.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Monday, July 31, 2006

Is This A Dream, Or A Nightmare?

I figure that by the time Haq of Seattle gets to jury selection, he'll be a revolutionary hero to the folks at DU. Maybe you think I'm being rude. Oh, no. Betsy Newmark linked to Mary Katherine Ham who has been listening to Airheads America, and DU is much, much worse.

For your horrified perusal, DU's response to the news that Hugo Chavez received Iran's highest honor:
Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported.
...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the Islamic Republic Medal in a ceremony at Tehran University. The award was to show Iran's gratitude for his "support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Iranian state-run television said.
Chavez wants to put an end to the "US empire", as explained here:
48. Quote
Spanish quote - "Si el imperio estadounidense tiene éxito en consolidar su dominio, entonces no habrá futuro para la Humanidad. Por lo tanto, debemos salvar a la Humanidad y poner fin al Imperio Americano", dijo Chávez a una multitud concentrada en la Universidad de Teherán."

That would be - "If the American empire succeeds in consolidating its power, then there is no future for humanity. Therefore, we must save humanity and put a stop to the American Empire." said Chavez to a crowd at the Univ. of Tehran."
Some hapless DU denizens took slight umbrage at that statement:
21. How long until Chavez calls us the Great Satan? :shrug:
Naturally that called forth a brilliantly intellectual barrage of progressive fervor:
44. He could call a faction here great assholes. n/t
...
86. A critical post of Chavez
I don't think he's advancing the socialist revolution fast enough, he should be even more radical in his policies. Venezuelan governement should invest more in renewables and mass transit rather than talk about nuclear power, and gas prices should increase gradually to favour the transition.

There is a difference in constructive criticism given in solidarity, and ignorant and fearmongering bourgeois hate mail.
...

85. God bless Hugo Chavez. He gets smeared everyday, but he still carries on.
You might also take a look at DU supporting the troops in response to this article:
At 17 he enlisted in the Marine Corps, spurred by the memory of 9/11.

Now, 21-year-old Galen Wilson has 20 confirmed kills in four months in Iraq - and another 40 shots that probably killed insurgents. One afternoon the lance corporal downed a man hauling a grenade launcher five-and-a-half football fields away.

Wilson is the designated marksman in a company of Marines based in downtown Ramadi, watching over what Marines call the most dangerous neighborhood in the most dangerous city in the world.
DU predicts a bright future for him:
8. And God help the citizens of Bradenton Florida, when the demons from his Iraq service haunts him, yet the local VA was shut down, he couldn't get his treatment, and all of the sudden, any Cuban, Puerto Rican, African American or other dark skiinned citizen becomes the "Haji"
...
20. He's actually to be pitied.
Locked up so he can't harm another living soul first, but pitied nonetheless.

This guy's been steeped in the culture of killing since he was five, apparently. IMHO, that kind of upbringing is child-abuse, and maybe even criminal negligence - culpability in creating a killing machine.

I feel sorry for what this kid might have been, and wonder how many more of him will be created before humanity realizes this isn't the way to live in peace.
...
14. What is the saying on DU
"we don't support the war but we support the troops". At least in this thread there are no hippocrates. If you don't support the war you can't support the troops. This marine is doing his job. At least it sounds like he isn't killing any unarmed civilians.
...
30. I don't support thugs like this or the system that glorifies them
This guy will continue to kill one he is removed from Iraq-Nam
...
39. Sadly, I think that's a definite possibility
And, even more sadly, by the time it's over, there will be scores of thousands of souless killbots just like him trying to "find their niche" in a society that has very limited uses for souless killbots.
...
44. They will use truncheons to beat the black man to death On the streets of amerika
That's some impressive level of support for the troops there. I think we should all be honest about this and admit that we have a genuine, all-out, no-holds-barred culture war going on ourselves. The consensus seemed to be that this marine is a much greater danger to America than Hezbollah, and should be locked up the moment he gets home. Meanwhile, in a thread right above this one about the Gitmo detainees attacking the guards, their sympathy is entirely with the detainees:
5. dehumanize much?
...
12. Right...
They are supposed to just sit there while they are held with no charges for decades, right?
Those evil terrorists! They don't even deserve a fair trial or due process, after all they are not regular human beings like all of us, huh?
...
8. Well, that is certainly well reasoned.
I'm impressed to be so quickly elevated in my understanding. I had NO IDEA that all "enemy combatants were such filthy and uncultured THEMS.

And I'm impressed you would not only be satisfied to be left a Bible and a rosary in the place of habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial, and subject to violations of international law BUT also that you'd be able dropped into the elements and still have the strength to attack.

Wow. Just WOW! I sure as hell hope you aren't a pet owner.
Seriously, the consensus on DU seems to be that the Marines should be locked up without trial and the jihadis should be released with an apology for human rights violations.

PS: DU is still
better than France:
Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilising role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Monday.
...
"In the region there is of course a country such as Iran -- a great country, a great people and a great civilisation which is respected and which plays a stabilising role in the region," he told a news conference.
I think the "great civilization" just executed a few more young'uns, didn't it? You've got to admire the progressive way in which they take care of their teeny boppers over there. Bury them up to the chest and then stone them to death.

No wonder France is banning nude sunbathing! They're aspiring to the values of the great and stabilizing civilization. Just wait until they remove all those feeelthy pictures from the Louvre. When I think of my great-grandfather painting nudes over there, I'm awed at how far they've come. I can only imagine of how far they have yet to go.... No one, no one, will be able to cut and wear burqas with the sheer elegance and style of the French.

You must admit, Frenchmen carry off this eunuch schtick with a joi de vive that's an awesome sight to us here down in the benighted south. I don't know even one southern man who would smile, bow, and say thank you in response to the gift of his own severed family jewels on a platter. We're just too uncivilized to carry it off.

I think I'm going off to read MEMRI. Sweet dreams!.


Good Morning!

Weird Monday.

1) All the articles about these Catholic women who decided to ordain themselves priests seem to frame women priests as an inevitability within the Catholic priesthood. We get this type of language:
"We need to claim for women their equal right with men to be ordained. And we need to do this 'contra legem,' to break an unjust law and yet to remain firmly within the church," Patricia Fresen said last year at a Philadelphia conference on women in the church.
But they fail to note that at least one of the participants is married, and wouldn't be able to be a priest if she were a man:
Houk decided to pursue priesthood after listening to a speech by Fresen. Houk said she realizes she will face rejection for her choice, but she said she's prepared for that.

"I do not intend to start a church of my own," said Houk, a 66-year-old, married mother of six and grandmother of five. "I will not lead people away from the Catholic church but rather I hope to lead people to the church."
Now I know personally of no absolute reason why a women shouldn't be a minister, and there are plenty of congregations who ordain them. If that's what she wants to do, then why not convert to one of those congregations? But what's going on here is obviously not this "equal rights for women" thing, because they appear to believe they have special rights. And who has a "right" to be a priest, anyway?

And another thing - it was after women started to be ordained as ministers within the Episcopalian church that it drove right off the rails. I predict that the next generation of Catholics are going to be a lot more conservative in their opinions. I laughed in the early 80's when Episcopalian women started holding conferences and talking about the "godess Sophia". But I cried when the diocese of Pennsylvania had "alternate liturgies" posted on its website that were clearly Wiccan in 2004, and conflicted ministers who could not decide whether they wanted to be Druids or Episcopalians most in 2005. And I wasn't even surprised when the Episcopalian conference refused a resolution suggesting the road to salvation lay through Jesus this year. They're now quite proud to claim that they cannot offer a "definitive road to salvation". A continuous line of Popes had expressed that exact same view, so now at least they have, in a way, reconciled to the Roman Catholic church.

Once you start making up all the rules all over again, things get rough quickly. Patricia Fresen has many more issues with the Catholic church than just women in the priesthood, and she has a habit of making decisions without consulting others. It all seems vaguely familiar to me, and my guess is it will end in the same way, because they're already talking about the "patriarchy". Abortion will be something of a sacrament, Mary will be an example of patriarchal abuse of a woman who hasn't had her consciousness properly raised, and no one will be rude enough to speak about sins other than the offensive sin of talking about sin, 'cause that's really not inclusive at all.

2) In the meantime, the French are banning public nudity on beaches, and cute, squeezable Michael Moore claims he's besieged by Republicans wanting to hug him. Blame it on the dog days of summer?


Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Weasel-Watchers Are Timely

We live in weaselly times, so the Weasel-Watchers have a great deal to watch. They're always good, but unfortunately this week they were exceptionally so. First place for council member went to Shrinkwrapped's post on tribalism and anti-Semitism. First place for non-council member went to Solomonia, for a rather devastating post on what happens when you go to a "peace" demonstration these days and you're not on the right side:
More people joined the melee, shouting and threatening me. Unfortunately, by this point my camera was off, so I did not capture what had transpired then. One man told me that the police would not help me, as they were going to hunt me down and kill me (he can be heard on the video repeatedly commanding me not to take pictures)
'Cause, you know, peace is a wonderful thing when it allows you to kill anyone who argues with you. That kind of peace is just popping up everywhere.

On the brighter side, Ali Eteraz will make you laugh, and prove to you that both idiocy and wisdom are elements widely distributed among the human race:
Assalamoalaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu (Only For the Muslims - specifically those who agree with me; curses upon the rest; along with curses for the non-Muslims; except those non-Muslims who do things that I would indirectly agree with or that indirectly assist me)
...
I told you once that whenever my apostate cousin Eteraz could be disposed of, I would come upon this heathen blog, hosted by a heathen server, byproduct of the technology of the kafir, and speak about Eteraz with all the disrepute and anger that he deserves.
...
Today my apostate cousin Eteraz is further expressing his idiocy by arguing that attacking Jews is a bad thing. This, after he argued that Jews aren’t apes and swine! He clearly does not want to be part of Hizbollah.
Laughter is divine, and the last two posts encapsulate a good point. Some of those violent people in the "peace" march chronicled by Solomonia were Jewish, and many of the people being threatened by the "peace" crowd are Muslims. The law's the thing, not the label.


Haq Of Seattle and Hezbollah

Chron.com on the Seattle shootings:
The man suspected in a fatal shooting rampage hid behind a potted plant in a Jewish charity's foyer and forced his way through a security door by holding a gun to a 13-year-old girl's head, the police chief said Saturday.

Once inside, police say, Naveed Afzal Haq opened fire with two semiautomatic pistols. One woman, Pam Waechter, 58, of Seattle was killed at the scene. Five more women were wounded.
...
According to a statement of probable cause, Haq told a 911 dispatcher: "These are Jews and I'm tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East."

Muhammad Ullah, a close family friend and a senior member of a mosque founded in part by Haq's father, described Haq as a quiet loner with few friends.

