It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

Reason #n why I'm not going to be in California forever: this ruling . The most recent in a long line of idiotic rulings from California's idiot brigade (aka our "Supreme" Court) has found again that you can indeed be sued for trying to save someone's life in an emergency. This after the last time they found the same thing, and the Legislature passed a law giving people immunity (a "Good Samaritan" law). Apparently, the idiots decided that the law doesn't apply to people who are not being good enough helpers, decided after the fact by the idiots, thus circumventing the entire purpose of the law. California: nice place, except for the people.

So I had an idea this morning for how California could pass a balanced budget in about one day of work. Now, I'm sure this is not a new idea, or restricted to just California, but I think it could work pretty well. Of course, like all other good ideas for helping a government function effectively, it's doomed to be ignored... but I'll post it anyway. See, the problem in California is that the current process never works. You need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes/fees here (which is great), which means it's near-impossible to draft a partisan budget and ram it though the other party. Since politicians rarely negotiate with the other party, this means we have no budget for a long time, until enough time passes that enough people can get on-board with the "work around the law" plan. At no point does the system really produce a viable budget, or produce the desirable negotiation or compromise; moreover, it typically results in shortfalls, delays, and months of wasted...

I expect that in light of the recent Fed rate changes, the implicit effects those will have on inflation, and the [obvious] statement that the Fed will have to very carefully contain inflation expectation, this page will be very important PR for the government in the next few years. On it, the BLS quotes a couple of BLS economists spewing utter BS about how the CPI is not bogus, and all the complete lies and statistic manipulation introduced over the year to keep the CPI artificially and incorrectly low is actually not utter BS. Really, though... they might want to consider hiring a marketing team to advise them on how to appear credible. I'd guess if you're going to try lying to normal people, use pretty graphs and stay away from directly lying about simple, easy-to-understand facts. For example, when you say that hedonic regression is totally valid and not a blatant manipulation of the data, it just destroys your credibility with anyone who can understand the obvious lies yo...

By now, pretty much everyone with an internet connection and a passing interest in the economy has heard about the Madoff hedge fund Ponzi scheme, and it's global fallout . Rather than dwell on this as an unmitigated disaster in financial oversight on the part of the SEC (it certainly is), or as a referendum on the utter failure of governmental oversight in preventing fraud (yep, that too), or even as a parallel to the pitfalls of non-transparent investment of enormous amounts of money in extremely questionable vehicles for ulterior motives (see: the Fed), I thought I'd instead hypothesize about how we could productively learn from this meltdown, and try to prevent future disasters when there inevitably is fraud. Rather than get into the obvious (eg: effective oversight, which may be near impossible), or abolishing hedge funds in general (which does nothing, since the problem is fraud not hedge funds), I figure the best way to prevent fallout in the future is to take this oppor...

Ever question if increased government spending might actually help the economy, rather than hurt it like every other time it has happened? Well, then this video is for you. You can learn many valuable things, like how wealth redistribution is not actual economic stimulus, and how big government causes the economy to grind to a virtual halt. Of course, none of this is new, or particularly rocket science. What's amazing is that there are still people, in this country, today, who believe that big government will help them be more prosperous, and wonder why the government fabricating trillions of dollars to hand out to people could possibly be bad. I mean, it's like finding people who really do still believe the earth is flat: yeah, I'd guess they exist, but in America? Now? Roughly 50% of the voters? Boggles the mind. Stay in school, kiddies; learn the basics of how the world works so you don't grow up dumb. When the nice man on TV talks about enormous "stimulus pack...

Feel free to gloss over this post if the reasoning is also blatantly obvious to you, but it seems some [dense] people in the world are baffled that although banks have received upwards of $500 billion in direct cash injections from the government, as well as more than $2 trillion in US currency "loans" for their secret (and presumably worthless) collateral, yet private credit is still very tight, and most of the bank money is either in deposit at the Fed, or invested in Treasuries paying 0%. Well, let me explain why this is expected and easily predictable. See, the country has been running on borrowed time/money for a while. We have destroyed our industrial base while simultaneously running up huge consumer debt. This combination has allowed people to continue living "the good life", despite the fact that our country runs a huge trade deficit, and policies which actively discourage industrial production, development, and wealth creation (eg: environmental restrictio...

