period danced impishly through my mind, our teacher shared the above quote. At seventeen years old, this string of words held little meaning for me.

I encountered this quote again during my early twenties. At the time, it was obvious to me that Phillips was referring to a strong national defense. Vigilance, it seemed, meant that we must build a robust military and guard our borders against incursion.

Today, I know better. The vigilance Phillips invokes is not militaristic, but civic. It is not the communal vigilance of military force, but the personal stewardship of democracy.

Democracy is a rare thing in history. It existed among the Phonecians as far back as 2,000BC, and popped up in Athens between 400-500BC. With the rise and fall of Rome, democracy had fits and starts throughout Europe and the Middle East, but never quite caught on. The Magna Carta was penned in 1215 and marked the beginnings of modern democracy in England, but it was going to be 561 years before anyone got it right.

American democracy is an ambitious experiment. Nowhere else in history can be found a similar animal. Our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and separated powers mark a profound shift away from the centralized authority found in myriad forms across the world and throughout history. As a result, we are the most free society ever to exist, and we enjoy a healthier, wealthier, more luxurious life than those of any other nation. Our liberties are legion, and our rights an iron clad guarantee inherited from 225 years of debate and legislation. The potent and inarguable success of our freedom is a cannonade that raises a lump of fear in the throats of dictators and tyrants the world over.

And what payment is required for these inestimable blessings?

Vigilance. Vigilance is our toll. America is founded on the belief that any people have a right to govern themselves. With our vote, we empower our leaders, and we compel them to steer the proper course. But the sword of our vote has two edges. Whether from apathy or complacency, if we choose not to vote, if we leave the powers in Washington unchecked, our rights and liberties will be gradually whittled away by special interests and ravenous politicians, and we will have only our short attention spans to blame.

All Americans have a duty to be involved in the dialogue that continues to craft our country. It is a small price to pay for our freedom that we remain versed on the issues of the day, and that we stamp our thoughts onto our ballots. Our political system is a great uniter, and a great equalizer. We all have access to the same information, and we all have the same vote. Politics is the one area where we can all be colleagues, experts, and equals.

Whichever side of the aisle you prefer, and whatever your position on any issue, your voice matches that of anyone else in this country, and is just as crucial to the continued success of our grand experiment. So cast the ballot, draw the lever, and marvel at our good fortune.

[End of published content]


--- Blog Content ---

This is my first published work. Truth be told, I don't think it's my best, and I'm rather lukewarm on it.

Please feel free to send me comments, suggestions, or criticism - I'm not made of glass, and I'd appreciate the feedback.

Thanks all, take care

- Jubal

]]> http://controversation.com/2008/09/the_price_of_liberty.html http://controversation.com/2008/09/the_price_of_liberty.html Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:05:28 -0800 The Palin Factor My father predicted McCain / Palin months ago. I thought he was nuts. As it turns out, Palin may actually win this election for McCain.

Before I start, you should know that I am not a big fan of McCain. His legendary status as a 'maverick' Republican is a dubious moniker at best. In many instances, he has sided against his party in pursuit of a inscrutable personal agenda. His prominent position in the 'Gang of 14' was, to me, a usurpation of the balance of power in Washington, and his involvement in the S&L scandal back in the early 90's has never been satisfactorily resolved.

Regardless, until today, I thought this race was Obama's to lose. Now I'm not so sure.

Tapping Palin was certainly a courageous and unexpected wager, and it appears to be paying off. At a stroke, McCain has taken large steps forward in several areas:


Votes

Obviously the most important task of any candidate is to gather votes. To this end, Palin looks to be surprisingly effective.

The Palin selection is not solely a desperate attempt to round up disenfranchised Hillary supporters, as has been cynically observed by a number of talking heads recently. The majority of Hillary Clinton supporters simply will not make the leap across the aisle simply because McCain has injected estrogen into his campaign. Ideologies are powerful motivators, and Palin's unapologetic pro-life, religious background is a turn-off for the Hillarites.

