Skip to content

Castro wins

Fidel Castro announced his retirement yesterday, meaning that he has successfully avoided deposition by nine consecutive American presidents. I’ve got no brief for Castro, but it’s hard to argue that American policy toward Cuba has been not only a total failure but a gross injustice to the Cuban people, who have borne the brunt of our pique at Castro.

Afterthought:

We have been trained to think of Castro as being the devil incarnate. But doesn’t he look positively benign next to a guy like Robert Mugabe, with whom we have done business, if sometimes somewhat reluctantly, for 28 years. Castro has, in a country that has been systematically ground down by United States economic trade barriers (we are proving the superiority of capitalism by gaming the competitor’s system) created a society in which people at least get decent education and decent health care, which they weren’t getting before he came along. The country is poor, but you don’t see Castro doing this:

The supermarket shelves are empty, inflation has topped 67,000 per cent and power cuts are a daily event – but Zimbabwe is about to have a party.

Robert Mugabe turns 84 tomorrow and no amount of suffering is going to stop him spending a small fortune in precious currency on a lavish celebration.

Marking the President’s birth has become synonymous with extravagance in the impoverished southern African country – and the ruling party’s aggressive “21st February Movement” makes sure everyone joins in.

The main event will be held in the border town of Beitbridge, while similar festivities will be held across the country. The main event on the border with South Africa is expected to attract thousands of ruling party supporters and Mugabe cronies. While the party is going on, the nightly exodus of Zimbabweans across the Limpopo River into South Africa will undoubtedly continue.

Foreign companies doing business in Zimbabwe have been lining up to donate money to fund the festivities, according to officials. They will also splash out on newspaper, radio and television advertisements wishing Mr Mugabe many happy returns.

The state-controlled Herald newspaper will carry a special supplement with congratulatory advertisements tomorrow. However, with the Zimbabwean dollar having become worthless over the years and contributions always trailing the budget required, the beleaguered Zimbabwean taxpayer has in the past few years been called upon to meet any shortfalls to Mr Mugabe’s birthday celebrations.

Simple solutions

Matt Berger passed along this article to those of us on his email list, in which the argument is made that subprime mortgages should be banned.

I am usually wary of simple solutions, but in the case of subprime mortgages, I really think the problem would be solved if a lender were barred from selling or transferring a mortgage for a period of, say, five years. The fundamental problem with the subprime market appears to have been that a system was created that allowed the person making the loan to immediately and deceptively pass on the risk of default. Under those circumstances, why not lend to anyone? In the olden days, banks lent out their depositors money, serviced the loans, and dealt with the consequences of default. They tended not to lend to people who weren’t going to pay them back.

I’m sure our modern day wheelers and dealers could explain why this just wouldn’t work in our modern financial world. I’d like to hear the explanation.

Nicholas Kristof hearts McCain

Looks like Krugman is taking some indirect pot shots at fellow Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

I was amazed myself when I read Kristof’s column. Hypocrisy is alright, abandoning your “principles” is alright, so long as you’re not totally comfortable about it and so long as your name is John McCain.

Another economic mess coming

Yet another unregulated and bizarre type of financial device about to fall apart.

They are called “credit default swaps”. Reading about this stuff makes my head hurt, but as I understand it, these are “insurance” instruments whereby the buyer, seeking protection, purchases insurance to protect the buyer in case underlying corporate bonds default. Both they buyer and the seller can sell their rights and obligation under the policy, meaning that neither side to the transaction knows who is on the other side at any given time. Meaning also that the buyer has no idea if the seller has the goods to pay up in the event of default. It is apparently, by the way, unnecessary for the buyer to actually own the bonds in question at any time, until an event of default takes place, at which point they must obtain the bonds in order to surrender them to the insuring party, if they can find them:

For example, when Delphi, the auto parts maker, filed for bankruptcy in October 2005, the credit default swaps on the company’s debt exceeded the value of underlying bonds tenfold. Buyers of credit insurance scrambled to buy the bonds, driving up their price to around 70 cents on the dollar, a startlingly high value for defaulted debt.

