Four Years Ago We Stood on the Cliff

If we've learned anything in this election cycle it's that people have learned nothing, incapable of complex considerations of fact that might provide contrast to their expectations of reality.

President Obama remains in a tight race--that he will ultimately win-with Mitt Romney, and despite considerable achievements across several areas of political and social endeavor. But the battle continues because of three factors:

A) Conservative and religious voters cannot see beyond their legitimate religious belief that both abortion and homosexuality pose special threats to society and raising children.

B) That people believe economic change can come somewhat instantly, and anything that takes longer smacks of incompetence or corruption.

C) A general willingness in some voters to believe lies that conform to certain conscious or subconscious perceptions about the capabilities, motivations, and worthiness of black people.

The President has tried to counter both (B) and (C), while largely concluding that he will not convince those with social issues in group (A). He likely calculated that he could offset the ultra conservative religious vote with more animated support from women, progressives and gay individuals.

The tendency on the left is to dismiss those concerned about social issues (or the "wrong side" of social issues) as being largely inferior if not outright wrong. We are always sure that such dismissal--the trivialization of the other--does nobody any good. Everyone's concerns need to be considered, and some decent compromise found within the law.

However, if we are to look at the policies centered around broader American life and the struggling economy, it's hard to dismiss Obama's efforts as inadequate. Even today just days before the election on November 6th we see signs of continued economic health. It is not robust, and the indicated job growth, like in the ADP report released today, certainly is not enough to make people feel secure. And yet when combined with upticks in consumer confidence and increases in manufacturing, it's hard to ignore the positive trends.

We are better off than we were four years ago. Primarily because we set on the edge of worldwide financial collapse that could have brought down our entire way of financing life and paying for those things that we need.

The assumption from many in the population at large is that asset values (in their homes) should have remained as they were, inflated, and the thus the deflation now is somehow a sign of things not being quite right or normal. The belief is that you can take a major financial collapse and work out the kinks in a year or two, or that such things can be quickly resolved via lowering tax rates, prosecuting bankers or letting various sectors of the economy (cars/banks) collapse under their own weight.

Reality reveals otherwise, and that the choices thus made were the right ones, with an economy slowly coming out of the doldrums. Concurrent with the economic effort came the implementation of healthcare reform, which, despite critiques, actually exists as an additional initiative that will prove long terms gains in encouraging both mental security and entrepreneurial freedom down the road.  The spread of economic efficiency and innovation in that sector, while improving people's access to life affirming healthcare, represents a massive focus on moving the economy into robust growth. When you are not worried about your health coverage, or keeping some job merely because it provides the best insurance, then you are free to travel, to try new things, to take more ambitious economic actions. Taking different approaches to healthcare opens doors and moves us all forward.

Four years ago we were headed off a cliff. Now we are not. President Obama has spent four years trying to mend the tear in our economic and social fabric. He has been hampered most robustly by those in group (C) who have sought diversion and untruth and hate as weapons of combat. And yet, forward we go. The President has gone out of his way to ignore the cheap tricks and Trump cards and those who would seek to suck him into some perceived racial or ethnic battle. He has approached policies that benefit all Americans, and from a variety of angles and approaches.

That broad and focused look forward is what will continue to serve us well.

Foreign Babies Enjoy U.S. Oil, While Domestic Gas Prices Rise!

Young Swede Enjoying US Oil

After nearly touching the $3.00 level a few months back, gas prices here in the U.S. have roared upwards,with fanciful talk of prices hitting an unlikely $5.00 by summer. Of course such talk happened last year as well, so we tend to dismiss it. The chatter is driven by Republicans, who are hoping that some sort of event creates the type of negative impact that could knock President Obama out of office in a way that their own candidates cannot. A rising gas price is a perennial giver of hope to the few who want a new president at any cost. The President has argued for alternatives to oil, and Republicans have argued for the status quo, but more of it. Which makes this article in U.S.A. Today an eye opener.

For the first time since 1949, the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported today. Bloomberg writes that to offset weak U.S. demand, refiners exported 439,000 barrels a day more than were imported the year before.

(USA Today)

Notice the reference to "weak demand" in the United States. One would think there would be raging hunger pushing prices up, no? Are rising prices weakening demand? Or should weak demand cause prices to fall domestically? At what point do sustained elevated gas prices drop demand, and at what point does that falling demand cause prices to drop? It's all very chicken and egg, with speculators, manipulative refiners/oil companies, and world demand muddying the rationality of the market.

The article also quotes from a 24/7 Wall Street article that states, "The secret to making a profit in refining these days is for refiners to source crude oil domestically and then sell the refined products to US consumers at prices based on imported oil."

If anything, we seriously need some congressional action and study in terms of how domestic pricing is structured, but we can be pretty sure that won't happen soon. Domestic production is at an eight year high, and yet street prices rise in tandem, and Republicans will continue to give aid and comfort to the status quo. Clearly, more oil, is not the solution, when the market is manipulated, complex, and international. But at minimum the prices we pay should reflect the reality of the ample supply.

Newt Wants Cars Big Enough For Your Gun Rack

Newt Energy Policy

Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential candidate and proxy deep thinker, arrived at Oral Roberts University's Maybee Center on February 20th  to speak to a crowd of enthusiastic students and supporters. The very school I wanted to attend back in the day was probably a good choice for him, given that the entire evangelical world has lost its moorings, substituting a stale and immoral rhetorical politics for the love and concern that a supposed follower of Christ is supposed to show.

Newt began by contrasting economic numbers when he left office with those of today, absent any clarification regarding inflation, the changing world, contributions by Democrats or fiscal destruction by Republicans.

Newt went on to divide the world in two and without nuance: un-American liberals on one side, and morally focused constitutionally loyal conservatives on the other.  He mentions American Exceptionalism, and goes on to suggest that a secular Obama is waging an unconstitutional war on religion. Newt barges forward, saying that he will undue every act of religious bigotry by the President, who is essentially labeled a hedonist, a religious bigot, and a radical. Newt is a master at associative name calling, where he tosses out negative imagery in one sentence and Obama's name in separate sentence, letting your mind do the mental link and subsequent evil thinking.