But there is an element of truth to this observation. 'Soccer moms' are not generally as party-loyal as the lockstep Hillarite foot soldiers, and Palin speaks directly to the issues that concern them most: family, gas prices, education, and inflation. While the majority of Hillary's brigade will either abstain or fall into step behind Obama, a portion will undoubtedly move to McCain's camp. Also, some measure of soccer moms will show up to the polls that might have stayed home without a Palin to vote for.

Moreover, Palin has directly engaged the youth vote – a vote that is notoriously fickle. Placing Biden next to Palin is just as dramatic as placing Obama next to McCain. For the youth vote, Biden was a disappointment. With Obama's rhetoric of Hope and Change, choosing an old white man who is deeply entrenched in the Washington establishment is something of a contradiction. Meanwhile, Palin is fresh, vigorous and attractive. It's not often that bathing suit pictures of VP candidates are appealing. This is not to say that all young Americans will immediately switch sides and go red, but now they have a choice. Advantage: McCain.


Business as Usual

While Obama's choice of Biden as a running mate was a wise move considering his startling lack of executive experience, it is, as stated above, a move contrary to the speechcraft that catapulted him through the primary. How is Biden reflective of change? Answer: he is not, however he brings the seasoning that the Obama campaign that was sorely lacking. Biden is Obama's answer to the claim that he is not experienced enough to be President. The presumption is that, with a salty sea dog like Biden standing at his side, Obama can draw upon the experience of age while charting his course for change.

In choosing Palin, McCain has gone the other direction, and effectively insulated himself from accusations of 'business as usual.' Palin is a Washington outsider, small town mayor, and mother of five. In other words, an average American. McCain has shown through action that he is serious about spiking the status quo and moving in a new direction, while Obama, so far, is all talk.

I can't help but think that, had McCain chosen his running mate first, Obama would have reconsidered Biden. Advantage: McCain.


Reversal of Fortune

Several more subtle reasons come to mind in considering the logic of Palin.

First off, as has already been seen in Guliani's RNC speech, counterattacks of implied sexism are already underway: "How dare they say that a mother of five cannot be Vice President!" While I'm not sure that this claim, as stated by Guliani, has actually been made by the Obama camp, it still makes for exciting speeches and galvanizes the party.

Also, by bringing in Palin, McCain keeps the issue of experience at the forefront. It seems that Obama supporters just can't help themselves, and blindly walk into the trap that has been so cleverly set by the McCain campaign. Any charge that Palin lacks experience begs the question, and Obama's resume is just as lean as Palin's. The chief difference is that Palin is auditioning for understudy, while Obama is reading for the lead. Advantage: McCain.


Wrap up

While none of this fluff directly talks to the issues, it makes for interesting banter. For my part, this is still a horse race – and a close one. The capricious votes will dance back and forth for the next two months, but it will be the debates that decide our next president.

The oratory magic of Obama v. the grizzled war stories of McCain.

I can't wait. Popcorn, please.


]]> http://controversation.com/2008/09/the_palin_factor.html http://controversation.com/2008/09/the_palin_factor.html Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:54:54 -0800 WMD, a long reply This response turned out to be a bit longer than I originally anticipated, so I'm posting it as a new entry rather than as a response. The originally entry referred to in this writing can be found below, titled "WMD? Are we still talking about this?"]

 

I've received a message from a reader, and since the message was placed in my mailbox and not on my blog as a comment, I will assume that the reader wishes to remain anonymous. However, I'd like to post a portion of (his or her) letter to me, and then respond to it.

This is copied and pasted exactly how it was sent to me. The only things I've removed are the heading and the signature:

 

I don't think you made your case. There was not anywhere near enough weapons in Iraq like Bush said there was going to be, and there were none, not even one, ZERO stockpiles of weapons, and that was supposably the big reason for us to go in. Little finds of weapons here and there dont mean a thing because they might have easily been there for 20 years.