In a statement, the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities offered condolences to the shooting victims and said "we disassociate this act from our Islamic teachings and beliefs."
The man is 30 years old. Dayna Klein was one of the women he shot. She was wounded in the arm because she was pregnant and she used her arm to protect the child in her belly. Three of the other women were shot in the abdomen. Dayna Klein crawled into her office, called 911, and convinced Haq to talk to the dispatchers. He eventually surrendered.

Over at Volokh's, the commenters want to call this a hate crime. The FBI calls it a hate crime. It's a peculiar sort of hate crime that targets Jewish women's wombs, isn't it? Kind of a genocidal hate crime, isn't it? If he's complaining about American political support for Israel, you'd think he would at least be shooting voters.

We need to keep this in our minds as we watch the Israel-Hezbollah war. Despite the disassociation above, Hezbollah has made a habit of targeting Israeli civilians (but not Arabs! only Jews!) and killing children. One of the prisoners they were trying to free by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers on the raid is Samir Qintar. I'll let Nasrallah speak for himself on this one, in an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera (which is posted on globalresearch.ca, a Canadian site which bills itself as being about "globalization"):
[Nasrallah] Under all circumstances, what I heard is that the foreign minister of the enemy asked the German mediator to intervene with us to return the two prisoners without swapping along with some sweet. This cannot take place. At any rate, regarding the negotiations issue, even regarding the two prisoners, I want to relieve myself and Hezbollah from this issue. Anyone who wants to talk about this then let him talk with the state, and the state then talks with us....

[Bin-Jiddu] Do you still insist on the principle of swapping?

[Nasrallah] Certainly, this is an issue that we cannot tolerate. In fact, if the civilians who were martyred, the displaced who are suffering now the effects of displacement, and the steadfast people know that it is possible for me to extradite or return these two soldiers without closing this file they will accuse me of treason. I will also accuse myself of treason. This is completely out of question. In the first day, I said that if the entire universe comes, it will not be able to take back the two Israeli soldiers except through indirect negotiation and exchange of prisoners. ...

[Bin-Jiddu] Regarding the exchange [of prisoners], who will you exchange the two Israeli soldiers with? Are you going to exchange them with Lebanese prisoners or Palestinian prisoners?

[Nasrallah] This is an open process, and I will leave it to negotiations.

[Bin-Jiddu] You still believe that Samir al-Qintar will be in Lebanon?

[Nasrallah] God willing. In this exchange, Samir al-Qintar will be the first one. What is the use of this exchange if Samir al-Qintar is not included in the exchange and if all the Lebanese prisoners are not included in this exchange - of course, I am talking about an open process?

[Bin-Jiddu] Your Eminence, let's put the other parties aside. You have a memorandum of understanding with General Awn. Has what is currently taking place shaken the pillars of the memorandum of understanding and your cooperation with the Free Patriotic Movement?

[Nasrallah] No, not at all. First, the memorandum of understanding talked clearly about first releasing the prisoners and liberating the rest of the [occupied] Lebanese territories, and afterward discussing a strategy for national defence. This is what we began to discuss. Hezbollah has neither taken advantage of Lebanon to liberate Palestine, nor worked towards restoring the seven villages, which are Lebanese territories. It carried out an operation to capture [Israeli soldiers], because the government's policy statement stipulates the release of prisoners and the liberation of Lebanese territories. So, what we did is a national Lebanese action, even in the regional sense of the word. This [operation] was carried out within, not outside, the context of the memorandum of understanding signed between us and the Free Patriotic Movement.
Here's another Nasrallah statement from July 12th, right after the raid. Samir Qintar's name comes up again, along with this:
Praise and thanks to God first and foremost for granting us this victory, jihad, and might, and for the results. First of all, I have to address the heroic mujahidin, who fulfilled the promise today. This is why their qualitative operation is called "Operation true promise." I thank them and kiss their foreheads and hands. With the blessing of these lofty foreheads and hands, the foreheads of us all will remain high and no shackle will remain in the hands of people in the occupation prisons. Today is the day of loyalty to Samir al-Qintar, Yahya Skaf, Nasim Nisr, and all brothers, detainees, and prisoners in the occupation jails.
...
The second point is that I do not want to get into an argument about what happened today and say if this is our legal right and option or not. In plain terms, this is our natural right. This is the only and logical way that is available. Neither the international community, international organizations, regional organizations, governments, regimes – with due respect to them – nor political negotiations with empty hands will release the detainees.
...
The resistance said its priority in 2006 would be capturing Israeli soldiers in order to close the file of prisoners for good. This is the priority. We have observed calm throughout that time in spite of all circumstances. I told some political leaders of the country in closed sessions that taking prisoners would be the only exception.
At the age of 16, Samir Al-Qintar went on a raid six miles into Israeli territory in 1979 by water from Lebanon. They landed on the Nahariya beach, and I'll let an Israeli survivor tell that story:
Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
...
The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year.
So - here's my question to those who want Israel to give up. Are you willing to let Haq, the Muslim shooter of Seattle go? Because Haq is a hero in some quarters. Suppose they start taking prisoners and demanding Haq's release? It's happened before. The FBI was taking special precautions when the blind sheik who masterminded the first WTC bombing was sentenced. What Israel is fighting for is the proposition that rules of law still exist. They're fighting for the proposition that a peace treaty with another country is no reason that four-year old children should be beaten to death. If you're not willing to let Haq off, what gives you the right to demand that Israel release Samir Al Qintar?

I'm sorry for posting this on Sunday, but I have been praying for peace. And this the answer I have received in prayer - there can be no peace until peace treaties are not the cause of murders of children! The government of Lebanon is not guiltless. The army of Lebanon is not guiltless. The people of Lebanon must choose. I got up this morning, and started to search, and found the above. And now I hand them on to you. The truth is that the direct causation behind Israel's current war with Hezbollah leads back to murders of civilians and children in 1979, and the purpose of those killings was to protest a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah will never close any treaty with Israel - it cannot, because treaties with Israel are not possible in its worldview. Israel is being asked to unilaterally declare peace, and there is no such thing as a unilateral peace treaty.

I have been told that I can pray for the protection of the innocent, the endangered, and the defense of the vulnerable. I have been told that I can pray for grace to comprehend truth and the courage to speak truth to be provided to the world's leaders. I have been told that I can pray for the law of life to be understood and followed by all the world's nations. I have also been told that That Which Is cannot intervene to save the children of people who adhere to principles of destruction, and that That Which Is will not intervene to save those children's lives, because it would be mockery of the law of life. He will receive them after death, and I have been asked if I really believe that surving to be raised to be a sixteen year-old killer of four year-olds is a mercy?

But I have also been told to keep praying for grace, because it will take a tremendous outpouring of grace to heal the long train of cause and effect which has produced the current circumstances. And I have been promised that That Which Is will intervene to save those that can be truly saved, and that He will receive those who cannot and once again offer grace. I have prayed for forgiveness, and I have forgiven. Let that which cannot be mended on earth be mended in heaven.

Update: Via Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Instapundit links to photographs of how the civilian casualties in Lebanon are being produced by Hezbollah. Who are the murders of civilians in Lebanon? Hezbollah. Don't lie. Don't go along with lies. Hezbollah is deliberately trying to get civilians killed in order to build world pressure on Israel. They are directly responsible for the deaths of these civilians. And here is a post on www.Ouwet.com, which is a Lebanese Armed Forces blog, saying the same thing about a different area:
The situation in Ain Ebel is unbearable. Thousands of civilians have fled to the village from nearby villages and more than 1000 rockets have hit the village, there is no more food neither clean water and diseases r spreading.

Now here comes the most sickening part:
Hezbollah has been firing rockets from the village since Day 1 hiding behind innocent people’s places and even CHURCHES. No one is allowed to argue with the Hezbollah gunmen who wont hesitate to shoot you and i ve heard about more than one shooting incident including young men from the village and Hezbollah.
Urgent appeals have been done through phone calls from terrified people who wouldnt give out their name fearing Hezbollah might harm or even eliminate them.

This is the true image of our brave Islamic Resistance, putting the civilians and their homes as body shields to the Israeli bombardements.

Let the message spread and let those criminals move out of the village once and for all.
Free Ain Ebel from the terrorists !
Here is another about Hezbollah's tactics. I urge everyone to read this site and post about this site, because it gives a true picture of what is happening in Lebanon, the desperation, the pain, and the sorrow. This is what terrorism produces.


Friday, July 28, 2006

Shooting At Jewish Center In Seattle

One person is reported dead:
Six people were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man who told a witness he was upset about "what was going on in Israel."
...
One witness, who declined to give her name, said a man walked into the Jewish Federation building with a gun, said he was upset about what was going on in Israel, then opened fire. After the shootings, the man said to call 911, the witness said. The witness said the man identified himself as an American Muslim.
...
Metz said police officers throughout the city were being asked to step up patrols of Jewish synagogues and Jewish organizations.
LGF had linked to a strange poem by a Berkeley graduate student about her reluctant purple passion for Hezbollah ("I don't want you inside me, you are too male"), which Iowahawk promptly riffed. I wonder what she's thinking now? At least four of the victims were women. One line of epic poetry did hit a dubious note ("Maybe it is the naivety, of one whose life has never been directly threatened"). But after all, her charismatic Beirut sheik wouldn't hurt her, now would he? Gah. I wish some divine court could sentence her to walk the streets of Paris for two weeks wearing a Star of David. I wonder how long she would last at Berkeley if she were writing and publishing love poems for the nightriders of the Klan? She got star billing at Common Dreams (which I have mentally pegged as Uncommon Nightmares), of course.

I have known several extremely devout and deeply decent Muslims. I know that they are as disgusted and shocked as I am at this news.

Like the engineering student at the university who tried to run over random people in a crowd, this one wants publicity for what he did. He's proud of it. He thinks shooting unarmed Jewish women down is some sort of brave statement. I am afraid that there will be fighting in the streets of America before this is over.


Survived!

Do you ever have a week in which you reel into Friday feeling like it will be a miracle if you stay on your feet all day? I did, and I did.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred took pity on us and shared some jokes.

I'm really too tired to be even coherent - heck, I'm so tired I feel drunk - but I added Dr. Melissa Clouthier to the links. She makes me laugh with her common sense. The magic never fails - it even worked today:
Do you assume, like I do, that most Hollywood types have the self-esteem and standards of your local prostitute or lawyer or used car salesman and do what feels good with whomever fells good whenever feels right? Maybe I overgeneralize.
Well, I don't think Tinseltown is a good place to grow up, but I agree. Lance Bass sleeping with a man is hardly news, dang it.