He goes on. "Arrogant Obama" is trying to redistribute and portion out the pursuit of happiness.  The President's energy policy is anti-American and best defined by his suggestion that we buy smaller cars. Newt draws a huge laugh, from Christians, about the inability to fit one's shotguns inside a small vehicle.  We can thus reduce Newt's own reductions down to "Energy big enough for your car and its gun rack."

According to Maureen Dowd of the N.Y. Times, Newt goes on to declare Obama "the most dangerous president in modern American history." Coming from someone outside of Osama Bin Laden's family, or the random Aghani, such hyperbole borders on

But I didn't listen that far. Because I got lost at the point where an audience of ostensible Christians took moral advice and flagrant distortion with equal vigor, and from a man who is as marginal a Christian as he is presidential material. Not that I think Obama is anything more than casual, cultural Christian himself. But Obama is not out pontificating on morality as much as he is out there pushing policy remedies for difficult problems.

I am of late confounded by the fact that the very same school that produced Michelle Bachmann and that blindly supports every word that flows from the mouth of Gingrich, is a school I was accepted into and eagerly hoping to attend. It was the Wall Street and big city inspired belligerence of my father that led him to refuse my request to attend. Back then he said, "Nobody will respect your degree, and Wall Street certainly won't."  (He had already mapped out my career in his head, and fortunately he is not alive to see how far I am from his life's goals for me.)

While my father migh have overstated his disdain--for ORU has produced many talented, hardworking and capable grads-- I am saddened that the idea of a degree from O.R.U. now brings me a certain amount of disgust.

We Are Spartacus!

NJ Casino Applicants

We are against term limits for politicians, believing it somewhat anti-democratic at best; it's like running your NBA team with rookies and then wondering why nobody can remember the plays and you are not winning championships. There is something to be said for apprenticeships, time spent learning, and skills built up on the job.

So we are even more appalled that a new casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey (beloved city of dreams) will impose term limits of four to six years on its employees. Not all employees. Certainly not management, just the front line staff. Those lucky folks will be forced to reapply for their positions, continually and presumably against younger fresher faces at the end of each period. Invariably by virtue of resetting employment, Revel (the ridiculous casino) is suggesting that skills on the job do not in fact matter. Why? Because you are firing all workers regardless of skill, and letting them Spartacus their way back into the job ring.

But again, not management. They will be fine, and on the job as long as necessary.

From bellhops to dealers, employees of the new casino — called Revel — will be hired for terms from four to six years. After that, they have to reapply for their jobs and compete against other candidates. Revel declined to make anyone available for an interview. In a written statement, the company asserts that its employment policy will help it "attract the most highly professional people who are inspired by a highly competitive work environment. 

(NPR)

It's these types of moves and made by those executives at the top that leave you just steaming as the workforce is turned into a united state of serfdom.

Arizona White Women Go Black to Obama

God is Love

It's January. Normally we like to come up with some predictions about the year, but we are not going to bother this time around, other than to say that President Obama will win in November.

It's a political year, and the Republicans are busy fighting it out over irrelevancies. Newt Gingrich, the come from behind triple divorce threat (and time will get him to that third one), has proposed rebuilding the moon in our own image, without exactly saying how he would finance such hubris.

The establishment leader, Mitt Romney, is between a rock (Mormonism) and a hard place (massive amounts of wealth) that make it rather difficult for him to know which way to pivot each day in order to get the support of the massively poorer Christian conservatives he so needs during the primary season.

Meanwhile President Obama continues on, proposing ideas that will go nowhere. He knows that they will be shot down, but puts up the good frontal effort. In his mind he has probably written off getting anything done this year that involves congressional support. He will legislate from the White House, and largely focus on political issues.

God is Love

Nevertheless, he can never escape the pointed fingers of his enemies, who like to use every instance to frame him in a way that defies reality. In this case it's Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona (our beloved Gov) doing the framing. She confronted him over something, handed him an envelope, and pointed a lot, and otherwise used the President's visit as an opportunity to inflame her supporters and pump up meager book sales. She went on to tell people that she felt threatened by the President.

We contrast that close face to face with another face to face moment during the President's State of the Union address the night before. Gabby Giffords was on hand to spend her last moment in Congress before a hopefully temporary retirement, where she will work on recovering from the wounds she received at the hands of a gunman. She embraced the President warmly.

Which leaves us all confused. Two Arizona women. Both politicians. One black man. President. Two completely different encounters.  One encounter will be used to spread the lie, to slander, to bear false witness. And some conservative Christians will join in this, or let it stand, or make room for the lie. The other encounter shouts back at the lie, speaking truth.

Small Business Dies for Customers, Not Obamanomics

Small, Honest, Businessmen

We are at the beginning of 2012 and the political climate is heating up. Once the Republicans pick a candidate to face President Obama, the argument will center around economic issues. We can sum up the Republican positions as follows: that Obama has done nothing to improve economic conditions and has in fact made them worse via indecisiveness, increased spending, and his basic evilness.  The antidote to all things Obama is generally such broad generalities as "freedom," "empowering small business," and creating the type of economic certainty that up until now Republicans have been content to sabotage.

The biggest mantra is that Obama's policies have hurt employment, and small employers have been frozen in uncertainty and fear, and battered by regulations and rising taxes. It's a false mantra by all means, but you can repeat anything long enough and and it becomes certified doctrine, sanctified by God.

And as we say here... nonsense. The New York Times begins a profile of five small businesses (and their failures) with this factoid:

"One in four, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, believes thevbiggest problem is weak sales. No matter what other challenges they face, said William Dunkelberg, the federation’s chief economist, “the key to everything is cash coming in the front door.”

(N.Y. Times)

We have always known that people like to blame someone, especially someone they don't like, for their problems. We do it all the time. The convenient doctrine is to say that Obama regulation, or Obama healthcare reform (largely not in full effect) or Obama income tax hikes (non-existent), or Obama inspired uncertainty (Republican obstinacy ignored) is the cause of our current unemployment rate.