Not only that, you said the press had an intelligence failure when really it was a Bush intelligence failure that got everything started. Talk about projecting! your just reversing it back and saying "it's not you its us" Well I don't buy it . I think you need to go back and do your homework and maybe read a few things…. like every newspaper in the world.

 

This letter is a fair example of the responses that I've gotten regarding my last post. I'd just like to say one thing – I wish more people would actually post a comment rather than sending me email. It would be great to get a dialogue going rather than sit here and soak up slings and arrows. But I digress.

 

It seems that Reader X (hereafter referred to as RX) has three points of contention regarding the position I stated in my last blog:

I. Not enough weapons were found in Iraq

II. The intelligence failure came from Bush, not the press

III. I should stop projecting, do my homework, and educate myself.

 

I. Not enough weapons were found in Iraq

This is the most common argument against deposing Saddam. By far. By FAR far. Let me just say that any single chemical weapon – even the smallest artillery shell – is fully capable of killing thousands of people in an enclosed area. Like, say, a football stadium. When you understand what these weapons are capable of, to decry that we haven't found enough of them rings a bit hollow.

I'm going to assume that somehow the 'not enough weapons' argument is an assertion that deposing Saddam was the wrong move. I think I made a clear case for deposing Saddam in my last blog, but let's do it once more with feeling…

- Saddam had caches of WMD that were spread throughout his conventional arsenal – the great majority of these WMD were Chemical, mostly Sarin, VX, and Mustard variants. This is a known, and this is how we've been finding them – dispersed among larger stocks of munitions.

- Saddam wanted more WMD, and had his weapons programs on pause until the sanctions were lifted. This is a known, each of the three inspecting teams (Blix, Kay, Duelfer) that have gone into Iraq in the last decade are in agreement on this topic, I've posted links to their resources, and they aren't hard to google.

- Saddam was secretly attempting to usurp UN authority by courting France, Russia, and Germany with sweetheart oil deals in exchange for votes against sanctions. This is a known, simply google 'oil-for-food scandal' and you'll have a pile of links to browse.

- Saddam has a history of sponsoring terrorism. From $25,000 checks gifted to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the lush accommodations provided to Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi during their stay in Iraq, Saddam was in bed with terrorists. This is a known.

- In early 2003, as coalition forces were hanging ten over the Iraqi border, there was tremendous pressure at the UN and in the press to lift the Iraqi sanctions. The amount of pressure due to the secret handshake discussed in the paragraph above is not clear, but the press in both America and England were serving generous portions of starving-and-dying-Iraqi-children on the evening news. If coalition forces were drawn down, it is reasonable to assume that sanctions would have been lifted, or at the very least weakened enough to give Saddam breathing room.

- The Bush administration embraced preemption as the best and only defense against rogue nations that might pass WMD to terrorists who would then target America. I'm not going to dig deeper into preemption; I explained it adequately in my original blog. Suffice to say that preemption requires the removal of a rogue regime before it produces an imminent threat – in this case the imminent threat is WMD in the hands of terrorists.

 

Lets parse the above into what we know and what we don't:

1. Saddam had WMD - known

2. Saddam wanted more WMD – known

3. Saddam had programs ready to make more WMD – known

4. Once sanctions were lifted, Saddam could reinitiate those WMD programs – known

5. Saddam was working aggressively to lift sanctions – known

6. Saddam had a history of sponsoring terrorists – known

7. If coalition forces had not moved in, sanctions would have been lifted – not known

8. If Saddam had WMD, he would have given them to terrorists – not known

 

So the only plausible arguments against deposing Saddam are:

1) The egress of coalition forces would not have handed Saddam a sanction-free Iraq, and/or

2) If Saddam had WMD, he would never think of giving them to terrorists.

 

- Regarding point 1) The egress of coalition forces would not have handed Saddam a sanction-free Iraq

The entire world was on the Iraqi border. If we had, collectively, backed down, why on earth would Saddam capitulate to anything? Why would his cooperation increase? If the US Military does not scare you into obedience, how scary is stern talk from a troop of powerless bureaucrats?