An interesting thing happened today: short-term Treasuries sold with negative returns ( link ). This means that you get less money back at maturity for them than you pay today; ie: worse than holding cash. "How can this happen?", you might be inclined to wonder. Therein lies a very interesting context and back-story... See, in my mind it starts with the fractional reserve banking system and the Fed. The banking system is what allows currency in circulation to multiply, as banks loan out money based on fractional deposits. This allows the amount of loans outstanding (and consequently the amount of money outstanding) to be significantly larger than the actual sum of deposited "hard" money held by the banks as reserves on the loans. The mathematical maximum in additional money is 9x the "real" deposited money; in practice it's typically closer to 2x. As an aside, derivatives also add "fake" money to the financial system. These are conditional de...

I'd like to point out that this article is pretty fricken funny: Spore was the top pirated game for 2008. If you're not laughing at the delicious poetic irony already, read on for the brief explanation... See, Draconic Restriction Malware (DRM, also called Digital Rights Management by some marketing departments trying to distort the name to hide what it does) is software or other restriction devices which prevent purchasers from fully and arbitrarily using something they have purchased. Usually DRM is found in software, but the music industry is also well-known for abusing their customers with DRM, as are other well-known anti-consumer organizations. Now, Spore was published by EA, and become fairly well-known not for the game itself, but for the particularly onerous DRM added by the publisher. In particular, one aspect of their Malware additions was the requirement that EA's servers be available online, your system communicate with them, and they allow you to play the gam...

Today's nomination for Idiot of the Day goes to Tom Daschle, for his self-serving pronoucement that reforming health care will spur the US economy. Now, I'm sure Tom is as self-serving as any other [ex-]politician, but seriously, you'd have to be a moron to take that statement at face value. Let's look at Obama's health-care reform plan, in a nutshell. He wants to make medical insurance mandatory for everyone, and he wants to make businesses pay for it (directly through penalties or indirectly through increased taxes). By socializing medial insurance, you'll get a standard baseline coverage plan for everyone, but at a higher overhead cost (because the government is horrible managing costs in enormous bureaucracies). So the change would increase health-care costs for businesses, while simultaneously increasing health-care taxation on businesses. Maybe the great and mighty chosen one would like to explain how doubly increasing health-care costs is going to "...

So today, Bernanke commented that lenders were not doing what was in their best interest by modifying mortgages they service to keep people in homes they cannot afford. Now, I'm not sure when Benny became a comedian, but let's examine that pronouncement: - By modifying the loans they don't own, banks would be violating the contracts with the owners of the securities, exposing themselves to lawsuit costs and judgments for the write-down value (normally the loss to the investor, which would become the bank's loss if they illegally modified the loans). - The amount of write-down required to keep people in the houses they bought would, in many cases, be much larger than the current loss in value of the home, even subtracting the cost of foreclosure. Since foreclosure is still possible in the country (at least for two more months), it's still the most cost-effective option in those cases, even with the barriers the government is scurrying to erect. Strike two, Benny. - ...

In a surprise to nobody, the explosion of cheap private credit has made college ridiculously expensive and unaffordable for many people. I'm sure we'll have lots of opinions from pundits and politicians on how we can help people mortgage their futures to send their kids to college, but I have a novel solution to the problem: How about we stop giving out cheap loans to everyone and subsidizing the risk with public debt? "How does that help" you ask? Well, I'll explain. See, lots of cheap money means everybody can borrow for things they consider important investments. Many people think college education fits in that category, so there has undoubtedly been lots of borrowing (mortgages, etc.) to finance college. That, in turn, drives up college prices, due to simple supply and demand. If we reduced the flow of cheap borrowing, there would be less money competing for college spots, so prices would go down. It would also have the added bonus of reducing prices for all...

Just wanted to point people at this post , cause the video is interesting. I'd also like to plug my response on the post, because I've been meaning to write my own blog entry on it, but for now the response will suffice. I'm not sure how important it is for the average person to understand how the money supply works, and coincidentally inflation/deflation, but I'm pretty sure it's vital that if we want to preserve our monetary system and likely our country as a whole, we get some people who do understand it and care about preserving it making decisions about it, instead of the hopelessly corrupt blithering idiots in Congress currently.