The Anchoress has some words of publicity wisdom about bustlines on busts, and Jimmy Carter. If you don't bust out laughing you're officially dead:
For some reason, Hillary - who is an attractive woman - here looks like the love child of Jimmy Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt, but wearing the breastplate usually associated with Brunnhilda in Die Walkure!
I'm hopelessly behind the times, because I even find other people's children fascinating:
To be honest, I spent much of the early years of my children's lives in a workaholic frenzy because the thought of spending time with them was more stressful than any journalistic assignment I could imagine.

Kids are supposed to be fulfilling, life-changing, life-enhancing fun: why was my attitude towards them so different?
Because, Honey, you never dropped out of your workaholic frenzy long enough to clear your mind of your own affairs so that you could see your children for what they are. Watching a baby figuring out even the early stages of life is a wild adventure! There's that moment when you realize that they've figured out that all these big guys moving around are people, and that they can make them do things... You watch them realize "I can control my voice!" "I can hit this and make it move!" "I'm gonna get her back!" Children are an (often-fatiguing) drama that remind us that we're human, and what being human is all about. To watch a mind and a personality form in front of your eyes is infinitely more intriguing than any mystery ever written. And dealing with a toddler gives you more exercise than a stint at the gym!

This is a woman who needs to spend some time with a rosary. Honestly, she's gonna have a heart attack at a young age. Contemplative prayer would help her a lot, and I don't think she's going to figure this out on her own. She's all stuck on I, talking in her own brain a mile a minute, and she's a dead zero on observation. I agree with some of what she says - parents shouldn't obsess over their children. But that's different than not even experiencing them.


Thursday, July 27, 2006

For Ilona

Ilona, you might find this post at The Housing Bubble blog about your greater area helpful. There are also excellent comments on the post. I have found, by the way, that discussions on these housing blogs and forums, while anecdotal, have been predictive of later compiled statistics.

I think what is really going on in some of these markets is that for years, real incomes having been decreasing.

Second-level factors are the increase in mortgage rates and the increase in fuel costs. These factors are too small to have a great impact on inflated areas, but in areas that haven't seen the big run ups in pricing they do exert an effect. As one commenter on the linked post wrote:
Maybe it wasn’t a bubble in the Cincinnati, but that doesn’t mean that the drying up of credit won’t impact prices there too. Mortgage markets, moreso than the houses themselves, are national. The credit markets will tend to have more effect in markets that that had housing bubbles. But nearly every house transaction is, at least in part, financed by credit, and so, therefore, every house price has at least in part been affected by the mortgage finance bubble. Even in markets far removed from the insanity of the coasts there will be ripples in pricing as the credit markets adjust to the new market conditions.
And then there are the demographics of some areas, in which there are just more retirement-aged people ready to sell out than there are young people who can afford to buy in. In any case, once everyone gets nervous appraisals become more cautious and underwriting standards tighten. The qualifying loan sizes for the buyers in the market drop, and all of these factors combine to slow real estate sales.

I cannot even see any one of these factors shifting direction in the near future, so I would expect the sellers' market in your area to continue to slow over the next year and a half.

New Home Sales For June

The Census bureau has released the revised May and preliminary June new home sales figures. I don't place much reliance on these because of the extremely high uncertainty factors in most of these numbers. I do look at the quarterly splits, and I look to see how the previous month's numbers were revised.

Last month the months of supply for all new homes in May was given as 5.5, and that has been revised to 5.9. This month's is given as 6.1, and I expect that to be revised upward in next month's release. This matches what I have been hearing and reading anecdotally, which is that the major constraint on new home sales in quite a few areas is not price but a combination of inability to get financing by first-time buyers and an inability to sell the first home, followed by a cancelled sale and a forfeited deposit. NAR's pending home sales index will be released August 1st, and I think that will be a better leading indicator.

If these supply figures are even close to correct, there has been a major withdrawal of homes from the market. I remain extremely dubious about the months of supply given.

The quarterly figures are more reliable, because they have larger totals. See page 6 of the quarterly sales release. For the US as a whole, in a rising market the second quarter median should be higher than the first quarter, and instead it is lower. In a falling market incentives aren't deducted from the sales price, so comparing sales prices in declining market to ones in tip-over or rising market understates the drop. The average sales price shows less of a drop, which is significant because it reflects the mix of properties being sold.

I would say, and this is preliminary, that these figures reflect financing constraints based primarily on lower appraised values, which affect Loan To Value ratios and prevent prospective buyers from getting financing. (Somebody, somewhere is going to end up with the paper for the loan, and investors want to buy portfolios in which the underlying value of the property exceeds the total of the debt.) We may be seeing a pretty drastic tip over, because the developers have been pulling out all the stops to get borrowers qualified.

See, for example, Beazer's fine offer advertised on July 15th of mortgages with monthly payments of $750 or $1,000 in a development. Then look at the disclaimer:
*Must use Beazer Mortgage (Broker number 01223451). Available only on inventory homes that close on or before August 31, 2006 or at completion of home, whichever comes first. Must be owner occupied. Offer does not apply to all communities. Check with sales representative for further details. Offer subject to change or cancellation without notice. Example: Purchase price $288,601.00 First Mortgage Loan Amount $230,880.00 payment for year one $824.00 subsidized by seller $ 76.00, year two $886.66, year three $953.16, year four $1,024.65, year five $1,101.50 at 7.593 % adjustable interest rate APR 8.10%. Second mortgage $ 57,721.00 payment for first twelve months of $529.11 at 11.00 % Interest Only paid by Seller, remaining term fourteen years, interest only at prime plus 4.5 margin current APR 11.143%, maximum rate 11.143%, payments of $529.11. Estimated closing costs $ 8,658.03. Above total payments are loan payments only and do not include taxes ($ 288.60), insurance ($45.00) monthly assessment ($110.00). Example amounts based on home at Riverdale North Discovery Collection Lot # 3016. Minimum middle FICO scores 650, stated income underwriting, three months reserve required in bank at time of close of $7,805.34 in example above. Income limits apply. Negative Amortization of loan required to achieve advertised payment, required loan payments and other fees may vary by home sales price and community.

**Must use Beazer Mortgage (Broker number 01223451). Available only on inventory homes that close on or before August 31, 2006 or at completion of home, whichever comes first. Must be owner occupied. Offer does not apply to all communities. Check with sales representative for further details. Offer subject to change or cancellation without notice. Example: Purchase price $506,349.00, First Mortgage Loan Amount $405,079.00 payment for year one $1,447.12 subsidized by seller $447.12, year two $1,555.65, year three $1,672.33, year four $1,797.75, year five $1,932.58 at 7.593 % adjustable interest rate APR 8.10%. Second mortgage $101,270.00 payment for first twelve months of $928.31 at 11.00 % Interest Only paid by Seller, remaining term fourteen years, interest only at prime plus 4.5 margin current APR 11.143%, maximum rate 11.143%, payments of $928.31. Estimated closing costs $15,190.47. Above total payments are loan payments only and do not include taxes ($506.35), insurance ($70.00) monthly assessment ($73.00). Example amounts based on home at Fieldstone Meadows Lot # 30. Minimum middle FICO scores 650, stated income underwriting, three months reserve required in bank at time of close of $13,307.61 in example above. Income limits apply. Negative Amortization of loan required to achieve advertised payment, required loan payments and other fees may vary by home sales price and community.
See what I mean about funny money loans? The borrower's payments in the first example go:
Year 1: $824 - 76 (second paid by Beazer) = $748
Year 2: $886 + $529 = $1,415
Year 3: $953 + $529 = $1,482
Year 4: $1,024 + $529 = $1,553
Plus, to achieve the low initial down payment the borrower is signing up for negative amortization, which means that their loan balance rises for a while instead of dropping. The first mortgage is adjustable too, so the payments could go even higher. Very few people who take this deal would be able to keep the house, because unless they brought money to the table they would almost certainly be unable to refi out of it (without double digit price inflation, which is no longer in the cards). The second example is no better.

This should not be legal. This is misleading and deceptive advertising, and the FTC should go after all these funny money loan sharks. People will go into the sales office and write them a deposit check and sign a contract on the basis of the large number in the advertisement. If they come to their senses they'll walk away and lose their deposit. That's the best possible outcome, and note that they will be using Beazer as their mortgage broker, so they may never get independent advice.

When you look at new home sales figures and prices keep the above example in mind, because it is certainly not unique. I hope this helps you to understand why the downside to this market is so huge. In many cases, "homeowners" will never be able to make even their first reset payment. There are cases of people unable to make their very first mortgage payment.

If you think this is funny, consider the impact on your home value. Sure, you may have signed up for a 30 year fixed-rate last year when you bought. But your home's value will be depressed when the forced sales from this type of maneuver start rolling back onto the market en masse. When you find your home worth less four years from now in nominal dollars than it is today, you'll understand what a brutal racket this has been.

I never thought I would become a wild-eyed consumer activist, but at this point all I want to do is find some public interest law firm and give them the ammo to sue the britches right off these and similar people. You see, I calculate loans and consumer disclosures, and I can usually find some sort of error in about 50% of RESPA loan document packages (although that isn't true for my banks). And Hillary? Hillary with her proposal to offer downpayment assistance? Hillary is looking after the Beazers of the world, and not the people she claims to want to help. Watch her campaign finance contributions - you'll see. Because a $5,000 taxpayer-funded downpayment gives a lot of room to roam for crooked outfits like this, and only abuses the "buyer".


Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Howard Dean's Cosmology

Newsday/AP:
Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Dean called President Bush "the most divisive president probably in our history."

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."
...
The Republican agenda "is flag-burning and same-sex marriage and God knows what else," Dean said. "We need real change in this country. We're in trouble."
The most hilarious thing is that no one on the left is going to see the humor in this. It appears to be projection on a grand scale. I've never seen Bush quoted as talking about "those people". Wasn't it Kerry who said Bush's position on same-sex marriage was exactly the same as Kerry's? Go right through Bush's speeches, and it's clear that Bush actively avoids name-calling and finger-pointing. Bush exemplifies the southern trait of being polite to a person right up until the moment when the southerner decides the person needs to be killed. I think that's what everyone missed about Bush's "sh_t" remark in reference to the situation in Lebanon.

Dean, on the other hand, tends to get personal, and holds grudges with a vengenance. MensNewsDaily:
"Dean himself moved from Episcopalian to Congregationalist "because I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over the bike path." He does not hesitate to reveal this information or to declare that he seldom goes to church." -- Robert Novak
...
"I think a library trustee is pretty important," Dean said, during "an administration that likes book burning more than reading books." -- Howard Dean as quoted by USA Today
...
"The truth is the President of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country."
And don't forget:
John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy.
...
I don't hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do.
...
I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.
...
This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good.
But let's not be divisive, okay?
"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
Another aspect of Howard Dean's personality is that he's willing to withhold judgment on some people, but willing to assume the guilt of others:
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
...
"I don’t know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission."
...
Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.
That LIHOP quote is breathtaking. In one paragraph, Dean moves from saying that LIHOP is an unprovable but interesting theory to maintaining that Bush is hiding information from the Kean Commission.