Think of it in terms of poker… The UN and Saddam were heads up. Saddam went all in. If coalition forces had drawn down, that's the equivalent of folding. If Saddam had complied with the UN inspectors, that's the equivalent of folding. Why would Saddam fold AFTER his opponent folded? It makes no sense. Only a great fool would do such a thing.

 

- Regarding point 2) If Saddam had WMD, he would never think of giving them to terrorists.

Not only had Saddam publically announced on more than one occasion that the use of WMD (including nuclear weapons) is the right of any country that can make them, he had used WMD on his own citizens twice, in two foreign wars, and against US forces during both Desert Shield and Iraqi Freedom. That's six different entanglements (5 not including Iraqi Freedom) that Saddam used WMD freely against soldiers and civilians. To assert that Saddam would never give weapons to terrorists is one hell of a gamble.

But let's say that he wouldn't. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Saddam was too principled to give WMD to terrorists. I have to take a short break while I laugh.

Ok, I'm back – and Saddam would never dream of giving WMD to terrorists. Still, the very existence of WMD in Iraq allows for the possibility that WMD could be stolen, or purchased from those in the Iraqi military without Saddam's virtuous character. The more WMD in Iraq, the more likely it would happen.

All in all, the argument against the war boils down to Saddam Hussein being either:

1) Stupid, or

2) Virtuous.

He was, demonstrably, neither.

 

II. The intelligence failure came from Bush, not the press

"Regarding Iraq, the mainstream press has overseen and, intentionally or not, been an accomplice to a complete and total intelligence failure."

- Me

It's not that large segments of the public are uninformed, it's that they are misinformed. An uniformed person would say "Who's Saddam?" and continue on his blissful stroll. This is much different than claiming there are no WMD in Iraq.

Ignorance is easily cured, but those who maintain the 'no WMD in Iraq' stance are not ignorant, they are deceived. Deception is much more difficult to remedy than ignorance, since curing ignorance requires simply providing truthful information, while curing deception requires providing truthful information in addition to providing a mountain of evidence against said deception.

 

Castles in the sand

Imagine you are building a sand castle. You've spent all day on it, scoop after scoop, shaping and molding, and you are quite pleased with the results. If someone walks up and tells you it is imperative that you replace the sand at the base of your sand castle, you will immediately realize that replacing that sand will require tearing down and rebuilding the entire castle – a great deal of work – and thusly you will require a significant amount of convincing before you agree. This is completely natural and understandable.

The sand castle above is an analogy for our mental investments – the things we personally believe to be true and that therefore shape how we see the world. If a person believes that 'Bush lied to get us into war' or that 'no WMD have been found in Iraq,' these beliefs create a foundation of personal truth upon which additional layers of personal truth are added. To foster a change in thinking – a realization that WMD have indeed been found, and that Saddam was very much the threat he was made out to be – requires the peeling back of all these layers to the core assumptions, and starting again from scratch.

Re-examining core assumptions is an exhausting and humbling process, so we reflexively and properly require an overwhelming amount of evidence before considering such an undertaking; and even if such evidence is presented, a person must have the desire and fortitude to begin the peeling process. Needless to say, this is rare.

 

The press, intelligence, and failure

This is why the press is such a powerful force in our lives. By reporting accurate facts and helping us build personal truths that reflect reality, the press does us a tremendous service. Likewise, if the reporting is inaccurate, and we build personal truths that do not reflect reality, we have been dealt a significant injury.

This is the intelligence failure to which I refer, and the failure is twofold: By and large, the press 1) did not provide accurate information, and 2) did provide inaccurate information. Was this intentional? Hard to say. Let's look backwards for a moment…

 

- Ancient History (aka more than 10 minutes ago)

In the aftermath of 9-11, the Bush administration enjoyed mandated good tidings from a self- muzzled press. Bush painted Saddam as the bad guy, the American people needed a portrait for their dartboard, and the press knew better than to step into the line of fire.