Notice something else in there? There are outstanding policies on debt that far exceeds the actual amount of the debt. So in fact, this is not insurance, it’s actually a sophisticated form of gambling in which, of course, you and I will be the biggest losers. There are $45 trillion, that’s right trillion dollars, or credit default swaps out there. That exceeds the value of all the stock in the stock market.

For reasons explained in the linked article, which I fear I can not accurately summarize, this is a potentially big problem. If the losses could be restricted to the schemers that dealt in these instruments it would be a good thing actually, but of course, it never works out that way.

What? Me a snob?

I just spent some time doing my Charter Revision Commission homework, so I’m politicked out for now. I will turn then, to an earth shaking question, raised at The Unofficial Apple Weblog: Are Mac owners snobs?

TUAW cites someone’s research to that effect, which research also notes that Mac owners are more likely:

to be perfectionists
to use notebooks
to use teeth whitening products
to drive station wagons
to pay for downloaded music
to go to Starbucks
care about “green” products and the environment
to own a hybrid car
and last but not least … to buy 5 pairs of sneakers in a year

They are also more likely to be liberal (according to the study).

It is not clear whether Mac owners are universally snobby, or whether their snobbishness is restricted to their status as Mac owners. Personally, I question the research. As Muhammad Ali pointed out (or was it Dizzy Dean?), “It’s not bragging if you can back it up”. These researchers appear to have failed to take into account the fact that we Mac persons may in fact be (make that “are in fact”) right about our computers, as we are about our politics and our environmental awareness (ignore, if you will the teeth whiteners and sneakers, neither of which apply to yours truly, unless they count toothpaste). We’re not snobs, we’re just justifiably proud of having made the right computer choice and we want everyone to know it.

I for one refuse to believe that we Mac owners are any different than say, deluded Dell owners or Windows users, who probably think their own choice of computer/operating system (like their more conservative political positions, hatred for the environment and dirty teeth) signifies their own superiority. It’s just that we’re right and they’re wrong.

Finally, it is a base canard to say or imply that we Mac owners are obsessed by all things Apple. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to perusing my Mac related newsfeeds.

Connecticut Democrats to change Senate vacancy law

A few weeks ago I heard through the grapevine that there might, in fact, be some legislative movement on an issue I’ve been writing about a bit. Turns out that the rumours were true. Today’s Courant reports that the State Democrats are, indeed, going to try to change state law to allow we the people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies.

Unfortunately, due to the resignation from the State Senate of Bill Finch (who became mayor of Bridgeport), and the real possibility that the Republicans will win the election to replace him (what’s up with that?) the Democrats may lose their veto proof majority. Now we’ll see if the Democrats have the ability to maneuver Rell into signing the law.

Friday Night Music-Wilco

This is a song suggested by someone who came to the last Drinking Liberally. He actually sent me a number of links, some of which were broken. I decided on this one, anyway, because it’s a little more au courant, (i.e., it does not conclusively demonstrate that I’m stuck in the 60s) and it’s somewhat topical, and I liked it.

When the Roses Bloom Again, by Wilco

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjTckG6qjA[/youtube]

Democrats don’t blink

The House Democrats have had a spine implant. After the craven performance of the Senate they have redeemed their party and the nation, at least temporarily, by telling Bush to shove it on FISA. to the surprise of the White House, they didn’t “blink”, as they’ve done so often in the past.

Now they’re going to go home and find out that, lo and behold, they will not be subjected to negative feedback from constituents, most of whom have long since absorbed the fact that Bush is an incompetent fearmonger. The time has long since passed when Bush can sway the popular mind by talking about the bogeyman. Having defied him once, they may find it just a tad easier to do it again, and who knows, it may become a habit. The Dems might take a little advice from Hamlet:

Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery,
That aptly is put on.

Seriously, this is great news. If they stand fast they will speed the unraveling of the Bush dictatorship. For our parts, emails of support to our Congresspersons are in order.

Whatever it is, they’re against it

I stand by my position that the Congress has very little business holding hearings on Roger Clemens steroids use, when it is unable to rein in the Bush dictatorship. That being said, I must say that doing so may have given the Democrats a little insight into how they can get the Republicans to complete their self destruction.