So despite the title, this is more of a scientific question than a rant per-se. See, the debate this morning was about how dumb the American people really are, and how long could a politician do exactly the opposite of what he said he was doing (or promised to be doing) before the people notice and get upset about it (if ever)? On one side, there's the fundamental belief that people have some intelligence, and eventually even the densest people will figure out that something is wrong. On the other side, blind allegiance really could blind people forever. Case in point: Obama's administration. During his campaign, he constantly promised change, a departure from politics as usual, working for bi-partisan compromise, cutting wasteful government spending... all the standard political promises made by everyone. Now that he's been elected, he's appointing Washington insiders and liberal extremists, drafting enormous wasteful spending plans, gearing up for partisan fights... a...

So an interesting thought occurred to me today, and only partially in jest. Our government has spent roughly 33% more last year than it's expected to take in in taxes, and committed 300% more in potential losses. By all accounts, we're going to have a "stimulus" handout bill at the start of next year totaling the same amount in the first month alone, with untold trillions borrowed and spent later that same year. We have an unfunded $55 trillion projected future obligation for social security and medicare, and no hope of ever funding it or fixing it. Yet, there seems to be no political will to curtail spending at all; in fact, by all accounts everyone wants to run the printing presses at full tilt, with no regard for the consequences. Given that, and the current economic problems, why is the government still collecting taxes at all? The total tax income next year is projected to be well less than half of what we're already planning to borrow and spend anyway... why...

Here's what I think California, and the country in general, should do to solve the issue of gay marriage, in a way which would be at least palatable to both sides. The fundamental problem is that the concept a marriage is rooted in societal customs, which are themselves largely rooted in religion. America was founded as a country in which the laws would not involve religion, but it inherited some concepts which were indirectly tied to religion, and this is now causing friction. For example, most of the gay marriage opponents are fine with gay civil unions, they just consider "marriage" to be a fundamental religious institution which should be protected, and to some extent I agree. To that end, I'd propose the following solution: All references in the state Constitution and laws to "marriage" are changed to "civil union", and the state ceases to recognize "marriage" as a legal or civil concept. All existing marriages are re-characterized a...

So it's official: the next president of the US will be the representative from the Socialist party, Barrack Obama. True to form, the spin has already begun, with Obama already saying that the promised "change" and "good times" might take longer than one administration. Way to get a head start on lowering expectations; you're gonna need it. I like to look at the positives when I can, though, and there are some silver linings to the dark cloud of socialist reform which is about the envelope the country. Among the positives: Supreme Court appointments: Chances are we won't see any right-wing religious wackos appointed by Obama, which has to be a good thing No super-majority in the Senate: It doesn't look like the Democrats will get enough seats in the Senate to be able to pass bills without getting at least a tiny semblance of bipartisan support, which has to be a good thing. Of course, with the apparent ease of bribing Congressional members to pass obs...

It occurs to me more and more often recently that the problem with taxation is not going to be fixed without a revolt. I was reminded of this with a news report about how voters in Massachusetts (Txachusetts?) are voting to eliminate their state income tax, and how all the politicians are bemoaning it as it would be horrible for the state. But I don't think so... See, politicians in America always spend more money than they have. We have no sense of fiscal discipline, and we've run deficits at every level for so long that restraining spending is not really even a consideration any more. Look at the recent and upcoming stimulus and insider payoff packages: we've spent over a trillion dollars we don't have, when we're already $10 trillion in debt, and the only complaint was that the bills didn't have enough pork for everyone. Eventually, this usually leads to higher taxes. For example, I predict that by the end of Obama's term(s), we will have substantially h...

Not that he would actually read anything posted on an unknown blog, but I'm going to write in this style anyway... Dear Mr. Buffet, Recently you submitted a NYTimes opinion piece about it being a good time to invest in American equities. I have long been a believer in your wisdom when it comes to investing, but this recommendation raises some interesting questions which were not directly addressed in your piece, and I'm wondering if you could/would provide some much needed clarifications to your position. First, as a supporter and adviser of Obama, I assume you are intimately familiar with his proposed and likely economic policies. Furthermore, I think most people would agree that you have a very broad understanding of the current global economic situation, and particularly the US situation. Given this, it seems clear that you would realize that the US is likely headed for the largest expansion of both government function and government oversight since the last time the curren...