Meanwhile in their focus on deficits and spending, Republicans have raced to cut jobs across government levels, opting to have the pain concentrated in those fired, as opposed to a lesser pain spread across the population via any sort of tax. So while the private sector now creates jobs, and GDP is positive, states on the back-end are dumping workers into the streets, depressing the economy.

All due to the sudden Republican and Tea Party inspired wisdom that the best time to deal with the long term problem of high national debt is during a short term disaster financial collapse. It's like deciding to remodel your house while on sick leave from work and in the hospital. Idiocy.

Our economy functions on demand, on people spending. Fire enough people and spending falls and small business gets crushed. They got tax cuts from Obama. They got no major regulations that would affect their books. What they didn't get was a steady supply of customers with ready cash to spend.

Because the uncertainty is all around who will get laid off next via Republican inspired cuts to budgets.

Going back to the article, let's take a look at two of these entrepreneurs.

The first business was a bed and breakfast. They refinanced their mortgage in 2007 with a 10 year interest only loan that ballooned their mortgage payment by $1700, and just as customers began to slack off and the economy began to tank.  The refinancing was to redo their kitchen. So they took a ridiculously structured loan in the middle of a housing bubble.

Now what part of that is Obama's fault? Yea zero part.

Another business sold crown molding, one of the non-necessities when it comes to home upgrades. They also decided to incur the legal and liability costs of franchising, again, right before a recession kicked in. As late at 2010 sales were up 20%, which tells you that it was not the economy that actually did them in (since the economy has only improved since then). It was their franchising apparatus eating up cash. Further, they were in a mortgage related business which, of course, was the business that collapsed and caused the 2008 financial crisis. Who in the housing business, worldwide, did not suffer?

Now what part of that is Obama's fault?

The other three businesses are hardly worth mentioning--frozen dog food sold to pet stores without refrigeration--because the underlying business principles were not well conceived to begin with.

The point, is that during this election cycle we will hear a lot of attempts to pin every conceivable failure to Obama with false cause and effect assertions. We will hear that just cutting taxes and regulation will get the economy going, despite the Republican pushed tax cuts of 2010 that did not spur a sudden boom and boon to the economy. We won't hear about the impact of job cuts at the state level that have depressed economies across the country, working at odds from the hiring and profits in the private sector.

Don't be snookered into believing false cause and effect arguments that will leave most problems unsolved and the middle class hurting.

Obama & Healthcare: Less Imposition, More Choice

If there is any question at this political hour whether or not President Obama is a reasonable man, we need only look at the latest news from his health department.

"In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories."
(N.Y. Times)

Ahead of any health care rulings next year by the Supreme Court and the elections to follow, Obama is preparing the ground to counter any suggestion that he has imposed any sort of rigid ideologically driven program on Americans.  As we've long argued, he is far more interested in leaving a legacy than in undertaking a noble fight of purity that leaves him empty handed.

History will actually serve him well, even at this non-historical vantage point, given what has already been accomplished. Nobody will argue over perfection of implementation when the choice is one of imperfect policy or no policy. The Republicans have made sure that imperfect policy will always be the result, and until the public matches wisdom to outrage and supplies him with suitable support in Congress,  that won't change.

That said, if you were a soldier in Iraq, you are happy to be home. If you are starting to get some preexisting conditions or preventative care covered on your health policy, you are better off. If you are an Al Qaeda leader, you are likely enjoying the painful joy of your afterlife. And if you are headed to the ATM to pull out cash to finish your Christmas shopping, you are likely pulling an apple off the fruit tree of Obama economic sensibleness, where banks were rightly deemed important enough not to let fail in a manner that would lead to more bananas, less republic. If you are in Detroit making cars, you are for the moment relieved, and if you are buying a car, you have more choice than you might have had.

None of this was brought to you by his opponents, though we can thank George Bush for the offsetting visionary achievements of creating the economic collapse through blindness, and seeing the reasonable and quick partial solution via the TARP program. It's become common to criticize TARP from high (academic) and low (masses) vantage points, but in a bank run you don't fart around and your band aids don't come perfectly sized.

We assume the stark differences in achievement between the President and Congress, the President and the previous administration, and the President and his presidential opponent, will be made with some force next year. We hope people will be listening to actions, rather than reacting to words.

Obama Tells Iran to Return Trojan Horse

Iranian General points out tiny chipmunks

We could take this late night moment to talk about something important. Newt Gingrich, renaissance man of yesteryear, is challenging GOP leader Romney, taking him down to the undergarments in recent polls. And over there is our president, Mr. Obama, meeting with the leader of Iraq, while reinforcing a campaign promise kept (which was easier done than said given Bush's already set withdrawal timeline, but whatevs).

Instead we want to talk to you about drones. Nothing technical or deeply philosophical. According to news reports, a drone of ours, a kind of unmanned plane perfectly sized for chipmunk vacations, opted through magic, Iranian cunning, bad electronics or voodoo to land in Iran. Not crash land. Not shot out of sky into a million bits. But land, comfortable and apparently intact. 

The Iranians were glad to display this acquisition as it no doubt reinforced the truth that the Great Satan (that would be us, as in U.S.A) was not so satanically powerful after all. "We got your drone" they said via display, with further threats to take it apart, rebuild it with Iranian sauce, and wreak stealthic havoc back on us. 

President Obama eventually got around to requesting the plane back, though the general delay and all around casualness should make Iranians a bit skeptical about saying the inevitable "No, you can't have it back, Sons of Satan!"

"We have asked for it back," Obama said Monday at a news conference in Washington with Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri Maliki"We'll see how the Iranians respond." 

His comments marked the first public confirmation that the RQ-170 Sentinel drone now in Iranian hands is a U.S. aircraft, though U.S. officials privately acknowledged that in recent days. Iran has claimed it downed the stealthy surveillance drone, but U.S. officials say it malfunctioned.

