Bush Abuses of Power

For a perspective on the sorts of things I consider to the Bush administration's abuses of power, consider the 3/28/2008 episode of "This American Life."

Old Posts

I happened across a couple of my old postings that made it into the rec.humor.funny archive from another political discussion. I thought people here might appreciate them.

This first one was posted in the wake of the William Smith scandal (1991), which prominently featured a certain prominent senator:

Oh, Kennedy

(Here's a link, in case you've forgotten about William Smith):
William Smith

I don't recall when I posted the next one, but it had to have been in the early 1990s:
Lobby Money

Obama's Friends' Comments

I'm amused by people who are shocked, simply shocked to find that a black man is friends with someone who resents past discrimination towards blacks and who speaks openly about his resentment.

Perhaps those same people will also be shocked to discover that I am a white guy who has friends and relatives who resent bussing and affirmative action. I've heard a comment or two at family reunions that I have not immediately denounced while storming from the room--perhaps that makes me a racist too.

Whatever we do, we should definitely sweep all these resentments under the rug and never, ever discuss them openly. Any shrink will tell you that it is far better to let resentments fester than to discuss them.

Independents and the Two Parties

In New Jersey, a plurality of voters is unaffiliated (our version of "independent"). That doesn't even count people like me who switch affiliation depending on which primary looks more interesting.

Unfortunately, the two parties seem to be taking the wrong lessons from this state of affairs. The Reps have become more strident, and the Dems are rapidly abandoning whatever principles they may once have held.

Perot had the right idea. It's a shame that Buchanan peed in our sandbox.

The Evils of the Two Parties

The Federalist Papers have quite a bit to say about the evils of political parties.

Of course, it is an intriguing irony that the two main authors ended up be principal founding members of the political parties whose descendants are still going at it today.

(Yes, I consider Hamilton to be a forerunner of modern Republicans. Even down to the vaguely monarchist sentiment that accompanies the Republican nominating process. So sue me. No wait, that would be the Democrats...)

Democrats and Chaos

I'm having trouble thinking of a political party in history which has been quite so inept as the Democrats. I'm coming up blank.

"Elect us. We promise that we'll do a better job governing the country than we do governing our own party!"

Is anybody else ready to jump off of the two-party duopoly yet? We've got one part dominated by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and the other party dominated by abject confusion. Ralph Nader is looking awfully good about now... Maybe a Ross Perot write-in candidacy...

Patriotism and Dissent

I've been told that I should not criticize the Bush administration for invading Iraq. After all, we're already there, and we should "look forward" and "support the troops."

So when are we permitted to call for a condemnation of an administration that lies to its people to drag us into a war that most people don't want, (and that we don't need for any legitimate national security reasons)? I'm tired of being told that "now isn't the time." When, exactly, will the time come?

In this country, part of being patriotic is defending against tyranny by criticizing wrong-headed and erroneous actions by the people in power.

Fortunately, the current generation seems to be able to draw the distinction between the poor saps in uniform who are just doing their jobs and the kingpins who lie to the American people to try to get sweetheart oil contracts for their buddies.

I can understand and appreciate the argument that we have to clean up the mess that Bush & co have left. That doesn't mean that I have to be happy about it. And it certainly doesn't mean that I should not criticize the immoral actions that brought us to this point.

Liberals vs Conservatives

Liberals (and there are far too few of them around any more) are distinguished by a world view more than a stand on a particular issue. Liberals tend to believe that if you offer people opportunity, that they will make something good of it.

Conservatives are more interested in preventing change to the existing power structure. I don't mean this in a feudal, or in a Panglossian way. Instead, conservatives feel that things really aren't so bad the way they are, and most changes would tend to make things worse.

As I commented in an earlier post, this may mean that in a society that values social mobility and churn, these two values may not necessarily be in conflict. (For example, the microcredit lending institutions in the third world provide people with an opportunity to create a small business while also requiring a level of responsibility and initiative. Arguably, these institutions represent the best of both liberal and conservative thought as they exist in the USA.)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who use "conservatism" as a way to protect their own interests or to disadvantage their opponents. Conservatives today are making the same mistake that liberals made in the 1970s--they are seeking to stomp out dissent. If a political movement is to remain vibrant, it has to permit a certain level of disagreement in order to prevent its ideas from becoming stale, or to prevent the movement from being hijacked by extremist partisans of one type or another.

What Do You Do with a Country Like Iraq?

We've recently been treated to news coverage about a verbal gaffe that McCain made when discussing Iran's support for certain elements within Iraq. This whole thing is a continuation of the Silly Season. Of course McCain knows who Iran is supporting in Iraq. Unfortunately, we are probably doomed to hear candidates ridiculing each others' jetlag-induced verbal slips.

Unfortunately, the whole controversy is papering over a much more important question that McCain has to answer: Why he supported the invasion in the first place.

Hillary's answer is that Bush tricked her into it, which is not flattering, but is probably believable. (On the other hand, I would feel more comfortable if she had read the intelligence estimate first. Haven't we had enough of presidents who can't be bothered to do their own homework?)

One of the pressing questions about McCain is how he would deal with countries that we don't like much--like Iran. A clear exposition of his thought process in the runup to the Iraq invasion would cast a light on that question.

Corporate Welfare Links

Here are a few good links on Corporate Welfare

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

CDO Problems and Lax Regulation

A big part of the problem was the way that risk was priced into the CDOs. The money that flowed into the mortgage market came largely from investment funds purchasing loans from banks after they had been packaged into CDOs.

The idea of the CDOs was that a large number of obligations from a diverse set of markets would be packaged together, allowing the overall risk to be calculated statistically. This calculation has ended up being incorrect for several reasons:
1) The historical time window for the CDOs was too short to have included a significant retrenchment in home prices.
2) An implicit assumption was made that different housing markets would retrench at different times, spreading the risk over time.
3) Most importantly: Nobody took into account that the front-line lenders (eg banks) would change their behavior in writing loans. When banks held the loan, they were much more careful about who they lent to. When all they were doing was originating loans for resale as CDOs, their standards became much more lax.

The upshot is that arguably the problem is that there was insufficient regulation of the CDO marketplace to allow for enough transparency to correctly calculate risk. The collapse in CDO prices has been because of this lack of transparency--you have no way of knowing about the quality of the loans underlying a given CDO.

Oil Revenues and Funding for Terrorism

Here's a good example of how oil revenues are used to promote terrorism:
Venezuelan oil revenues fund Colombian terrorists

Oil Hidden Cost

I've been arguing that the oil economy carries a number of hidden costs. Prominent examples include environmental degradation, political instability, costs associated with military interventions, and the necessity of shoveling money at people who wish us ill.

On top of that, we will see (and have seen) the costs associated with generation plants decrease as the technology develops.

My argument is that the "extra" cost is an investment in being able to avoid the hidden costs associated with the oil/coal economy.

IAGS Report
Alternet Summary

Have you read anything about the new generation plants that use mirrors to heat water rather than photovoltaics? They are supposed to be much cheaper and easier to maintain. Do you happen to know which technology was used in the plant near you?

DOE Document on solar mirror-based generation systems
Treehugger summary

(The treehugger link is a quicky summary for people who really aren't that interested. The pdf is for people who like more details.)