There's a lot of talk these days about how to "fix" the problems in the economy. One of the major causes of both the initial problems, and the problems with the proposed solutions, is the concept of self-reinforcing trends (or spirals). Often these can cause problems to get much worse, and its hard to prevent them if you don't know (or choose to ignore) what's going on. For example, the housing bubble was such a trend. As prices went up, lenders figured they could give a loan to anyone with a pulse and the ability to make a teaser rate payment, even if they were accruing negative equity, because when they sold in a few years the rise in asset valuation would cover the balance of the loan and then some. Buyers figured the same thing, which led to many people speculating on the premise of getting rich quick with virtually no effort required. The housing correction has a similar trend, only in reverse. As house values decline, speculators default. Their foreclosed ho...

I know I've probably mentioned this before, but reading about another example today made me want to bitch about it again. For reference, the article I read was about how Fannie Mae will now be buying up bad loans from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. The action is somewhat expected given the recent nationalization of the GSE's, and thus their renewed emphasis on wasting money instead of making money. However, it also emphasizes the utter idiocy of government policy in the housing market. The FHLB of Chicago nominally exists to provide below-market loans to people to help them afford to buy houses. Now, helping people afford to buy houses is not a bad idea in and of itself. However, this, in a microcosm, was a huge factor which lead to the housing bubble. Let me explain... When you have subsidized purchases of assets (of any kind, assets or subsidies), and the asset prices are not set by an authority (ie: any free market), the asset prices will rise to compensate for the ...

Come one, come all... witness the glory that is the American system of government and "representation" of the people. This week we are being treated to a quintessential example of the American political system at its finest. Some of the great and noble acts already on display or expected to appear: - The house taking a 4-page monumental power grab and gigantic corrupt payoff bill, and transforming it into a 104-page monumental power grab and gigantic corrupt payoff bill with riders, pork, subsidies, and even more filth - The president lying about the scope of the problem and the effects of the proposed "solution", to pressure Congress to pass the bill - Congressional leaders pushing to pass the bill once it had all the pork they could stuff into it in only a few days, even though the overwhelming majority of people in the country (90%+) opposed it on principle - A "rousing" empty-headed partisan bash speech by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just before ...

NPR had an interesting analysis of the possible motivation for the bailout proposal (sorry, can't find the link), which was based on what happened in the money market space when Lehman went under. I know I'll do a poor job summarizing, so if you want more info, google around a bit. Basically, when Lehman went under, there was a minor run on money market accounts; something like $80 billion was pulled out in one day. Now, money markets buy short term commercial paper, like what companies issue to fund daily operations until they can liquidate their assets to cover it. When Lehman went under, some money market funds "broke the buck", and that caused a massive withdraw. Now, if you're a financial institution running a money market fund, and you get massive redemptions, your money isn't liquid (it's in short term commercial paper, or bonds, or other lending), so you need to borrow in the same manner. However, on that day there was no money to borrow, so basica...

As everyone who reads any semblance of news (even really biased "news" like Newsweek, for example) knows, the government is currently hashing out the details of the inevitable bailout program. Although, in all fairness it should be phrased as 'another' bailout program, since there have been several already and will be more in the future, but this one is the largest and most public to date. As I'm rarely short of opinions, I have some on this... First, the people pitching the bailout could use a good solid bitch-slap about calling things what they are and not hiding behind spin and double-talk. First, Paulson and Bernanke were careful not to use the term 'bailout', even though it was blatantly obvious their plan was one (judges would have also accepted 'crony payout' or 'taxpayer anal rape' as alternatives). Then, there was the BS about the government might not lose too much money, even though the explicit point of the bailout (in their wor...

This post about price vs rental price makes basically the same point I was making, but with an interesting observation/speculation as an addendum. Following the logic that the market will drop until there is parity between the numbers, it stands to reason that you can work out exactly how much "loss" (as opposed to equity) is in each property, based on the sales price and rental value. If you buy that as a concept, if the owner cannot make the payments for at least the next 5ish years, then someone needs to eat that loss (ie: lose that much money) in the next few years. It can either be the original owner entirely, or it could be shared with a bank (in the case of foreclosure or short sale), and/or with a knife catcher. Nothing can decrease the loss amount, it's just the owner's decision on how the total loss is distributed, based on how they act now. An interesting perspective, I thought.