(LA Times)

Now we don't want to be Obama fan boys and imply that this whole implausible situation is merely a diabolical plot concocted by the President and his administration to land a homing device inside of Iranian research facilities, because that would be mental hyperbole. It would be the same type of thought pattern that allows extreme conservatives to place Obama at the center of all and variable diabolical evils.

And yet,. the utter casualness in the official responses the past few days is almost comical, culminating in an almost ridiculous request to have the drone returned. Let's pretend the United States is Greece. Let's pretend Iran is Troy. Let's pretend horses can fly, like unicorns, and call them drones. Now let's pretend we land one or allow one to get captured. Now let's pretend certain components inside the flying horse are deeply locked and will take years to open and define. Now let's pretend Troy really gets on our nerves. And finally, let's pretend we turn the homing device on, and unload mega bombs on whatever high security research site is trying to backward engineer the horse.

Which is why if I were Iran, I would send it back and make a huge public relations gesture out of it.

While we strive to not get toasted and go conspiratorial here, hating the tendency in others, we nevertheless can't help but imagine what spy versus spy shenanigans might be going on between Iran and the United States. There is mystery in the belly of beast. 

Frankenstein Monster Candidates: Republicans Debate Bonus Wars

Robin (on left) with Batman

In case you were thinking that our military adventures (necessary and otherwise) are on the wane, with troops leaving Iraq, and Afghanistan looking more dubious by the hour after the death of Darth Bin Laden, rethink.

In  tonight's debate with the Republican presidential candidates, we are assured of one more war. Both the  front runner and the hind quarters of the political presidential race have come on in favor of attacking Iran IF they prove to be building nuclear stuff. And human nature being what it is, we can be pretty assured that Iran believes it has the right to build whatever we Americans gave ourselves the right to build. We don't mean to suggest any sort of equivalence between American and Iranian nuclear purposes, but then again, a bit of hypocrisy can be seen blowing from our end of the national possiblity pipe.

Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" to Iran to become a nuclear power. Gingrich agreed, saying that if "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. 

Ron Paul strongly disagreed, stressing the need to go to Congress before military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran. "I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq," he said. 

(CBS News)

Sometimes Mr. Paul is the most sensible voice amongst the insensitive and unstable, although his sensibility tends to deteriorate the closer he gets to diagnosing a solution for economic problems. There are moments when you want to take components of each of the Republicans and yank out that one specific part, and meld it together with the other parts to make a more ideal Frankenstein monster candidate.

Eventual U.S. Reality Show Contestants

All these candidates have serious flaws that make them incomplete packages. Because of their inability to push forward with a cogent identity, they are reaching for anything that might push them forward and help them nail their own brand down in the public's mind. If necessary, bombing Iran is just the sort of positive pick me up that's needed to make it clear that they are in fact the man for the job.

But this sort of tough talk does nothing for solving issues and the underlying policy that assumes that no country should have what you have needs serious re-examination.  But it would take a truly bold candidate to try to redefine long assumed prerogatives.

Washington Post's Expert Misread of 2012 Election

The White House

The press is always behind the curve. When housing prices are rising, they are not writing articles warning you to back off from the frenzy. When things are at their worst, they are not encouraging you to be a buyer. When the sun is on the verge of rising, the press will usually be making the hard case for permanent inexplicable darkness. 

This applies no matter the subject. In this case we have the Washington Post warning that Obama may have a difficult and unlikely path to a second term. While that argument can seem plausible at various junctures of Republican stubbornness and confrontational stalling, we tend to be underwhelmed by the idea that Obama will actually lose in 2012. In fact, enough factors are piling up to suggest his win will be solid. 

The Post points out the "dark electorate mood," and the continued battered economy, quoting different political folks, including one representative of Romney who makes the false claim that Obama has worsened the economic situation (which is entirely plausible if we throw out measurable economic statistics and speak from our imagination). 

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans don't have a working candidate that can actually counter the truth of Obama's record. Perry, what with his job growth stories, can be compared to the man with a one person company, who hires a second person and brags of 100% job growth. Fast job growth can be particularly meaningless when your overall unemployment rate is high, or the jobs are meaningfully piddling in pay. 

Romney, the only Republican remotely capable of capturing a broad swathe of the voting public, cannot reliably counter the record of Obama. He can't critique the health care plan, and actually, as features of that plan kick in, it will not likely be the albatross the pundits imagine. The foreign policy can't be knocked, what with arms treaties, the death of dictators, the support of democracy (however selectively), and the killing of terrorist enemies. 

Romney is the numbers guy, but if you get into a real numbers debate on the economy, you lose. Job growth and GDP and corporate profits moved positive under Obama. You can even make an argument that the 10.1% unemployment peak was reduced due to Obama's stimulus package. That rate was already high when Obama walked into the office. If it drops another tenth of a point or two between now and 2012, Obama might even be able to argue that unemployment has not increased on his watch.

Which is why the Republicans have relentlessly focused on the debt issue. They know all too well that Obama has been quite successful in a number of areas, moving legislation and transforming parts of society while remaining solid in foreign policy execution. What better way to stop your opponent than to hang on him a problem created over many years, and a problem that defies instantaneous resolution. They know that. It was a brilliant pivot by the Republican strategists to get the masses (via the Tea Party structure) to focus on that which cannot be easily fixed, and blame it all on Obama for its mere existence. 

Thus when you are using your rare budget dollars to shore up the economy, you can be hit from the right by the accusation that you are spending frivolously, destroying the country and its future. 

That is the sole message that might resonate, red herring that it is, but unfortunately the Republicans lack a symbiotic relationship between their best candidates and their most activist voters. And by best candidates we mean Huntsman and Romney. They have a mountain of mistrust to overcome, and even then, the residue of distrust will spill over to the wider voter. The Mormon superstructure is not your average church, and its reach is vast. 

However benign and vague the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hopes to be, it nevertheless is even now working toward creating an environment conducive to a Romney win with its advertising campaign. (That campaign centers on a bunch of non-stereotypical Mormon types proclaiming that they are exactly like you and I, but Mormon, which rather defies any distinctions of Mormon faith, and especially if "you and I" happen to be fornicators, killers, or coffee drinkers). 