Dean admits he's a bit of a waffler, but not, you know, on the important things, such as rights issues. Free speech for those who don't agree with him is bad:
I've waffled before. I'll waffle again.
...
I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. Democrats have strong moral values. Frankly, my moral values are offended by some of the things I hear on programs like "Rush Limbaugh," and we don't have to put up with that.
Unless, of course, they're Democrats:
"I believe that the flag of the Confederate States of America is a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery which (Abraham) Lincoln denounced from here over 150 years ago"
...
I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.
Wasn't Abraham Lincoln the first president of the Republican party? Whatever you say, sir:
"You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.''
But you're a committed Christian, right? Yup:
I'm a committed Christian. I worship in my own way. That's my business. That's not the business of the pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.
Oh, well, at least Dean's not white. Er, at least he's not Republican. Howard Dean has his own Bible, and he sticks by it. There is no such thing as original sin - all of God's creation was and remains good (except perhaps for Republicans):
"From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
We await the word from the DLC pulpit on child molesters, and I think Dr. Dean needs to have a talk with the March of Dimes people. Darn it, God wants those kids born handicapped and they shouldn't be obstructing God's will. (Note, this is a theological point, not a slap at people with birth defects or homosexuals.) Dr. Dean's Bible has a slightly different, but admirably pluralistic, New Testament:
"If you know much about the Bible—which I do—to see and be in the place where Christ was and understand the intimate history of what was going on 2,000 years ago is an exceptional experience," he said.

Responding to this comment, along with earlier statements that Dean has read the Bible cover to cover, a reporter asked the candidate what his favorite book from the New Testament is. He answered by citing Job, a book from the Old Testament.

"But I don't like the way it ends," he said. "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different. … I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later. … Many people believe that the original version of Job is the version where there is not a change, Job ends up completely destitute and ruined. It's been a long time since I looked at this, but it's believed that was added much, much later. Many people believe that the original ending was about the power of God and the power of God was almighty and all knowing and it wasn't necessary that everybody was going to be redeemed."
Howard Dean's quibble with the ending of Job is that because of Job's refusal to blame God for Satan's work, Job regains his health and wealth, and acquires a new family. Howard Dean strongly suspects that Job leaned Republican from then on, and he does not consider that a happy ending. Howard Dean prefers the variant of Job in Dean's New Testament in which Job discovers that Satan is the head of the Republican party, and vows to vote Democratic forevermore. And yeah, yeah, Job is still on the dungheap, but that's a position of moral leadership:
This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.
The reason that the Democratic party isn't winning elections any more is that it has embraced the holy ideology of victimology so deeply. People simply don't want to end up destitute on a dungheap in a position of moral leadership - but this is what happens when you toss out the Torah and enshrine a few select portions of a carefully edited Old Testament as your New Testament. You have dumped the law of Moses (we inherit the conditions of our lives from the decisions of our ancestors, therefore you have the obligation to act in society's interests, not your own, even in your bedroom) and now can no longer even understand the teachings of the New Testament. What remains is not very successful in practice, and the American people are a practical people.


WA Same-Sex Marriage Case Fails

I'm busy, but Volokh has a post here. You can find the decision, concurrences and dissents on this page. It's Anderson V King County. The opinion itself is here in pdf. These are zesty reads. There must have been bitter fighting within the court.

One exceedingly interesting aspect of the opinion is that it directly attacks the logic of the Goodridge decision:
Plaintiffs also rely on Goodridge, where the Massachusetts court rejected the argument that procreation justified limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court said that “[t]he ‘marriage is procreation’ argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage.” Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 333. The court held that “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.” Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 332.

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate.
The truth is, if marriage to most people weren't about children, there would be little incentive for singles to subsidize marriage through state recognition. Why, after all, should a private comitment be of such interest to the state? What business is it of the states? Why should a single person pay for it? Sooner or later some rights group is going to file a case on the unfairness of allowing those benefits at all. Wait and see - that will be the next initiative.

It's also interesting that in Goodridge the fact that same-sex couples could have children by adoption, artificial insemination, etc, was used as part of the justification for the decision, whereas in NY and WA it has now been held to be a side issue using the "stability" argument: since opposite sex couples can produce children while trying to avoid it even as a result of a one-night stand, the WA and NY SCs found that the legislature might have a rational basis for the legislative exclusion of same sex couples from marriage.Yes, they have children who are legally theirs, but not on impulse and without even trying.

The squabbling is quite something:
Perhaps because of the nature of the issue in this case and the strong feelings it brings to the front, some members of the court have uncharacteristically been led to depart significantly from the court’s limited role when deciding constitutional challenges. For example, Justice Fairhurst’s dissent declines to apply settled principles for reviewing the legislature’s acts and instead decides for itself what the public policy of this state should be. Justice Bridge’s dissent claims that gay marriage will ultimately be on the books and that this court will be criticized for having failed to overturn DOMA. But, while same-sex marriage may be the law at a future time, it will be because the people declare it to be, not because five members of this court have dictated it.1 Justice J.M. Johnson’s concurrence, like Justice Fairhurst’s dissent, also ignores the proper standards for reviewing legislation. And readers unfamiliar with appellate court review may not realize the extent to which this concurrence departs from customary procedures because, among other things, it merely repeats the result and much of the reasoning of the court’s decision on most issues, thus adding unnecessarily to the length of the opinions.
When you take out after those who agree with you.... There are three dissents.

If you're keeping count of the SSM court cases, NY & WA rejected the state-constitution challenges. GA rejected the claim that GA's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages was invalid, and the US Appeals court for the Eighth District reinstated the Nebraska constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. That was the silly "bill of attainder" and First Amendment right to associate one. A lower court in CT dismissed a lawsuit alleging that having civil unions for same sex couples was discriminatory.

The Eighth District appellate decision (pdf) was the really interesting one; I thought part of it was none-too-subtle request and challenge to the US SC to clarify some of its reasoning in related cases. I think it was the Eighth that had that nasty incest case; they may be getting provoked with the results of Romer and Lawrence.


Tuesday, July 25, 2006

FDIC Summer Outlook

The FDIC Summer Outlook is here in pdf format. You may not consider it significant that this is the introduction to this issue focusing on the credit cycle, but I do:
Since ancient times, credit markets have undergone periodic booms and busts. In 594 BC, for example, the Greek state of Attica found itself under severe economic stress because of the massive debt incurred by many of its citizens. The ensuing civil disorder resulted in a handover of power to Solon, one of the “seven wise men” of Greece. Solon took radical steps to restore balance to the economy, such as canceling debts, freeing those enslaved for failing to repay their loans, and devaluing the currency by 25 percent.
I mean, "canceling debts" and "devaluing currency" are not the words a banker likes to encounter when settling down for a spot of afternoon reading. But apparently the FDIC thinks we're stupid, because they go on to 'splain things:
Simply put, credit cycles are fluctuations in loan quality and quantity. They are often correlated with, but not always identical to, business cycles, which are based on fluctuations in the overall output of goods and services.
...
So, is the credit cycle merely a reflection of the general business cycle, or is it a phenomenon unto itself? Clearly, looking at quantity and ex-post quality measures, such as charge-offs, the credit cycle in recent decades has tracked the economic cycle fairly closely. However, many observers of the credit cycle throughout history believed that credit extension and contraction drive business activity, rather than the other way around.
The article seems to be suggesting a somewhat less than rosy future:
The economics profession has recently begun to reconsider the role of psychology and expectations in investment decisions. Recent research has found that underwriting standards, as measured by the Federal Reserve Board Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices, are a better determinant of future business lending than either GDP or the federal funds rate.23 Similarly, analysis of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation survey of underwriting standards finds that underwriting standards are an important determinant of future loan losses.24 A modern theoretical response to this finding might be that credit markets are efficient and that loan officers, having just as good access to GDP and interest rate numbers as anyone else, should make decisions that incorporate all available information in a rational, profit-maximizing way. Another interpretation from a 19th-century perspective might describe the easing and tightening of standards as the reflection of alternate swings between “greed and fear.”25
I think they are suggesting that the next recession is in the bag, and that creditors did it to themselves. Of course, we know George Bush is going to get the blame for it, but the Fed is independent of the President and Bush certainly wasn't out on the street telling people to get option-ARM mortgages. Greenspan, now.... did.

The implication of the article is that the 19th-century theories make more sense than later theories when applied to current economic conditions. Writing bad loans has produced a loan quality problem; this will force a tightening of underwriting standards which will amount to a credit contraction, which will constrain the market for goods and services, which will further reduce credit quality.... biff, boom, bang. Recession.

As for the market in goods and services, see this thread up at Professor Piggington's:
Was reading a link from someone elses post about some secondary markets to profit from in the housing bust. It got me thinking about some of my own experience with different suppliers to the housing market and the numbers do strongly support the end of the housing ATM.

I work with an Advertising Agency as a search engine marketer for several major national home improvement franchises (among several other companies). They span from driveway paving, to window coverings, to kitchen remodling, to floor coverings. Basically everything people have been sucking cash out of their homes to buy over the past 5 years with reckless abandon.

I've had the ability to track exactly how much demand there is for these types of products and how often this traffic converts into actual business for the client. Without much exageration, I can report that the level of both interest and sales are crashing quickly. While the level of interest is a slower decline, sales conversions have declined quite quickly in the last 5-6 months.

From speaking directly with some of the clients, they have admitted that other online efforts have been declining just as quickly. It would seem that the pain of the slow reduction in "easy" credit along with flattening/dropping equity levels is already hitting these secondary home improvement companies.
The fall in retail employment over the last couple of months and the weak sales figures for WalMart and Target amount to a red flag. There is major weakness in the auto industry, and I think the US government has already had almost all the stimulative impact it will have on the defense industry. Consumer spending is a very large factor in GDP, although there are different schools of thought on its net effect. Without a significant rise in real wages, it's hard to see what would increase consumer spending in the next few years.