Kay's now infamous "no stockpiles of weapons" line was the perfect handhold at the perfect time. The press was hungry to re-engage Bush and his cronies, and "no stockpiles" made it possible to turn the ISG reports against the Bush administration. The press brushed aside the evidence of bio-weapons research, of chemical labs in standby mode, of nuclear engineers on Saddam's payroll waiting for sanctions to lift - and concentrated on the stockpiles.

The motives for this misinformation are numerous: to discredit the administration, to gain political capital in the 2004 election cycle, to recapture the spirit of the '60's, to relive the glory days of 'no nukes' anti-war hippie rallies, and to show that stupid, swaggering cowboy that we don't like his ill-formed vocabulary.

In any established industry there is always a tendency towards groupthink. This mentality is especially salient in the media at certain times – "stockpile" is one of those times. Every major news agency, from CNN to the Times, hung "No stockpile" banners from their gates. Bush and his buddies were on the run. The WMDs aren't there! Where could they be? It was an exciting time to be a reporter.

When everyone else in your industry is hooting and cheering, your first impulse is not to raise an eyebrow and a finger and start asking questions, it's to grab a champagne flute and join in. I'm not saying that this groupthink mentality fully absolves individual journalists from the inaccurate reporting of the last several years, but it certainly does make it more understandable.

 

Back to the point

Importantly: this does not mean that RX or anyone else who believes 'no WMD have been found in Iraq' and/or 'Bush lied kids died' is unintelligent, uneducated, poorly informed, or anything of the sort. In fact, quite the opposite – they must be well read or they wouldn't hold these beliefs. They've simply been assigning factual value to reporting that is not based in fact.

Trusting the press is certainly not a fault; in a perfect world we would all be able to trust the press completely. In this particular case, however, the press has failed us miserably. It's actually quite tragic. I'm not saying anyone should go out and sue the press for mental cruelty, or that we should never believe a newspaper – I'm saying we must be vigilant in the assessment of our core beliefs, and careful about what we call true.

If you believe it to be true that Saddam was not a threat, and/or that he had no WMD or WMD programs, I'm here to tell you that you need to replace the sand at the base of your castle. Whether or not you do so is up to you, and I'll honestly understand if you prefer not to.

 

III. I should stop projecting, do my homework, and educate myself.

Sigh.

Clearly, since I disagree with you, I must be stupid, uneducated, and psychologically imbalanced.

This is perhaps my least favorite aspect of conversing with the far left (or the far right) – if we disagree, one of us must be evil, crazy, or stupid. Sometimes all three. In this case, I'm only stupid and crazy; thankfully I dodged a bullet on the evil.

 

RX, If ours must be a pugilistic contest of grey matter, perhaps we should examine the evidence and see who best fits into the stupid hat…

I posted a significant amount of worthwhile and topical information, views for and against my position, myriad links to off-site resources, and labored in good faith to separate truth from fiction.

And…

You wrote me a two paragraph response that consisted of rehashed arguments I've already covered, several assertions that you provide no evidence for, and a couple of personal attacks.

 

All this aside, I'm not here to try and convince you in a single blog that my views are right and proper while your views are garbage – I don't think that would be possible. But if I can put an itch under your scalp that makes you think about it, and maybe leads you to start doing some digging of your own, well that's the best I could hope for. I'd love to know what you find out.


That said, thanks for the reply :)


]]> http://controversation.com/2008/08/wmd_a_long_reply.html http://controversation.com/2008/08/wmd_a_long_reply.html Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:47:18 -0800 WMD? Are we still talking about this? I had a conversation with some good friends last week, and after a rousing round of insults hurled at both Obama and McCain, I stumbled across a mindset that got me thinking.

Let me preface this by saying that these three friends of mine are all intelligent, informed, and fully able to parse truth from fiction. And I’m not just saying that because they may be reading this, it’s true – they’re some smart guys.