No, in the end this campaign will be a lot easier in 2012 than it appears today. The economy is already sending numerous signals of improvement and the numbers will be better heading into 2012. Barring some entirely normal Republican with an exceedingly well thought out economic plan, Obama will have no trouble sparring against Romney or the many lesser aspirants out there. 

Obama Calls Iraq Bluff, Republicans Want More Groveling

"Rock on left, Hard Place on Right"

The title of this article in the Miami Herald, "As U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered, Obama didn't pick up the phone" is one of those tricky bits of wording that means a bit more than it says. It haphazardly alludes back to the time when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama in the Democratic primary. Way back then (we were so much older then, we are younger than that now) she suggested that Obama might have trouble picking up the phone at 3 A.M. when something major was happening... you know, like whether to send special forces to take out a Bin Laden, or deciding whether to back a haphazard revolution in places like Libya, or even merely hunting down killers in Central Africa. The wording of the piece is an implication and an allusion wrapped up together in one myopic piece of reporting.

It goes on to point out the general distance that Obama and Vice President Biden kept from the negotiating table for the past year.

A listing of direct conversations provided by the embassy - drawn, the embassy said, from the White House website - indicates that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called al-Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31. 

(Miami Herald)

Let's think this through. Obama was against the war from the start. He ran for president saying he would bring troops home. Bush did the work for him by agreeing to a deadline this year, but failed to work out immunity for any remaining forces. If you are Obama, do you expend political capital, during domestic and worldwide economic disaster, to argue with Iraqi politicians that they should 1) let troops stay and 2) give them immunity, and for a war you never believed should have been launched? Do you really dance that ridiculous dance?

That's the dance Republicans wanted Obama to engage in. To push to keep troops on the ground, working around the Iraqi parliament (which Obama preferred a deal with) to form an agreement with the arguably shady Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki . What possible good comes out of that effort?

And related, what possible point comes out of the Herald's title, with its allusions to dithering and uncertainty. Obama has managed to have the most solid foreign policy of any recent leader. While washing his hands of the war he didn't want and allowing the troops to come home and rest, he has actively engaged other areas of trouble. He killed the man who justified our attack on Afghanistan, and arguably, we can leave that situation as well, revenge exacted. He took it on the chin for not leading the Libya effort, well aware that the United States is big enough, and strong enough, to lead in multiple ways. Different tact, better result: short war, no American loss of life, greater respect for American restraint and diplomacy, less cash out the door, and a Middle East that is closer to democracy if they choose to accept the gift.

Obama is a smart man, and the last thing he wants to do it prolong a policy he feels was inappropriate.

We here always supported the invasion of Iraq, not for WMD, but for the type of potential democracy we now see spreading. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya somehow simultaneously reaffirm the invasion of Iraq, and renounce it, since sourcing the variables that lead people to courage is near impossible. Who gets credit for the emerging democracies? It's not clear.

What is clear is that Obama does not want to expend effort on something he does not believe in, and further something he was elected to end. If you had wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely, you would have voted for the guy who wanted troops in Iraq indefinitely.

For Conservatives, Cain More Able Than Romney

It's a pretty much a forgone conclusion that we here will be voting for Obama come November 2012. He has done far too much, and with dignity, to let his efforts go for naught. Whether it's supporting Bush's saving of the American banking system, trying to find a reasonable approach to improving health care coverage, to beginning the process of bringing troops home from Iraq while handling international terrorists, the man has been firing on all cylinders. His detractors detract, because either they (the right) are caught believing or making lies about the man due to various versions of hate or they (the left) were never, and are not, clear on who he is.  He is his own man.

If Romney becomes the Republican candidate, and if he runs a clean campaign, we will not be overwhelmed in grief if he wins. He is capable. But we suspect he has his own burdens to overcome. Those most interested in Christianity are not easily swayed that Mormonism, with its additions, secrets, and collectivism, is that exact same thing that Christ laid out. Mormonism spirals in many directions, and no amount of commercials showing regular folks doing good will convince Christian conservatives that Joseph Smith didn't put a little something odd of himself into the theology. The unusual set of new Mormon commercials running now make people wonder about the scope and interconnected dealings between the Church of Latter Day Saints and those it supports. It's not a coincidence that the commercials are on now, laying the thought paths in 2011, so that they will be settled thought patterns later in 2012.

Ultimately Romney has to win the votes and we suspect it will be a tough battle, with activists of a conservative stripe leading the way. That's why someone like Herman Cain is having such a strong appeal at the moment. We  don't know if he can address all the issues that need to be addressed; Romney can. But Cain's his laser-like focus on economics in a year when economics is everything may prove hard to beat.

We actually like Herman Cain. We like the bigness of his economic plan which is wrapped in a seemingly simple package. "9-9-9" he reminds us over and over, referring to the tax rates for individuals and corporations, along with a tax on spending. We also think it's workable with a few tweaks. It may not be progressive, and it might force more people onto the tax rolls who currently can deduct their way out of taxes: that might be a good thing. I know people who actually don't marry to suppress reported income, seek help from the state and from federal tax credits, and thus live fairly well between the wife's paycheck, the "husband's" paycheck, and the additional government support.

It would be an oddball election if we ended up with Obama against Cain. It would be the only election where one race or another could be said to be voting based solely on race. That might be a good outcome, but don't hold your breath. You can only stir things up and raise cain so much, before forces sit you down.

Steve Jobs, the Rich Life, and Fresh & Easy

I was riding home when I got a brief announcement of His death via National Public Radio. I was on my way to Fresh & Easy for sausages and cranberry orange scones. "An icon. A modern day Edison," said the voice over the radio.