Shilling hasn't been that shy about what he thinks will happen:
SHILLING: The economy is slowing, and I suspect that by the end of the year it could very well be in recession. The basic reason is that housing activity is weakening, and that has been the mainstay of consumer spending, which in turn has been propelling the economy. During the past 17 quarters of expansion, spending growth has exceeded income growth by 2.5 percentage points on average, on an annualized basis. And housing is what has been supporting that, with people pulling money out of housing by home equity loans or refinancing.
...
Once consumers see that housing price appreciation is no longer the order of the day, then they are going to curb their spending, as they basically have no alternative. Construction and mortgage brokerage and all of what is related to it has accounted for about a third of the job creation so far in this expansion.
...
One is that business investment [in software and hardware] has already been quite strong. If you look at the last couple of years, it has been growing at about a 10.5-percent annual rate. That's not markedly different than the 12.5-percent growth rate back in the late 1990s, during what was clearly an overblown capital-spending boom. So the first point is that in investment spending, the growth hasn't been all that weak.

The second point is, what do you do for an encore? You still have a lot of excess capacity left over from the late 1990s boom. My favorite example is fiber optic capacity. At the bottom, 3 percent of the existing capacity that was put in place in the late 1990s was being used, and now the figure is only about 5 percent of capacity. This is admittedly an extreme case, but there's a lot of capacity left over. So how much can you expect investment to grow from here to really spur the economy? Moreover, to make up for the consumer spending component I cited earlier, investment would have to grow at a 30-percent annual rate, and that is just not in the cards. So this idea of capital spending rescuing the consumer is not realistic.
...
When you look at capital spending, you have got to see the motivation for it. Profit growth is one motivator, no question about it.
We need a new area of production or new markets, which is why I think opening up the domestic energy sector is so important. Companies aren't going to take risks unless they see strong rewards for those risks. They're not going to spend money just because they have it. We have a lot of mature markets that aren't going to reward
large investments with large returns. Generally that happens more in investment in industrial capacity, but with the US making so little of what we consume, business investment is not that strong a fundamental stimulator for our domestic economy. We do consume energy. We can produce energy at cheaper prices than at which we are currently importing it. If we just removed the regulatory barriers to producing energy or even establishing old-fashioned production plants, we'd have a more balanced economy, with better jobs and less speculation. Right now we push industrial investment overseas, which is one reason why our job market is hurting so.

This latest round of speculation was exceedingly broad-based. There were $10-an-hour workers banding together to flip houses in some of these markets. One of the reasons why they are doing it is because they cannot profit in the old-fashioned but less risky ways. Part of that is due to illegal immigration, which has driven down real wages. The sum of US economic policy has been deeply irrational, and it has produced irrational markets. We really cannot continue lurching from bubble to bubble, so it is time to get our house in order.


Existing Home Sales Out For June

I'm only following this so closely because I have developed a mesmerized fascination with the rhetoric surrounding a rapidly declining market. The NAR Existing Home Sales release for June is here (pdf). US months of supply are now at 6.8 months (May supply was revised to 6.4). US year-over-year price appreciation is at 0.9%, well below inflation. US total sales of existing homes are down 8.9% compared to a year ago. These are the seasonally adjusted figures.

By region:
Northeast - 7.2% gain over the last year, and compared to June, 2005, sales are only down 9.8%.
Midwest - 1.7% loss over the last year, and compared to June, 2005, sales are only down 6.2%.
South - 0.5% loss over the last year, and compared to June, 2005, sales are only down 5.5%.
West - 0.0% no change over the last year, and compared to last year sales are down 17.1%.

Next month the west should go negative. One hates to think what it will look like later in the year. The problem with funny-money loans is that when the market turns and heads down, they go bad. On the way down the medians are overstated on the high side. For one thing, these numbers don't show various sales incentives but only the contract sales price. With many sellers contributing cash to pay the buyer's closing costs, for example, the contract sales price overstates the real sales price the buyer pays. Also, as always, the existing home sales indicator is a lagging indicator, reflecting the market conditions of a couple of months ago.

Condos are worse. You can see the breakout between detached and condos here (pdf). Single family prices were up 1.1% compared to June, 2005. Condo prices were down 2.1%. Nationally, condo inventory has risen to 8 months of supply compared to 6.6 months of supply for single family, and I think there is something wrong with that split - condo inventory should be higher than that, unless this figure represents a sudden and substantial conversion of condominium developments to apartment buildings.

The regional breakout for condos can be found here (pdf). The telling statistic is that condo sales in the west are down 20.5% compared to June, 2005, and median sales price in the west went down 10.8% compared to last June. It's a nightmare, an absolute nightmare.

But on to the good part- the press release! Watching the change in NARRISH rhetoric has its grim fascinations:
Existing-home sales were down modestly in June, and home prices were up slightly from a year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors®.
...
David Lereah, NAR’s chief economist, said the housing market is flattening-out. “Over the last three months home sales have held in a narrow range, easing to a level that is near our annual projection, which tells us the market is stabilizing,” he said. “At the same time, sellers have recognized that they need to be more competitive in their pricing given the rise in housing inventories. Home prices are only a little higher than a year ago.”
(But, as always at NAR):
NAR President Thomas M. Stevens from Vienna, Va., said opportunities have opened for home buyers. “People who were discouraged by the bidding wars that were so common over the last few years are finding more choices now,” said Stevens, senior vice president of NRT Inc. “Relative to the five-year housing boom, this year is a buyer’s market in much of the country with plentiful supply, along with interest rates which remain historically favorable, so it’s a good time to buy a home.
Especially the 20 houses or so your realTOR is unloading, which are priced to sell! Just wait till the banks are unloading REO. This is going to be ugly.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Roe V Wade For Men Suit Dismissed

The judge threw the Roe V Wade for Men suit out. DU only racked up a few hundred posts about it. Even though some of the participants are childish in the extreme, some of them are making excellent points. It's genuinely true that in many cases "fathers" are basically picked at random, especially in CA:
If I sound bitter, its because I was on the receiving end of some of this...Some year ago I was named as the father of a child. I was the wrong race, I had gotten a vasectomy 10 years before and had the medical records to prove it. None of that mattered and a child support order was entered against me. I spoke the to social worker and showed her I could not have been the father. She said it was not her problem, even though she was setting up wage garnishment and had helped the mother file the court papers for child support. I got a lawyer and went to court. I was told I had to pay until it was decided. I refused and the garnishment was blocked (I was in the military at the time). I was refused access to "my child" even supervised visitation (we considered challenging the mother for custody). I was told if I did not pay I would be going to jail, so I paid. Finally got to court and the judge seemed unwilling to believe the evidence, including a fertility test from a local independent lab. He kept asking me if I had reconciled with the mother, a teenager I have never seen before, and was willing to do my social duty. My lawyer got a bit heated and all the state kept saying was they had the mother's word (who never showed up) that I was the father. 30 days later the order was vacated. I was out lawyer fees, was unable to recover the child support I paid, my name is still on the birth certificate, I am/was listed as a deadbeat dad, and it was on my credit report. Yes, I am bitter but with damn good cause.
So the thing cuts both ways, and I do support Georgia's law protecting "fake fathers". If we want there to be any genuine fathers left, we'd better make sure that responsible men aren't victimized in this way.

I'm amazed at how many people believe that that two adults should be able to have sex without the worry of having to deal with any potential pregnancy. I'd like to get to work without having to drive. I think the state should rent a helicopter and airlift me over. It's only fair.

Here's a brilliant idea:

132. My suggestion to make the system more fair
When a woman finds out she is pregnant, she must make a reasonable attempt to notify the potential father (father's) within a specific amount of time.

The potential father must then file a form with the local courthouse either accepting responsibilities and rights of fatherhood or declining them.

The potential mother is then given a copy of the potential father's form and then makes her decision as to whether the baby is birthed or not, knowing whether she will have a father participating in parenthood with her or not.

The reasons I like this plan are ...

The woman has absolute decision making authority on whether she births the baby or not.
The woman is not forced into parenthood without her permission.
The man is not forced into parenthood without his permission either.

-_________________________________________________________________

But what about the baby?

All participating parents should put a fixed percentage of their income into a state child support pool and each eligible child should recieve the exact same check each month from the pool. To me it's ridiculous that one child gets 200 times more support than another child just because one woman bedded a rich guy and the other a poor guy. Each child is equally valuable.

What if there's not enough in the pool?

Then general state funds should make up the difference because a hungry child is the responsibility of all of us, whether our condoms broke or not.
That last provision is added because there would be even less incentive for "potential fathers" to decide to "accept" the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood if they were going to be paying for everyone else's children as well as their own. There would be very, very few men who would take that deal, and many of them would often be institutionalized, so I doubt they would be contributing much financially overall.

What a brilliant plan to make every child everyone's responsibility. We'll never change. The problem really is that some one has to be responsible, and so those who want irresponsibility plan to make everyone responsible. I really don't see how that's an improvement. Obviously marriage wouldn't last long under this scheme. Given voting coalitions, the funding for the "fatherless" kids would keep outstripping the funding that the average married man could provide to his own children, especially given the high taxation rates he'd be paying for the children of irresponsible losers such as this poster.

Marxism has reached its summit. The first post (which I do believe) is a female sort of marxist paradise, and the second is a male sort of marxist wonderland. However they show ominous signs of meeting at the pass and joining forces, so I think all the sane people had better be alert and ready.

Both plans are, of course, injurious to the child. But hey, this entire debate has never, ever, been about the children, has it? Not in the least. It's always about avoiding responsibility rather than taking it. Whether you pick a father at random out of the phone book, or whether you decide to hand out cigars to the entire population, the people advocating these schemes are always, always, always trying to avoid basic human responsibility - their own.


Oh, Xanadu

Mamacita wrote a very interesting post, in part on the link between mysticism and science:
Tonight I am obsessed with science and mysticism. Madeleine L'Engle writes that most scientists are in one way or another, mystics. The modern mystics. People think of scientists as logical and unimaginative, if not the stereotypical 'absent-minded.' I suppose some of them are. I've met all kinds of people who have no imagination and who are logical to the point of absurdity. But unlike many of the teachers I've known and worked with for many years people who live this bland-yet-chosen life, I think scientists are different. The good ones, that is. I think the good scientists not only have a streak of mysticism, but a goodly streak of poetry in them, as well.
I exist only to point out that others might be saying something worth a listen, so
A) Kubla Khan as written by Coleridge, beginning:
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
B) The Cassini probe has been taking radar images of Xanadu on Titan, one of Saturn's satellites (note the alliteration!):
These radar images, from a strip more than 4,500 kilometers (2,796 miles) long, show Xanadu is surrounded by darker terrain, reminiscent of a free-standing landmass. At the region's western edge, dark sand dunes give way to land cut by river networks, hills and valleys. These narrow river networks flow onto darker areas, which may be lakes. A crater formed by the impact of an asteroid or by water volcanism is also visible. More channels snake through the eastern part of Xanadu, ending on a dark plain where dunes, abundant elsewhere, seem absent. Appalachian-sized mountains crisscross the region.
The scientists can't restrain themselves in discussing the images:
"Although Titan gets far less sunlight and is much smaller and colder than Earth, Xanadu is no longer just a mere bright spot, but a land where rivers flow down to a sunless sea," Lunine said.
...
On Xanadu, liquid methane might fall as rain or trickle from springs. Rivers of methane might carve the channels and carry off grains of material to accumulate as sand dunes elsewhere on Titan.