In case your on the fence about McCain/Obama, here's another cheery bit to help influence your decision: Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush administration I know when I woke up this morning, I thought, "Gee, what could the next administration do to best help the country? I know: they could start an enormous partisan political fight which will consume billions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees, divide the country, exasperate the citizens, and at the very best accomplish nothing, while having the outside chance of crippling the ability of our government to function effectively. Yeah, that's a great idea!" Dear god, what a horrible disaster Obama would be. I'm sorry: if you are aware of this and you still vote for Obama, you're either an enemy of the country, a partisan fanatic, or a blithering idiot; there's really no other way I can see it. This is quite possibly the stupidest partisan political plan ever, and that's a pretty high bar.

Just a quick funny, from the Washington Post : Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday dismissed the ongoing Republican National Convention as a substance-free spectacle... At least Obama's weaving some levity into his substance-free rhetoric. :)

This is kinda a PSA post, along the lines of the rent vs buy calculation. Lots of people have been clamoring about house prices getting back to normal, and although that's happening, they are far from there yet. Many people are confused as to where they should be, and there are lots of useful guidelines (3x annual household income, etc.), and here's another one: A useful metric for calculating when prices are equivalent to rent amounts. If the total ownership amount (mortgage + taxes + insurance + HOA + upkeep) minus the amount going into principle is equal to the rent, the price is about "right". The rationale is that if you were renting, you could be saving the principle amount in a bank account, and be accumulating just as much "equity" as the person paying a higher cost to own. For a 30-year mortgage, about 1/4 of the payment is principle during the first 10 years or so, and it's about $6.32/month per 1K borrowed (for a 6.5% mortgage). So say you hav...

Everybody has an opinion on politics, and I am no different. When it comes to the presidential election, I think Obama will take it, and not just cause he's ahead in the polls. There's historical precedent on his side, and moreover, the election is likely to reflect an underlying statistic, which is easier to make predictions about. I'll tell you what I think each are... First, the historical precedent. America is entering a recession not unlike the one which preceded the Great Depression. I say preceded because the recession was just the economic correction of over inflated asset markets (sound familiar?), and would likely have been painful but short if not for the actions of the government in response to it. Instead of letting the markets correct and the participants take their losses, the people elected socialist leaning representatives to make the government solve their problems by nationalization. This, in turn, plunged the country into the depression, since they were ...

The more I think about it, the more I think this would be a hugely beneficial thing to have (for consumers, at least... not so helpful for scam artists). A national database with all real estate information, even just sales information, would go a long way toward stabilizing the housing market and reassuring people. Some things it should have: - Uniform monetary accounting The total sales price, and all special considerations and circumstances, should be recorded in a standard, uniform way. For example, there should be a net sales price which is the gross price minus any seller considerations, kickbacks, or down payment assistance. All parties providing all assistance should be in the public record, all non-monetary considerations should be included with valuation approximations, and all special terms documented. It should be against the law to provide incorrect information or not include material information, and the all parties (buyer, seller, agents, etc.) should be jointly and seve...

So today, our governator signed an executive order to force the state to pay all non-essential personnel federal minimum wage, lay off all temporary workers, and suspend all payment programs until the state passes a budget. Basically, this is what the California constitution requires (not spending money without a budget), but the legislature has been wink-nudge ignoring it for the last 5+ years of budget impasses, and this year looks no different. Arnold is hoping the order will prod the legislature to do their f-ing jobs (not likely), and the political backlash won't be inaccurately attributed to him instead of the legislature (also not likely). It's a good idea, I think, overall, but I don't think it goes far enough. The order allows for back-paying of everyone's normal wages after a budget is passed, so it really only hurts the lower-class employees who are less financially secure. Personally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment which provides this action ...

Rather than being down on Congress for being corrupt and acting against the interests of the American people, maybe I should offer some suggestions for what they could better spend $300 billion dollars on than giving it to the lenders who created the housing bubble and resulting recession. So, in no particular order, here are some things Congress could spend money on which could help: Reform GSE oversight (cost guess: couple million) I'd suggest restricting their loan buying to conforming loans (eg: 20% down, fully amortizing) with a cap of say 5x the average annual income for areas. Enough to finance houses at sustainable prices, but restrictive enough to not get them into the $5.2 trillion dollar debt disaster we are currently bailing them out from. Develop national RE listing/info database (cost guess: hundred million) A national database for real estate listing, freely accessible to anyone, with uniform data presentation and historical information, would greatly help illuminate...