My mind drifted back. Back a few days. He was born on May 19th, 1964 and now he was dead. I remember the television being on late nights, flicking through channels,  and landing on the smiling, animated face of Don Lapre.  America produces great businessmen and entrepreneurs, and Lapre will not go down in history as one of them. He was a scam artist, preying on people's hopes of making outsized amounts of money with little effort. But oh his enthusiasm as he urged people that the road to great riches could be had by placing tiny little advertisements in newspapers.

Jump back to today. The reverent voice on the radio announced that Steve Jobs was dead. He was a man of unique vision who managed to transform the way society entertains itself and communicates. By all accounts he was a difficult person, but brilliance is often like that, lest some scully of a soul come along and mess up your vision. He created Apple Computer and Pixar Studios, among other endeavors, but will be known for his creativity.

In this great country we often have multiple paths we can choose. We are all gifted in certain ways, and we can use our gifts, our powers, toward transformation or destruction. Don Lapre was a man of talent, in that he could pitch a product enthusiastically, even though the products were junk. According to Wikipedia, he bilked over 200,000 people out of some $50 million plus dollars. He had an ability to make people--likely desperate or gullible or hopeful folks--perk up in the middle of the night and think that they too could live the good life. He could make people believe, but trashed their faith.

Steven Jobs literally gave us the good life. I've never had an Apple product and avoid them in part because of the trendy factor and not wanting to join "the cult." But my android touch screen is a derivative of his genius. And despite my fickle posturing, his products have rolled across society transforming how we listen to music, learn, read, watch video, talk, and process data. He lead in so many areas, leaving his competitors to follow in haphazard, not quite Apple, fashion. We are blessed by his focused vision, and by those who worked with him to carry out, refine, enhance, and build those ideas into physical products.

Lapre was indicted this year, and arrested in a gym in Tempe with wounds from suicide attempts. When he died earlier this week on October 2nd, it was from a suicide in police custody.  Steve Jobs died today, three days after Dupre, from pancreatic cancer. Lapre took himself out in a cowardly desperate act, avoiding responsibility. Circumstances beyond his control took Steve Jobs out, and away. But he leaves us with the example and products of his unique vision, and every area of life is left with his handprint.

Oddly I am saddened by both deaths. Between the two men is the spectrum of American life and achievement. We all have daily choices we can make where we can ask ourselves about the quality of our pursuit of happiness, and whether that pursuit is inclusive of those around us. Are we in it just to transform our own personal situation and get the rich life quick, or, are we in it because we believe in a vision that can bring a rich life to everyone else.

Life is so short. So short. Then we fade. "What are you doing?" I thought to myself again, as that thought pops into my head whenever someone dies. "Well, I am coming home from work, driving down a street in Phoenix, headed to Fresh & Easy for sausages and some cranberry and orange scones, and maybe some Coke Zero, and I don't know that I've touched anyone at all."

Would that we all bless someone while we have the time. Thank you Steve Jobs, and may heaven and grace exist for all.

No Gold or Silver Bullets for Anyone's Gun

Rock, Fiat Paper, Scissors, Gold

It's September and the first day of fall just happened, at least here in Arizona, and I assume that our seasons work normally in relationship to the rest of the country, unlike our clocks which neither spring forward or fall back. Arizona is heat, then no heat, and unlike other places, Arizonan's move life outdoors right about now, doing their book sales and block parties and fairs when the rest of the country has begun shopping for scarves and mittens and breathing a chilled air filled with fragrance: wood burning, sweets, precipitation, roasted nuts, hot fowl drifting from homes and restaurants.

There is little good news anywhere. 30 year home loans can be got for 4%, or rather, the pricing has fallen (thanks Fed Chair Bernanke with your magic twists), but there is no market for the product. The Fed is still imagining it can do something, but with rates as low as they are, and with our do-nothing Congress, there is nothing that the Federal Reserve can do from a money manipulation standpoint that could help our economy.

I would argue that what we now need is a major bailout for homeowners. Not that I think they deserve it, but it's the housing drag that will sink us, with people worried about having a place to lay their heads each night. You will not spend an extra unnecessary dime if you are struggling just to hit your mortgage payment. That fear, that burden, has to be reduced. Otherwise, the whole country, the irresponsible and responsible alike, will get dragged knee deep into the quicksand.

There are no silver bullets anymore. Even the run-up in gold prices seems suspect, with gold ETF GLD falling about 20 points in two weeks, and hitting it's first Thursday to Friday period in a long time with a move that was statistically major. If you can't earn money via interest from your bank, or protect your stash via gold or silver, then what? Where is the safety zone? Swiss currency perhaps? And where will the actual wealthy park their cash in order to preserve it, all things looking shaky? Hard cheap assets like real estate perhaps? (And didn't billionaire hedge funder John Paulson shift into buy cheap real assets mode, only to get burned when we didn't bounce right back to our feet?)

I am starting to see more "safety zone" type questioning, and that's bad. We've seen the almost comical protests down around Wall Street in New York, largely by people who don't really know what Wall Street firms do day to day, and while this is not a true uprising, I can envision a point when people morph from recreational protests to more focused and angry displays of disaffection.

The Fed has no power, having done all it can. President Obama has little power, boxed in or flummoxed by his political opponents. Congress has no power, even this weekend failing to agree on short term spending agreements to keep the government rolling through November.

We are very nearly at a point where people HAVE to work together to fix things, or we will roll over into a period of extended stagnation. Not disaster, but like Japan's long period of asset deflation and malaise. Except, without the savings and general stoic sensibleness of the Japanese people.

Shamefully, our economy would be on the verge of chugging along if Republicans had not taken such a genial delight in sabotaging people's respect and trust in federal institutions. They preach that government cannot be trusted, that it is the beast, the great inhibitor of freedom. This, when a unified and aggressive government confidence is necessary.

Ineffectual Black People: Dick Cheney Edition

Dick Hardens Toward Condi

Dick Cheney, who we used to respect for his competent toughness, has been out pushing his new book In My Time, and trashing Colin Powell and Condozleeza Rice along the way. Among other roles, they served as the 65th and 66th Secretaries of State under George Bush. The were often the voices of moderation in the (Bush) administration, pushing for broader, non-military engagement in places like Iraq. That set them at odds from people like Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who were relatively sure that all the correct answers to world difficulties were inside their own noggins. Today both Powell and Rice would be considered "RINO's", or Republican In Name Only, by the activists in Republican and conservative circles.