"This land is heavily tortured, convoluted and filled with hills and mountains," said Steve Wall, the Cassini radar team's deputy leader at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "There appear to be faults, deeply cut channels and valleys. Also, it appears to be the only vast area not covered by organic dirt. Xanadu has been washed clean. What is left underneath looks like very porous water ice, maybe filled with caverns."
The article is fascinating. Why does this area on Titan exist? Is it truly methane that's the shaper? Methane is known to be a greenhouse gas, but it would be a liquid, not a gas at Titan's temperatures. Could other conditions have existed on Titan at one time? Read it and have some mental fun. There are links to the images at NASA.

I think that scientists (good ones) have furnished minds that range widely. And I am worried, like Mamacita, that we have not provided those mental furnishings to a generation of students. I began with Mamacita. and now Mamacita pops up again in a second post discussing education:
In the 'smart class' (you will find no PC here; it cheapens us all) you will find a group of kids who all have a background of poems, songs, nursery rhymes, and 'experiences.' In the slow class, you will find a group of kids who all have no background in anything at all, for the most part.

I used to give assessment tests at the start of each year. It would blow your mind to bits if you all realized how little some families do for their children, before sending them to school, beyond setting them in front of the tv and walking away.
...
Educated people are as much superior to uneducated people, as the living are to the dead. ---Aristotle.

I know I say that all the time, but it's absolutely true.
Mamacita writes about the difficulty that schools are experiencing in coping with kids who are basically unacculturated. My mother noticed the difference when women mostly went back to work. They started to get children in who could barely talk, because, well, no one had ever spent much time talking to them. The kids had spent most of their time in front of a TV. They were a new variant of closet children, deprived of the basic adult-child interaction that furnishes and expands young human minds. Young children are learning machines, but they need fuel for their engines, and that fuel is the company of not just children, but adults. Only adults can give them the window into the wide range of human culture.

Last week one of the kids came by with Chief No-Nag's oldest grandson. He will enter seventh grade next year. He's a lovely boy. Lovely in every way. Poised, confident but not arrogant, gentle, well-spoken, well-mannered, loving, curious and very, very comfortable in the society of adults. You can tell that he has spent a great deal of time interacting with adults. He likes school, because of his friends, and he also does well in school. He likes sports. He is an old-fashioned kid who has been raised not with great wealth, but with a great deal of family. He's a delightful kid.

Chief No-Nag loves music. He has now assembled a vast collection of music - classical and popular. There are at least a truckload of cassettes, CDs and records in our house. When Chief No-Nag he was a child in South America, not only did they not always have the basics - food, medical care, clothing - but they had no music. Poverty does mean things like the weekend Chief No-Nag spent, when he was eight, lying in a shed nearly dying from flu in back of the school eight miles from home. He was too weak to walk home, and no one knew where he was. So there he lay, to live or die alone, with no water. Eight years old.

Poverty also means no music. Nobody had records, or even a radio. The first radio in their area showed up in the next town when he was about 12, and everyone used to walk to that town (as much as 10 or 12 miles!) on Saturdays after work to listen to it. When he was fifteen, someone got a recordplayer, and a few records. They ran it off a battery, and everyone went there to listen to it. These people who had so little loved music. They also believed in education. There were weekly contests at the school, and parents would walk miles and miles to listen to the kids answer questions posed by the teachers. Chief No-Nag was a bad student until he realized that he could win those contests - and, if you won, you got a few cents. That was the prize, and that was the first money Chief No-Nag earned for using his mind instead of his muscles.

The striking contrast between the life Chief No-Nag's grandson has lived, and Chief No-Nag's, bothers me much less than the perception that we have somehow managed to produce poverty-stricken lives for many of our children in the midst of real prosperity. Don't set your children out to sail on this sunless sea. They don't need wealth to have a good life and a brilliant future. They do need you, and they do need learning.. They need you to value what is truly important and to reflect those values to them. They need to hear you discuss politics, and watch you listen to music, and to see you reading books, and to hear you express curiosity about science. They need to watch you at your hobbies. They need to help you with the family chores. They need to watch you being an adult, and they need to be allowed to participate in life as a family.

Update: Last year Chicago Boyz posted on the way that educators want to change the science curriculum in the UK to teach about science rather than science:
Instead of learning science, pupils will "learn about the way science and scientists work within society". They will "develop their ability to relate their understanding of science to their own and others' decisions about lifestyles", the QCA said. They will be taught to consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the "social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions".

They will learn to "question scientific information or ideas" and be taught that "uncertainties in scientific knowledge and ideas change over time", and "there are some questions that science cannot answer, and some that science cannot address". Science content of the curriculum will be kept "lite". Under "energy and electricity", pupils will be taught that "energy transfers can be measured and their efficiency calculated, which is important in considering the economic costs and environmental effects of energy use".
As David remarked on the post:
Failure to learn anything at all about science while in high school will significantly foreclose one's career options. Evidently, the educational authorities in Britain must think that future biochemists and electrical engineers will come from China or India...but even if one is not pursuing a scientific or engineering career path per se, one needs some scientific context. How likely is it that a person will become, say, a biotech CEO if they have no idea about how science actually works...if their total exposure to science consists of "social science" platitudes like those stated in the excerpt above?
There are other links in the comments of great use, and an interesting tie-in to C. S. Lewis.


Saturday, July 22, 2006

The Law Of Life

Annan of the UN:
We will only accept an unconditional ceasefire followed by indirect negotiations for a prisoner swap,” Hezbollah deputy Nawar Sahali told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa by phone, echoing remarks Thursday by Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.

In a speech before the UN Security Council on Thursday, Annan denounced both sides for the violence and proposed a settlement under which Hezbollah would release the two soldiers and a stabilization force will be deployed.

Sahali accused Annan “of defending Israel ... and taking its side.
That's really all we need to know about "proportionality". As SC&A writes regarding Hezbollah:
Clearly, any negotiations with a terror organization are a waste of time. They are not bound by the same rules and regulations that govern civilized society. Hezbollah bases in urban areas, arms depots in urban areas, missle launch sites that are residential ‘backyards’ and the transformation of blocks in South Beirut into Hezbollah headquarters facilities are issues that undermine every Hizbollah claim to legitimacy.

Despite their political influence, Hizbollah refuses to identify itself as a political entity, in the same way as other legitimate political organizations. Instead, Hizbollah continues to define itself, by actions and words, as a terrorist organization. By definition, terrorist organization are not bound by civilized convention and the established rule of law. By definition, terrorist organizations operate outside those conventions and outside the rule of law.
In SC&A's post regarding the attitudes of the appeasers, ACS appears. In the comments ACS writes:
Conservatives often treat wars as though winning and losing were a matter of exercizing sufficient will; as though, somehow, the collective force of Israeli public sentiment were capable of wishing Nasrallah dead and wishing Hezbollah disbanded. Twenty years of excercizing political will already didn’t do this, and Israel paid a steep price in blood. Why they believe that months of fighting — and straying out of bounds into the Sunni-dominated north — will accomplish any goal other than losing Israel the moral high ground is utterly beyond me.
Hah, hah. First of all, Israel is capable of decimating Hezbollah and nullifying Hezbollah by military force. Nasrallah is not really the problem; the terrorists he commands and the weaponry they have accumulated are the problem. Heretofore Israel has exercised great restraint out of fear of those "civilian" casualties. What is being exercised here is not political will but military will, and that is what is necessary to stop Hezbollah's incursions.

Hezbollah expected to get several hundred prisoners released in exchange for those two Israelis. If Hezbollah will not return those prisoners, Israel must kill more Hezbollah terrorists than Hezbollah expected to get released in order to demonstrate that this tactic will not work. That's the long and the short of it. Israel is trying to kill members of a band of terrorists that want to destroy all Jews, and who attacked them first. It's not Israel's fault that Hezbollah stores weapons in mosques, houses, and schools, and sets up rocket launchers in fruit orchards. If an organization interlaces its military arm with its civilian activities and then proceeds to attack an outside nation with them, then that organization is morally guilty of the deaths of civilians in the consequent military action. That's what the world should be saying to Hezbollah.

What the dingbat appeasionists apparently don't realize is that to win a war one must have the will to win that war, and that engaging in military action without the full intention of reaching your military goal by force of arms or force of diplomacy is how you lose the moral high ground. Israel is now paying with its own blood for negotiating with terrorists before - that was a moral mistake. Not this. For Israel to allow its soldiers to be bargaining chips would be immoral. This isn't.

Anyone who condemns Israel for what it is doing is accepting the idea that the lives of civilians within Israel's borders are worth less than the lives of civilians outside its borders. The immorality of that should be clear to anyone with a conscience.

I have been praying for peace, grace and God's mercy in order to end this conflict. But every time I emerge from prayer, I emerge with two painful answers. The first is "You will be judged as you judge." That constitutes not just a requirement to exercise mercy to others in order that it should be available to myself, but the clear statement that a person, organization or nation is responsible for the results of rules of law that such person, organization or nation sets up. The corollary is that any individual has the responsibility not to accede to, advocate for, or cooperate with, rules of law that will produce widespread destruction.

If a woman loads up a baby carriage with dynamite, puts her baby on top of it, and then goes for stroll in the mall with the detonator held in her pocketbook, is the baby not already dead? And isn't the woman guilty of the death of her child? And if police intercept the women before she enters a crowded venue, and in the process the child is killed, are the police guilty of the death of that child? Of course they are not. The civilized world must turn and say to Hezbollah "Remove your combatants and your weapons from the vicinity of the children, or bear the guilt for their deaths". And if we do not say that - if we do not insist on that - then we are the ones who have allowed this tactic to be a successful tactic, and we are the ones who now must assume responsibility for the next infant placed on top of a pile of bombs. We are responsible for the results of the rules of engagement we set up or accept as valid.