Each of them, however, maintained that no weapons of mass destruction have, to date, been found in Iraq.

This assertion floored me – it is so obviously and demonstrably incorrect that at first I thought it was a joke, but after doing some legwork I’ve put together a theory on how someone could, in good faith, maintain this assertion.

Before I share that theory, however, let’s unpack some terms and review some history…

 

WMD

The term Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMD, is something of a question mark. Depending on who you talk to, a simple homemade bomb used in a terrorist attack could qualify as WMD. Other people believe nuclear weapons are the only WMD. Still others claim that there needs to be a certain “kill value” for a device to deserve the WMD label. Good lord, how morbid.

Dictionary.com defines WMD as:

“A weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons).”

In my estimation, this definition is the most proper, and dovetails with the weapons that the Bush administration claimed were present in Iraq – namely, Chemical, Biological, and Radioactive weapons (CBR).

CBR weapons are restricted because they are scary as hell: a teaspoon of weaponized biological agent could kill millions of people, and a nuclear device the size of a backpack could liquidate Washington DC. For those of you who wonder why the US is exempt from the WMD restriction, I wonder the same. Why do we have stores of biological and chemical weapons when there is no conceivable scenario in which we would use them? Perhaps for research purposes? I must admit, I’m as mystified as you are. Still, we are not here to discuss this issue – perhaps in a separate writing. Let’s stick to Saddam.

 

History Lesson

During the lead-up to the Iraq war (widely known as the ‘Iraqi Disarmament Crisis’) Hans Blix was appointed by Kofi Annan to lead the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC, perviously known as UNSCOM), a group tasked to inspect and ensure that Iraq was not hiding or building WMD or other unauthorized military technology. Blix presented his findings in early 2003, stating that he could not confirm or deny the existence of said weapons, since Saddam and his officers were less than forthcoming with relevant data. He also expressed skepticism regarding Saddam’s firm insistence that Iraq had liquidated its stockpiles of Anthrax and VX gas, since no record of any such destruction was provided. Regardless, Blix remained a staunch opponent of any military action against Iraq, and maintained that continued sanctions and searching were the best options in dealing with Saddam’s Iraq.

Obviously, we didn’t listen to Blix.

Understand the precarious position the entire world was in: Saddam had thumbed his nose at UNSCOM for a decade, ran them in circles throughout Iraq, and defied resolution after resolution from the UN demanding that he capitulate and allow the weapons inspectors to perform their duties.

Coalition armies lined up on the border of Iraq in an attempt to intimidate Saddam into complying with UNSCOM. For six months, we sat at the border and waited. Back home, we were constantly bombarded with images of children dying of starvation due to the choking sanctions placed on Iraq, sanctions that could have been lifted at any time if only Saddam had decided to cooperate. A decision had to be made – either we move in and depose Saddam, or we draw down our forces. It was costing too much in both financial and political capital to keep a massive invasion force perched on the Iraqi border.

With Russia, France, and Germany indignantly demanding that sanctions be lifted, and the never-ending parade of starving Iraqi children marching across the nightly news, there was only one possible outcome of drawing down our forces – the outcome that Saddam was counting on – the ultimate lifting of sanctions.

As the final (16th) UN resolution was ignored by Saddam, the Bush administration took the information they had – that Saddam had WMD, that he had WMD programs ready to be initiated once sanctions were lifted, that he had no problem using those weapons against civilian populations, and that he was a known supporter and financier of global terror – and they made their decision. After a decade of sitting on their hands and listening to Saddam lie, they decided to remove him by force.

We went to war.

On October 2nd 2003, David Kay, leader of the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG), a team of roughly 1,400 people tasked with finding evidence of Iraq’s WMD in the wake of the war, presented his findings to Congress. Kay stated that the ISG had found:

“...dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”

He did not, however, find any “stockpiles of weapons.” Remember this phrase, we’ll be coming back to it later.