It is no surprise that they have come under attack at the precise moment when conservatives are attempting to lay blame for everything wrong at the feet of Obama. Republicans are scrambling for the control of the American mental narrative at a point in time where they don't have the power to force their own policy initiatives. The process is in part a retroactive one, where you calibrate history according to your own best light. Dick Cheney is doing this, with Powell and Rice being collateral damage.

Cheney has unkind words for both, as well as for President Obama, and we can only wonder what the defining thread between all three individuals is that makes each worthy of being undermined. In a Fox News interview he suggests that Obama's Secretary of State, the once hated-by-conservatives Hillary Clinton, would be able to work with Republicans and should consider a run in 2012.  But much of the attention has focused on his characterizations of Powell and Rice.

Meanwhile, Cheney defended his account of the Bush administration from his new memoir, "In My Time." Cheney criticized several Bush administration officials in his book, including former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- both of whom have taken umbrage at Cheney's account.  

Cheney, responding specifically to Powell's recent comment that Cheney just fired "cheap shots" at his former colleagues, said he takes nothing back. 

(Fox)

In addition to seeing everyone on the right playing by the same script in using every moment and event to question Obama's worthiness and leadership, we also see a willingness to degrade black authority and independence across the political spectrum. That is, a Condi or Colin is worthy of respect to the extent they are useful, and to the extent they are not coming into conflict with the nearest true authority. The  minute any independence of thought is exercised, then the smack down begins. Which is why the most respected black authorities whose achievements are well defined happen to be pretty much dead.

Obama is getting the hard slam because there are are components of what he is doing that would in a short time reshape the political landscape. What you can't have is the benefits of health care reform kicking in  at the same time that more Hispanics come into political arena, and at the same time that the economy is finally ready to revive, and at the same time the wars and adventures have come to an end. Obama's success in policy will bear fruit, so expediency dictates that you chop the tree down now, lest the Democratic Party does the harvesting down the road.

Pawlenty Out, Perry In, Romney Likely OK With That

Romney Counts Remaining Candidates

Obama can breath a bit easier today, given the recent news of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty dropping out of the race.  Pawlenty failed to reach his own target level of support during the shenanigustic Iowa straw poll this weekend, and the announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry to enter the race probably did not help the calculus.

This is not good news for Republicans, generally, while it works for Romney specifically. While Pawlenty had no real shot at the presidency given his decided lack of flair, he still represented a sensible wing of the Republican Party, and that sensible group has dropped from three to two, leaving Romney and Huntsman.

This weekend the sensible (and dull) was replaced by the more flamboyant Governor Perry. Perry is not your middle of the road Republican; he duplicates a lot of the qualities that can be found in Michelle Bachmann, but with a touch more experience in getting things done. We imagine that Romney is quite okay with candidates to his right, and the more extreme the better, so long as they don't drift to the middle. You don't want guys like Pawlenty around siphoning off that voter who is unhappy with Obama but still wants a reasonable, mainstream candidate.

To the extent that any candidate is hard core Christian on social issues, and without a substantive record of achievement (Palin, Bachmann), we see a palpable advantage for people like Obama or Romney in running against them.

Volatility

Don't let the volatility in the market spoil your game!

U.S. Gets Bad Report Card From Teacher: AAA to AA+, Spankings to Follow

S&P notices US debt yesterday for 1st time

It looks like fiscal and monetary policy are dead, almost worldwide, but especially here in the U.S. now that the rating agency S&P has stepped in to wipe away the Triple-A credit rating of the Federal government. This would be the same Standard and Poors that missed a pre-2008 opportunity  to accurately assess the risk of numerous asset classes, putting a positive imprimatur on some very shaky financial products and thus playing a massive part in the world's 2008 financial meltdown.

I guess better late than never when it comes to doing your homework. This downgrade comes on Obama's watch and his enemies will use it to baste him like a turkey in dubious sauces. We can see more clearly that this would in fact be primarily or mostly Obama's fault if, A) the entire world was not now struggling with the same issues (Hello Italy, Greece and Spain) and B) so much of the economic policy limitations of today were not the direct product of slutticatory policy during times predating Obama.

We fully expect people to draw the wrong conclusions from all of this. Or, we expect that the people with the power to make things worse to in fact draw the wrong conclusions and... make things worse. It's like those people who hate Obama's bailing out the banks, failing to realize that it was Bush's TARP policy and further, that financial firms like Bank of America are still struggling with residue from the mortgage crisis (lending credence to the idea that bailing out the banks was necessary despite the seeming populist position that killing your bankers is the first step toward greater capitalism and financial solidity).  There are a lot of folks who cannot properly locate the problem or define the solution.

Monday should be a blizzard of a day, with some people making a ton of money going forward, and the majority of average persons (with money managed in pension funds and retirement plans) taking a huge hammering that will probably continue for several months. It's not just us. Europe has to get its junk together before there is enough room for people to relax and breath and imagine that things can improve.

Until then, we can thank S&P for picking exactly the wrong moment to get all hyper about due diligence and accurate debt ratings.

Dubious Hedge Fund Closing Theories with CNBC's John Carney

Oy vey. A piece by CNBC Senior Editor John Carney in The Christian Science Monitor manages to make the absurd argument that regulation is forcing hedge funds to operate in a manner that increases systemic risk. The suggestion is that there is a mad dash to dump outside investors to avoid regulatory oversight by the SEC.

Does bad journalism rife with political propaganda never cease?

Based on a sample of three large hedge funds closing to outside investors (non family), Carney manufactures a trend and  leaps to conclusions that are not justified by fact.

Years of concern about giant pools of investment capital that were said to be under-regulated and under-taxed concluded in Dodd-Frank’s hedge fund regulation requirements and gave rise to new plans to end capital gains treatment for the profits of hedge fund managers.