Why can we not see this obvious fact? Gagdad Bob has answered this clearly:
Of course, once you have chosen one option in life, all of the others are forever foreclosed. If you choose one career, it means all the other possibilities are ended, at least temporarily. If you marry one woman, you are really denying yourself the rest of womankind, and who would want to do that? It seems that many people would prefer to live in the realm of infinite (but unrealized) potential rather than finite, but real, existence.
Once one acknowledges that the rules of law must be universal, one must then acknowledge oneself subject to them. We do not wish to be bound by law, and so we get angry at those who live by universal laws, because they are an implicit reproach to us. Universal law acknowledges a universal reality, which is felt to be a great personal constraint. In other words, we refuse to live life because it would require acknowledging our limited scope. We refuse to make choices, because if we don't make them, we can believe we always have all choices. We refuse to live the life we are givein order to sustain the delusion that we will never die - but we die nonetheless. We are all temporary participants in this world with limited options and a limited life. That's reality.

The second answer I get is this "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The "love" is used here, the word does not refer to an emotion. It does not refer to an infatuation. It refers to a commitment. When you love your child, it means that you are always aware of your child's needs and existence. There are times when you may be angry at your child. There are times when you may be weary of your child. But you never turn and walk away from your child, because your awareness of your child holds an equal place in your consciousness with your awareness of yourself. What we are being told here is to be always aware of our neighbor's needs and existence. And in loving God, we are asked to be aware that there is an objective, external existence which preceded us, will be after us, and is in no way dependent upon us. We are being asked to accept that we might never have been, but that God always was and always will be. In order to love God, we must admit our limited existence by acknowledging God's unlimited existence. We are being asked to put ourselves in our rightful places, which are not at the center of the cosmos. What Jesus said here is that every individual must conform his interior reality to objective reality. It is, in essence, a psychological demand. Failure to follow these commands means that an individual becomes morally insane, and in many cases, a dedicated refusal to follow these commands results in actual psychosis.

Once you understand the meaning of what Jesus said, you realize a number of things. The first is that many who claim to be atheists today are not, by Jesus' definition. If a person acknowledges that things and people having nothing to do with him- or herself are as real as him- or herself, that person is acknowledging God. And if this person also acknowledges that other people have an equal right to exist and that he or she has an obligation to treat their needs equally with his own, that person is following the second command. You also realize that many people who call themselves Christians are not following these commands, because they use the idea of personal salvation as a personal exemption from the universal demands of reality. That is an inversion and a perversion of what Jesus said we had to do. The idea of universality - of cause and effect - was inherent in the Law of Moses and Israel's original establishment. Leviticus "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." When Jesus says he has come to fulfill the Law of Moses, that is what he means. By acknowledging that there is one reality, we acknowledge a universal reality and a universal law. It is in following this universal law that we can have peace in our world.

If Hezbollah does not acknowledge universal law, Hezbollah is the enemy of God, law and human beings everywhere. If the international "diplomats" cannot ask that question fairly and directly of Hezbollah, then they are the enemies of God, law and human beings everywhere.

I will be praying for peace on Sunday, but I will not be praying in the delusion that God will do it for us. I will not be praying in the illusion that somehow we can escape this situation. The law of cause and effect will always hold true; they can only be abrogated by accepting what we have done wrong in the past and asking for God's help in remediating those errors. Then, and only then, another dimension of reality can emerge and seeming miracles occur. I will not be praying for anything but the realization by Hezbollah that it cannot have peace without acknowledging the Jews' right to exist, and I will be praying for the leaders of the "international community" to summon up the courage, by God's grace, to restate that the conditions for peace are the willingness to allow your neighbor the right to exist, that there is a universal law, and that the condition for international protection is the acceptance of that law. I know that God does not impose his will or his consciousness upon that of any human being unless by the consent of the human being, so I know that at best, my prayer can have only partial results.

One fact remains: If Israel were to disarm tomorrow, within six weeks over a million Israelis would be dead. If Hezbollah were to return the soldiers and turn its artillery over to the Lebanese government, many lives would be saved, and the sovereignty of Lebanon would be protected from Syria, rather than endangered.

Anyone who claims that Israel is endangeriing Lebanon's democracy by its actions is deeply self-delusive. If Lebanon is to become a true democracy, Hezbollah must stop being a private army that holds itself above and immune from Lebanese law. No one can sanely deny these definite effects of different course of action, and anyone who attempts to deny them is an immoral person. We must summon up the courage to say this persistently; if we want peace we must first have accountability. Praying for peace without acknowledging the prerequisites of peace is a false prayer that can have no effect, if you are entreating God. If you are entreating men, it can only have an evil effect. Demanding unilateral pacifism of one party in an armed conflict is no different morally than human sacrifice. Too many of the "pacifists" today follow a bloody, ancient tradition.

The blogs I have posted as links on my sidebar are those who I am sure all follow these commands as well as they can (and none of us, because we are human, can follow these commands absolutely). They are important to me. Of them, the most important to this post (in random order) are Shrinkwrapped, Dr. Sanity, SC&A, True Grit, The Anchoress, Mamacita, Assistant Village Idiot, and Dust My Broom. I will add One Cosmos (Gagdad Bob). All of these bloggers are engaged in the important process of sifting, separating and making distinctions that are necessary to the maintenance of civilized life. This crisis has placed the moral dilemma and the moral failings of the west in full, public view. I hope we can rouse ourselves to reengage with reality before it is too late.

Friday, July 21, 2006

US Housing


Homebuilders tell the tale about real estate:
D.R. Horton, which has nine communities actively selling in the county, said that in the past 60 days it had cut the number of lots it has under contract in San Diego County.
...
But companywide, the home builder wrote off $57.2 million in the quarter for deposits on land that it now isn't going to buy.
About San Diego:
“San Diego is our weakest market in California,” Tomnitz told analysts. “California continues to be a challenging market for us. There continues to be a small percentage of affordability out there.”
...
For example, June sales were down 24 percent from a year earlier, the 24th consecutive month of year-to-year sales declines. The inventory of homes on the market is hovering around 20,000 – nearly double the number at this time last year.

The median price for a San Diego County home was $488,000 in June, down from a peak of $518,000 in November.
But DC is very bad also, as the article notes later. And Phoenix is worse than DC or San Diego. HousingTracker uses median list prices to compile 25%, median and 75% information on major metro areas. Obviously listing prices measure more the sellers' expectations than actual sales figures, but they are a useful index to some extent.
Washington, DC:
07/21/2006 12,111 listed, $349,950 (25th), $474,900 (median), $649,000 (75th)
08/14/2005 5,347 listed, $360,000 (25th), $489,000 (median), $699,900 (75th)
San Diego:
07/21/2006 14,872 listed, $395,000 (25th), $519,000 (median), $725,000 (75th)
08/14/2005 9,656 listed, $410,990 (25th), $545,000 (median), $758,000 (75th)
Phoenix:
07/21/2006 26,817 listed, $259,900 (25th), $344,000 (median), $519,900 (75th)
08/14/2005 7,447 listed, $264,867 (25th), $379,900 (median), $629,900 (75th)

The difference between this median for San Diego is that it is a median of offering prices, whereas the $488,000 noted above for June is a median of sold homes. And somewhat different areas are included - but note that the relative drops are similar in scope (-5.7% in sales price vs. -4.7% in listed price). Phoenix's 10% drop in median list price is pretty rough; Miami's is worse. The HousingTracker site is a pretty good idea to get a feel for the different conditions in different areas at the moment.

The problem with the housing market in some of these areas, as I keep repeating, is that historical trends are no longer predictors of future trends. The exotic loans with layered risks (high debt-to-income ratios, no-doc underwriting, low or no downpayments, non-amortizing or even negative amortizing loans with rapid resets) mean that recent borrowers are abnormally vulnerable to even flat markets, much less falling markets. Their only hedge against risk is a rising market. With homes being so unaffordable in many of these places, many new prospective buyers will be unlikely to qualify for traditional mortgages, and creditors will stop writing these loans for all but the most qualified borrowers. Who in the heck is going to want to hold a 20% piggyback for an 80/20 financing in a market like this? The second-lien holders are the ones who lose their principal if the loan goes into default.

With that in mind, the Fed's Monetary Policy report is interesting. It carefully skirts around the housing issue, and comments favorably on the growth in business investing as a factor bolstering up the consumer spending/residential investment shortage to support continued economic growth. But, as a Forbes article points out, there are big uncertainties involved. The article goes on to note that 75% of large cap firms surveyed expected to increase capital spending, then cites drops in stock, tightened monetary policy and an inability to pass along costs:
Forecasters predict growth will slow to about 3 percent or less over the next six months, and the worry is what happens next.
...
Some think big business could come to the rescue. Among them: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who testified before Congress this week that capital expenditures should remain strong, given that "firms remain in excellent financial condition, and credit conditions for businesses are favorable."
Business leaders appear to be showing some concern. The National Federation of Independent Business found that only 27 percent of the 416 small-business owners it surveyed planned on boosting their capital outlays in the next three to six months - the lowest level since March 2003, when the United States headed to war in Iraq.

Goldman Sachs just released its survey of information technology executives, which found a "decreased urgency to spend." In its report, the investment firm noted that there was "creeping conservatism" among those making technology decisions.
Consumer disposable income is dropping for the poorer half of our population, and drops in retail employment show the pressures on this part of our population. High consumer spending seems to have been supported by the housing ATM in many areas, and that is going to be sharply curtailed by more cautious lending practices.

A dollar more per gallon of gas means at least $17 more in weekly fuel costs for an average family, and that translates to close to $900 a year. Utility costs are hitting too, and costs of many staples in stores are rising quickly. The cost of incidental credit (cards, drawing on lines, etc) has risen sharply. Except for the cost of credit, these costs are not significant to those in the top third of the income bracket, but they are deeply, hugely signficant to the bottom 40%. The consumer is tapped out and businesses would have to indulge in an orgy of spending in order to offset a consumer spending pullback.

The only way I can see that we can get that orgy of investment is to actually do old-fashioned things like drill for oil, build power plants, etc. As the Fed report notes, government purchases account for a significant stimulus to our economy, and I do believe the tax ATM is about to run out as well.

As Oraculations has been writing, what we need are jobs, and most of all, good-paying jobs. Inflation is going to beat the already marginalized bottom third of the income bracket to death. It's jobs and real investment we need:
How does anybody know that tax cuts caused an economic boom? What information do any of us have that proves it? Sure it helps investors but where does it say that increased investment creates jobs? I'd say that increased employment creates increased investment. Increased investment boosts share prices, but as far as creating jobs how can anything other than new investment in new companies or products boost employment?
If there were any old-fashioned JFK dems left, we'd all be crawling on our bellies begging them to run. Look at Howard's comments - share prices are dropping. We have got to return to being a country that makes things and doesn't rely on a massive illegal worker program to keep wages down.


Thursday, July 20, 2006

Class Differences

.Florida Cracker thinks Cindy's Sheehan's diet isn't working:
At least she got to enjoy a night out with gal pals Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin.