Kay maintains to this day that those ‘stockpiles’ will probably never be found, and that he doubted Saddam had any significant production capabilities for WMD during the nineties. These two snippets have been trumpeted from the parapets of the media ever since. Remember the “Bush Lied Kids Died” campaign? These snippets were the impetus.

An interesting Kay quote that is often overlooked comes from his outgoing report to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), in which he stated the following:

“Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion – although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war.”

Hmm. What could have made Kay think this? If, indeed, there were no WMD in Iraq, why on earth would Kay feel that Iraq was more dangerous than the intelligence indicated before the war?

 

In January 2004, Charles A. Duelfer replaced David Kay as the head of the ISG. Duelfer reported his findings in September of that year, in what is appropriately enough referred to as the Duelfer Report.

This report is hundreds of pages long and even a cursory glance may cause headaches and/or a deep desire for a nap. Regardless, it is by far the most comprehensive analysis of Saddam and his intentions.

I recommend, at the very minimum, perusing the transmittal message from Duelfer himself that accompanied the report as an introduction. It’s probably 20 minutes worth of reading, and it communicates not only the mindset of Saddam and his regime, but the inevitability of the restructuring and reemergence of WMD programs in a post-sanction Iraq.

What the report tells us is unambiguous – Saddam did indeed unilaterally dispose of a majority of his WMD, and many of his research facilities were retooled for commercial use. But Saddam’s weapon programs were kept in suspended animation by aggressively maintaining the intellectual capital necessary to re-open them within months after the lifting of UN sanctions.

The sanctions were a powerful constraint on Saddam, just as Blix asserted back in 2002, but Saddam was hedging his bets by offering a shady deal to Russia, Germany, and France. Those with long memories may remember when the oil-for-food scandal was originally uncovered in 2004, in the wake of the Duelfer report, and the ensuing revelation that Saddam had offered the aforementioned countries unrestricted access to one of a number of Iraq’s richest oil fields in return for assistance at the UN in freeing Saddam from those pesky sanctions.

The intent is clear – Saddam desperately wanted the freedom to reconstitute and resume his weapons programs. No one who has spent any amount of time researching this subject disagrees.

Still, motives are one thing, and material is another. Even if Saddam wanted to make WMD, that doesn’t mean he had them, which was the entire rationale for going to war in the first place, Right?

Wrong.

The justification for war was to disarm Saddam of WMD. It was suspected that Saddam had WMD, and that he wanted to make more WMD. Moreover, if sanctions were lifted, Saddam could begin pursuing his WMD programs without hesitation. To effectively disarm Saddam required two things, 1) Destroying his existing WMD, and 2) destroying his WMD production capability.

 

What We’ve Found

This is a short list of what has been found, to date, in Iraq. These findings are pulled from multiple sources, including the reports of Blix, Kay, and Duelfer, the military and CIA, and both American and British news agencies.

I’m not going to list specific sourcing for each one, so feel free to Google away.

Let’s dig in…

 

Remember the statement Kay made, that we didn’t find any “stockpiles”? Well, here’s what Kay did find in Iraq, as stated in his opening address to Congress in October 2003:

- A clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical biological weapons) research

- A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological weapon agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN

- Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons

- New research on weaponizable biological agents, including Brucella, Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, Ricin and Aflatoxin

- A line of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) at an undeclared production facility, and an admission that they had tested a UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit

- Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN

- Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km, well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the UN

- Clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-km range ballistic missiles (probably the No Dong) and 300-km range anti-ship cruise missiles

 

And courtesy of the US military:

- A cache of Russian R-60 uranium missiles (similar in effect to a radiological ‘dirty bomb’) found in March 2004

- A 155mm binary artillery shell containing Sarin (one of 550 such shells that are as of yet unaccounted for), used as an improvised explosive against US forces in May 2004

- 1.77 metric tons of heavily enriched uranium, found in June 2004

- 1,500 gallons of weaponized chemical