But instead of kneeling down before the regulators and the tax collectors, some of the largest hedge funds are avoiding the regulation by shutting themselves off to outside investors

First, we had Stanley Druckenmiller who shuttered his $12 billion Duquesne Capital Management hedge fund just a month after the passage of Dodd-Frank. Druckenmiller cited his inability to meet his own performance expectations and the personal toll of working as a fund manager, rather than Dodd-Frank. But between 30 percent and 40 percent of the funds assets belonged to Druckenmiller or his associates, and he continues to manage that money. The fund didn’t shut down so much as go private—and escape the grasp of regulators.

(Christian Science Monitor)

In the case of all three of the funds--run by an 80 plus year old Soros, an aging Carl Ichan and a retiring Drukenmiller--he clearly ignores the stated reasons given to their investor,s in order to go with a manufactured reason off the top of his ideological head.

The regulation in question requires that hedge funds with assets over $100 million register with the SEC, unless it's personal money being managed. In a time when the number of new hedge funds is still proliferating, and where nearly every major fund depends on money from outside investors save for a few highly profitable and long running funds, it's ridiculous to assert that legislation is having any discernible impact at all. (We won't even count the thousands of funds that voluntarily already register).

But what we are seeing frequently in the business press is journalists with an opinion or ideology constructing thought pieces to fit with their.

Carney goes on to suggest that this is a method of closing to outside money is in response to a theoretical possibility that Obama might end the carried interest exemption, where a manager's portion of capital gains from the funds of others is taxed at capital gains rate instead of as income. Under this logic, a manager would give up all the income from management fees and capital gains on vast portions of money in the billions, in order to avoid paying slightly more taxes.

It's the argument here from people who say,"Well if my income doubled I would have all those extra taxes to pay and that would be awful." Uhm, yea, but bottom dollar, more money in your pocket right? Right?

Nobody is going to shut down a hedge fund or turn away investors to avoid regulation or paying more in taxes.

Correlation, Causation, Confusion: Obama's Bane

Correlations. Miscorrelations. The central problem that the Obama administration has had to deal with is the average person's inability to line up events in proper order and correctly deal with correlation and causation.

The glaring example of this is the general assumption by the President's least informed (or most stubborn) critics that our current economic crisis has been caused by Obama's policies. He is frequently taunted as the destroyer of the American economic system; his motives are alternately accidental because he is an empty suited, affirmative action moron, or deliberate because he is diabolically evil, and because, well, he is a socialist. (His oppositional stance to conservative economic theory of tax reduction alone correlating, naturally, with a support for socialism). We won't comment on who really is suffering from a type of oppositional defiant disorder (you publicans in the House know who you are).

Even something so simple as an unemployment number is subject to confusion. George Bush began with unemployment at 4.2%, and in his last year in office (2008), we saw that rate jump from 5% to 7.3%.  2008 was a calamitous year and conservatives go through all sorts of contortions to absolve themselves of any responsibility for those problems. Where convenient, they will give credit to their own president, and where inconvenient, they will point out that, "well, during this period to that period," like 2006-2008, their man was hampered by Democrat majorities in the Congress. This allows all dogs to go to heaven, except Democratic ones, who carry all the blame, all the time, no matter who controls the presidency.

In any case, and on Bush's watch, unemployment went from 4.2% to 7.3%, a 3.1 point rise. Contrast this with rates under Obama. In January of 2009, unemployment stood at 7.8%, rose on momentum (that began in the previous year) to a peak of 10.1% in October 2009, only to drift downward to settle at 9.2% as of now. The Obama increase is 1.4 points and even that number is arguable, since his first six months or so would not likely reflect the results of any of his economic actions.

Do people realize this? Of course not. They correlate the rise in unemployment solely with the rise of Obama, and mostly because it's what they want to believe. If they chose to really reflect on the numbers, or when events occurred and how, they might also have to reflect on why they have such a hostility to Obama. But because high unemployment correlates (in concurrency fashion) with Obama as president, they are happy to run with this notion, despite the fact that the cause of the high unemployment was obviously triggered by events much earlier; the huge spike in unemployment rates in 2008 indicate that obvious point.

Nor do people give causal credit for actions that Obama actively took, as in stimulus. That $787 billion package was passed by Congress in 2009, and signed by Obama on February 17th of that year. Fully $288 billion of that package went to tax relief (see Wikipedia). Another $330 billion or so went toward education, aid to the states and unemployed, to Medicaid and veterans.

Despite the claims that the stimulus did not work, we eventually saw a reverse in the unemployment rate. In most cases the average anti-Obama enthusiast is not connecting the dots between stimulus and decreases in unemployment, because they are too busy trying to set up false correlations between Obama and other dubious factoids. (Those would include, "Obama is weak on terror" though we don't hear that one so often now, Osama being dead and Obama clearly no dove).

The way it works now, anything bad correlates with Obama, and regardless of the true cause which might have happened years earlier. Causation is crushed and yanked out of a historical time frame. Which is also how people who didn't care when the national debt hit $10 trillion can suddenly and violently care when it hits $14 trillion (and with cause).

We get another good look at this correlation and causation confusion in this Talking Points Memo piece that tracks the Romney campaign. He is out on the stump, visiting places that reflect our stumbling economy. He is trying to make a connection, a correlation, between failing businesses and Obama policy. Never you mind the details of why a given business might have failed. Don't pay any attention to the fact that a given business might have been struggling pre-Obama, thus severing any comparative causal relationships.

Romney does not have to be careful on this because the people he is speaking to don't really care about the details or any truth that conflicts with their own innate feelings about truth.

The latest example is in California, where the presidential candidate held a press conference in North Hollywood at Valley Plaza, an empty shopping center where multiple attempts to reverse its fortunes have failed to get off the ground. Romney admitted its problems predated Obama, but nonetheless blamed him for making the recession "worse" and thus helping squash development plans at the site.

(TPM)

Just link it all together across the space time continuum, call it bad, blame Obama, repeat.