It boggles my mind that the only people who honestly and bluntly report what the US Congress is going is not the mainstream media, but rather the small blogs and whatnot. Something has to change; it's just ridiculous that our government so blatantly acts against the interests of the people, and our media ignores it. Or worse, acknowledges their actions but misrepresents them as neutral, or even worse as beneficial. I'm not sure if their actions or the general stupidity of the American people in analyzing them is a worse blight on the country, but they are both pretty horrible. Today's idiocy is Congress spending $300+ BILLION dollars on absorbing bank losses for giving out the bad loans which fueled the housing bubble and kept housing unaffordable for responsible Americans. ...but wait, that's not all! In addition, they are refinancing millions of borrowers who "own" properties they cannot possibly afford and most of whom will default on their home loans into ...

So an interesting thing is happening in the stock market, and I thought I'd blog about it cause it was interesting to me. If stock market stuff bores you, you might want to skip this post. So, recently (a week ago or so), the SEC made a new temporary rule that investors will not be allowed to naked short the stocks of select, large, financial institutions. Basically, this means in order to sell shorts on those stocks, the brokerage selling the short must own the stock shares. Since there's was not really an issue with defaulting on naked shorts, and it's very market specific, the rule is not designed to prevent any negative effects, but rather strictly to manipulate the market. Now, normally, a stock is pushed in both directions by stock buying and shorting. Buying pushes a stock higher, as more bids are fulfilled. Shorting pushes a stock lower, as it's basically the opposite pressure on the stock price (the brokerage is selling shares it holds for someone else onto the...

I was reading the wikipedia page in the New Deal today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal ); it makes for fascinating reading. In particular, if you massage the timeline a little, and replace FDR with Obama, you get a fairly accurate representation of what's likely to be the case in about 6 months. Which makes the New Deal a fairly good model of what the government is likely to enact to try to pull us out of the current mess they have created. Let's look at the surviving long-term programs from the New Deal: Social Security This Ponzi scheme is the pride and joy of the New Deal, providing retirement and disability benefits for all Americans. It will be bankrupting the country around 2040 if not substantially modified/abolished before then, because it's a financial disaster which is a Ponzi scheme. I think we can count that as a negative outcome. The FDIC This institution provides insurance to prevent runs on banks, and establishes rules to prevent them from over-levera...

A quick recap, in case you're not familiar with the recent financial news. We're in a housing asset price correction, driven by a lack of easy risky credit and an unwillingness of big banks to continue to sponsor deficit consumer spending at their own loss. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two enormous companies who have reaped massive profits for their executives and shareholders during the bubble, are now being forced to acknowledge their losses, and rely on their implicit government bailout, which looks likely to eventually cost US taxpayers trillions. I ask: is anyone surprised? This entire economic cycle has been about privatizing gains and socializing losses. Everybody has been operating under the assumption of bailouts, from the large investment banks, to the GSE's, to the individual consumers. The GSE regulators have either been completely asleep at the wheel, or letting the GSE's do whatever they want with a "wink-wink" for an eventual bailout. How dense a...

There's an interesting trend going on in the online world these days: people are making sites less secure. It's not so much the casual sites, where a simple email and password are enough for access; it's more the financial sites and wanna-be "secure" sites that are making themselves less secure and more annoying to access. I don't get it... why would you want to make yourself less secure, especially as a financial institution? What benefit does it have for your customers to make their identity and financial information more easily stolen? Are you even aware that your online services are being transformed this way? Perhaps an example will help. Today, I converted by 401k access account to their new access mechanism. Previously, I used my SSN and a user-chosen password; easy to remember, unique, reasonably secure. Now, they have a custom username, two backup reset questions, and a security image. Not only did I have to write down all that information on the onli...