It seems obvious to any thinking person, particularly to sports fans, that Clemens is absolutely positively 100% allegedly guilty of the crimes charged. This is an issue about which many Americans are well informed, as it matters to them more than trivialities such as torture or destruction of the Constitution. They know the score about steroids and they’ve already made up their minds about Clemens. So it is somewhat of a surprise that the Republicans on the committee, rather than piling on Roger for all they were worth (like the Democrats did), chose to defend him. This was an equal opportunity chance for bipartisan grandstanding, and they blew it. It may even cost Chris Shays his seat. It appears that Republicans have developed Pavlovian habits of political response. Whatever position the Democrats take, the Republicans reflexively oppose them.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea if the Democrats took advantage of this reflex? How about holding hearings in favor of motherhood, or against accused terrorists, or pedophile priests. This is clearly a pathological problem for the Republicans, which the Democrats should exploit.

Thanks to Groucho, et. al. for the title

Independent Thinking

The Courant has seen fit to give one Robert Thorson a weekly column on its op-ed page. Mr. Thorson is a geology professor at UConn, so he presumably knows a lot about rocks. Unfortunately, he writes about politics, at least he did today. One must wonder why the Courant sees fit to give this person a weekly column, inasmuch as he appears to lack basic knowledge of our political system, both in theory and in practice. Perhaps, in this postmodern world, independent thinking equates to fact free thinking.

Today Mr. Thorson, a proud independent, bemoans the fact that he isn’t allowed to vote in the primary of his choosing. According to him, it is unfair for a political system to exist in which only people who declare affiliation with a party get to take a part in choosing that party’s nominee. This year, for instance, he was deprived of the right to vote in the Republican primary, where he wanted to cast a vote against Huckabee. A laudable ambition, perhaps, but precisely why should non-Republicans be allowed to deprive Republicans of the right to choose their own candidate, free of interference from folks like Thorson? Thorson never tells us.

I would submit to Mr. Thorson that if he changes his mind and decides to register, he might seriously consider finding a permanent home with the Republicans, as he appears to lack the ability to engage in logical thought and/or a basic fund of knowledge. (Take your pick). He’d fit right in over there. Consider this:

Looking from the sidelines, I hope Obama wins the nomination. But if his party picks Hillary, I probably will vote for McCain. Why? Because my vote will be guided by the political distance between any candidate and the ruinous neo-conservative political establishment in Washington today.

Now this is a man with a weekly column in a once respected newspaper. Perhaps I can clue him in on some basic facts. The Republicans have fractured this year along certain fault lines: corporate interests; religious whackjobs, and neo-cons. Romney represented the corporate types, and we all know the group to whom Huckabee appeals. What do you suppose that leaves McCain, the prophet of eternal war? Maybe Mr. Thorson should ask McCain’s foreign policy advisor, Bill Kristol or his other best friend, Joe Lieberman.

Never mind, I’ll make it easy.

Here is the political distance, in inches, between McCain and the ruinous neo-conservative political establishment in Washington today: zero. Precisely equal to the amount of time Thorson appears to have spent actually studying the candidates.

But it gets better (or worse, depending on how you look at it). According to Thorson McCain’s love affair with the Iraq war specifically and war generally will not translate into positive action, despite McCain’s oft proclaimed intentions to see it through to victory. Because why? Because the American people, who have not been able to stop Bush, will somehow stop McCain (yes, that’s right, we’re going to do it all by our lonesomes, somehow), despite the fact that he will be able to claim a mandate for eternal war by virtue of the fact that mindless dolts like Thorson just put him into office after running on a platform promising just that: eternal war.

As for Hillary, Thorson disqualifies her. Why?

Unfortunately, she’s a galaxy closer to business as usual than her competitors, in part because she voted to allow Bush his horrendous blunder.

Must I point out that McCain voted for it too, and has suggested starting in on Iran? Or that McCain has promised to keep us there for 100 years while Hillary at least claims to want to get us out? Or that McCain is pushing the meme that the recent escalation is working, despite the fact that it has clearly failed to achieve the results it was allegedly designed to achieve. What part of business as usual has McCain eschewed? He has embraced business as usual. Thorson might consider actually listening to McCain, instead of the idiot reporters who keep calling him a maverick.

Where does the Courant dig these people up? Why is this person inflicted on a helpless Connecticut every week?