First and foremost, I think the ruling is a mistake; there's nothing in the Constitution which would extend the protections afforded to US citizens to foreigners, especially those actively opposed to the US. The court is creating new Constitutional protections, and that's not their job. Moreover, the new protections are going to be nothing but trouble for the military in the future, and one of the worst things we can do as a country is make it more difficult for our military to keep us safe. That said, I think Bush shares at least half of the blame for this idiotic ruling and precedent. As a blame Gore for politicizing Global Warming, turning it into a partisan battle, and thus allowing people to compartmentalize any actual evidence as political propaganda, so I blame Bush for creating a situation which forced the Supreme Court to make this ruling. It is against international law, and the spirit of America, to hold anyone indefinitely without a trial, the ability to rebut accus...

Caught a little bit of the Daily Show yesterday (good show, bit liberal but funny); they had a funny bit about the senate report on the pre-war Iraq intelligence, and how it was basically ignored by the mainstream media. I found it funny on a couple levels. The take that the Daily Show had, which was that it was a really important revealing report which was ignored, was amusing. On the other hand, the subtext was more interesting, in my opinion. For the actual report, the democrats on the committee basically wrote the accusations, the the republicans disagreed with all of them. So basically, the report was nothing more than partisan business as usual coming out of Congress, wasting time whining about how they (the democrats) don't like Bush. Which leads back to the mainstream media basically ignoring it. Maybe they thought it was above the comprehension level of their audience, but that's doubtful; the democrats seemed careful to boil down the partisan accusations into simplifi...

So the 500 page massive global warming bill, which nobody thought would actually get passed, and even if by some large-scale lapse of judgment did get passed, Bush would veto, got killed today. Proponents argued that it was important to codify their religious beliefs into US law so as to force them upon the rest of American. Opponents pointed out that the bill would do nothing to help man-made global warming even if it was a real problem, and would just export money and jobs out of the US. Both sides claimed victory, of course, with proponents expecting to re-launch another version of the bill when they have more believers in Congress, and a more liberal president. So far business as usual. However, one thing I found interesting was that one of the most accurate and insightful comments about the garbage legislation came not from a Republican, but from a moderate Democrat who voted against it. The Democrat, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, commented that the end-result of the bill would be t...

There's a fine line between a misleading characterization and an outright lie, and the news media in particular seems to enjoy dancing between both sides. There is a certain danger in that, which is compounded by its subtlety and lasting effects. For example, consider religious suicide bombers. One could accurately characterize them as homicidal zealots. One could also characterize them as patriotic freedom fighters. The prevalent characterization among the respected figures in the society in which people decide to become suicide bombers can greatly affect people's decisions, and indeed their lives. It's disingenuous for people, and in particular for the American news media which typically claims unbiased reporting, to claim honesty in reporting while ignoring honesty in characterizations. Moreover, there's a long-term large risk involved in deceiving the public with repeated misleading characterizations, to the point where people think they are supporting one thing, bu...

This post dedicated to Rep Shelley Berkley, representing the state of Nevada. She's has the honor of being the latest person added to my growing list of blithering idiots representing people (who, I can only assume, are also blithering idiots) in our Congress. She makes the list for voting for all provisions of the taxpayer bailout of speculative housing purchases bill, with the following justification: “‘You cannot have row after row of unoccupied homes in neighborhoods,’ Berkley said in an interview. ‘It drives down values.’” Hey, news flash for ya Shelley, and I'll try to use small words: If you don't want row after row of unoccupied homes, figure out a way to encourage the owner to sell or rent them! Here's a humble suggestion, for example: impose a tax on the owners of unoccupied homes after a period of time, per-month that they sit there. Houses are sitting vacant because owners (banks, builders, speculators) are expecting a bailout. They are waiting for you to dr...

Just random musings about the current state. The housing market appears to be kinda in limbo right now, holding it's collective breath waiting for the next election and what shape the inevitable speculator bailout comes in. There are some buyers, but mainly these are people thinking they are getting a good deal based on the prices at the height of the bubble, and the irrational belief that prices will regain their inflated values sooner rather than later. These are mostly speculators, and in most cases will probably constitute an eventual additional wave of foreclosures and defaults. They are hedging that the bailout will come before they are insolvent, and the taxpayers will buy their homes for them. There are lots of people trying to sell, but REO inventories are still accumulating. This is partially due to increasing NOD/foreclosures, but also due to banks insisting on dishonest and deceptive pricing and sales practices, as they try to fool buyers into thinking they are getting ...