Looking at the pic, I think Cindy's fasted long enough, don't you? Smiles and laughter aside, she now has the bloated belly of a starving Ethiopian child.
I said it first, but Florida Cracker always says it better. Plus, the picture!

And speaking of saying it better, The Anchoress points us to a man who can call 'em like God sees 'em - the Pope, who is quoted as saying:
Pregate anche per i terroristi perchè non sanno che fanno del male non solo al prossimo, ma prima di tutto a loro stessi.
...
La vita contemplativa e ricca di carità apre il cielo all'umanità che ne ha bisogno perchè oggi nel mondo sembra quasi che non ci sia Dio. E dove non c'è Dio c'è la violenza e il terrorismo.
In English it goes something like "Pray for terrorists also, because they are unaware of the wrong they do not just to their neighbors, but first and foremost to themselves. ...

"The life devoted to contemplation and enrichened by charity opens heaven to all humans in this God-deprived world. And where God is not, there are violence and terrorism."

Pope Benedict XVI was visiting a Carmelite convent while on vacation. He's also writing a book about Christ, Christianity and their relationship to other world religions.


Next Stop, The UN?

Wellington, New Zealand:
A New Zealand policewoman has been censured for some unauthorized "undercover" work -- a stint moonlighting as a prostitute -- but is being allowed to keep her day job after giving up the night duties.
...
She has been counseled over the matter, which "under police procedures .... amounts to a censure," said Deputy Police Commissioner Lyn Provost.


Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Not Surprising, But Increasingly Horrifying

This sounds like the worst ground fighting yet over the border in Lebanon, although there have been a few other raids:
Two young brothers were killed by a Hezbollah rocket in the Israeli holy city of Nazareth, authorities said.

In addition to the deaths of the two brothers, aged 3 and 9, there were 18 people wounded in the rocket attacks in Nazareth, a mainly Arab city that's the biblical hometown of Jesus
...
Hezbollah claimed to have "repelled" Israeli forces near the coastal border town of Naqoura, and the Israeli army said two of its soldiers had been killed and nine were wounded in the fierce firefight. Hezbollah said one guerrilla was killed.
The article also cites an Israeli claim to have eliminated about 50% of Hezbollah's arsenal. This is what just makes me goggle, though:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair also rejected calls for Israel to declare a unilateral cease-fire, insisting Hezbollah must first free two captured Israeli soldiers and stop firing rockets at the Jewish state.
Who has the chutzpah to tell Israel to stop while there are no constraints on Hezbollah? The Lebanese PM and Assad of Syria, of course, and Assad has been talking to the Turks. Even Solana seems to be willing to at least hint that Syria should not be posturing here:
Earlier Wednesday, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana called on "those who may have influence" over Hezbollah to help end the conflict, indirectly referring to Syria and Iran.

"We're in a hurry. It has to happen fast," said Terje Roed-Larsen, advisor on Lebanon-Syria issues to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "There is serious work to be done in order to reach conclusions, which will be presented to the parties. The parties then have to agree with the presence of the force, what kind of force before it can go in."
The UN force in Lebanon now didn't stop the attack on Israel that began all this. Supposedly those forces even turned away Lebanese civilians looking for shelter in one of their posts. And as for the "parties" which have to agree, that surely includes Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Fat chance:
After all that has taken place so far in Lebanon, nothing has succeeded in altering the basic equation: Any diplomatic solution will have to pass through the Lebanese political grinder and gain Hezbollah's agreement. "Everything is up in the air" according to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, including direct and indirect talks with Hezbollah, and therefore nothing has changed since before the outbreak of fighting

The question is not only what will stop Israel's onslaught but also what will the conditions be that will allow Hassan Nasrallah to nod approvingly. Mediators heard about what may work in a meeting with Nabih Berri, a "contact person" to Hezbollah, the speaker of Lebanon's parliament and head of Amal, another Shi'ite group. According to Berri, even if the United Nations decides to deploy a "significant" force to south Lebanon, it will need Nasrallah's approval, otherwise such a force will be involved in incessant fighting and Israel will continue to suffer missile attacks.
This is a tragedy with comedic dimensions developing on the diplomatic front, and neither the Lebanese nor the Israelis can afford to laugh at these statements.

Israel has declared that it will not deal with Syria and Iran, and that the world must. You just know that all of these Euro-appeasers who loudly denigrate Israel were deeply, deeply disappointed at that announcement. They want Israel to do the heavy lifting while they stand by and announce their humanitarian horror.


Sunday, July 16, 2006

The Woe Of It All

Today Hizbollah rockets hit Haifa and eight are reported dead there. On the 13th, the Lebanese government wrote a letter to the UN saying that around 50 Lebanese had been killed. I can find no update as of today on total casualties, although there certainly are ongoing casualties. On Saturday, Daily Star listing over 70 Lebanese deaths.

WaPo carried a very interesting article today addressing the question of whether Hamas and Hizbollah were coordinating attacks, and whether Iran or Syria are involved. I wish everyone would read this article as a whole. It contrasts the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and appears to imply that the US and Israel are operating together to advance their own agenda, rather than Israel responding to an attack within its borders. These are the first three paragraphs:
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
What a very interesting spin. Suddenly we have the Zionists conspiring with the Great Satan to achieve their goals? No mention is made of Israel's demand to get its two soldiers back from Hizbollah in the article at all, though note is made that Lebanon seems uninterested in taking away Hizbollah's rockets and moving its own troops in to guard the border. Here, by the way, is what The Daily Star, a Lebanese paper printed yesterday about Israeli goals:
Olmert warned that Israel would not halt its offensive until Hizbullah was disarmed. He made the comment during a telephone conversation with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Israeli government officials said.

Olmert set two other conditions for a cease-fire: the release of the two captured soldiers and a halt to rocket fire.

"If these conditions are met, we are ready to cooperate with a delegation from the UN," an Israeli spokeswoman said.
I do believe WaPo is working as hard as it can to ensure that everyone knows that it is not part of the Zionist-controlled US press the Islamists love to discuss. And now we come to a second WaPo article today, which takes a critical look at the theory that Hizbollah's action has anything to do with Iran or Syria:
U.S. and Israeli officials have gone a step further, publicly charging -- without offering direct evidence -- that Iran and Syria had a hand in the operations. A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the United States had intelligence that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah traveled from Beirut to Damascus to visit Hamas political chief Khaled Mashal shortly before Wednesday's Hezbollah raid, suggesting the operations were linked, the official said.
Every rightthinker in the US press, of course, knows that nothing a BushCo official says can be taken as evidence. I am curious as to what would be considered as "direct evidence"? I would have thought Hizbollah's impressive armory of missiles was direct evidence enough. They certainly didn't manufacture them. WaPo proceeds to quote a Palestinian official:
Palestinian government spokesman Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas, denied any connections.

"If they have proof or evidence, they should show the world there is cooperation between Hamas and Hezbollah," he said, adding that in attempting to link Iran and Syria to events last week, the United States is "trying to convince the world that all these organizations should be put in one basket, and present this as the image of terror to the world."
In all fairness, WaPo then goes on to quote several Palestinians who aren't members of Hamas who think that Syria and Iran do have common interests and that they are creating a crisis through Hizbollah and Hamas in an attempt to divert attention away from Iranian nuclear ambitions. I'd like to help WaPo out with some "direct evidence". First, we have a Ya Libnan article quoting the leader of Hizbollah:
The damage resulting from Israeli aggression according to local estimates is in the tens of billions US Dollars so far.
. Nasrallah tells the Lebanese not to worry about the destruction. He said that there is a country that is willing to pay for this without preconditions. Many assumed he meant Iran
. Nasrallah warns that Hezbollah is ready to surprise Israel on land as it surprised it in the sea
. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warns in a television address that his group's fight against Israel will have 'no limits'
With 12,000 rockets, that's an interesting comment. This week Hizbollah struck an Israeli warship, prompting Israel to knock out Lebanese radar units on the coast. And AP carries an article on Nasrallah's statements:
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Arabs and Muslims worldwide to support his guerrillas, saying Sunday that his group is fighting Israel on their behalf and that the battle has just begun.
...
"You Arab and Muslim people must take a position toward your future, the future of your children," he said. "The peoples of the Arab and Islamic world have a historic opportunity to score a defeat against the Zionist enemy ... We are providing the example."

"Hezbollah is not fighting a battle for Hezbollah or even for Lebanon but for the Islamic nation," he said.
Nasrallah did deny that Iranian troops were involved in the rocketry. For a Lebanese side look at things, try From Beirut to the Beltway. In an earlier post by Abu Keis:
The United States and Israel will not end their bloody campaign in Lebanon unless the Lebanese government takes on Iran and Syria. That's, in essence, what can be concluded from statements by Rice today, and from Israel's refusal to enter into negotiations or observe a cease-fire.
...
Lebanon has just emerged from decades of Syrian occupation, and is rebuilding its security services with US help. The US has been helping Lebanon in its struggle against Syrian interference. We lost a beloved prime minister and brilliant journalists and intellectuals in this fight. The Hariri investigation, supported by the US, had many Lebanese hoping justice can finally prevail in our country. Much has been riding on the outcome of this investigation, which became Lebanon's only weapon against a much more powerful Assad regime. Hizbullah's weapons were being discussed during a national dialogue that, though at times frustrating, was praised by the US and cited as an example of peaceful ways to resolve conflicts.

Israel and Bush must not be so stupid as to expect the Lebanese government to be able to challenge Syria and Iran and disarm Hizbullah just like that. Kahmenei today made it clear that Hizbullah will not lay down its arms. Hizbullah is controlled directly by the supreme leader in Tehran, so there is nothing Siniora can do.
It's impossible not to feel agonized sympathy with the Lebanese people. However, no people can expect to be immune from counter-attack when attacks are being launched from their territory. Surely the world ought to be able to gather up its courage enough to help Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and to control its own border? Lying in major newspapers is not going to help any Lebanese civilian. For the west to be gutless international cowards isn't going to help any Lebanese civilian either. Perhaps the real key to this dilemma is that there were reports of celebrations and fireworks in Beirut after rocketry attacks in Israel. VOA:
In his latest speech, Nasrallah exulted over an Israeli warship that he said was hit by Hezbollah artillery. He claimed it was on fire and about to sink.
...
...a series of dull thuds echoed across Beirut. It was not a new round of Israeli attacks, but volleys of fireworks lighting up the sky from Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold. Red tracer bullets pierced the darkness as celebratory gunfire erupted.

In another neighborhood, small bands of people drove through the streets, shouting God is great, apparently celebrating the Hezbollah leader's reported escape from Israeli attempt on his life.

Outside of Hezbollah's Shiite strongholds, other residents of Lebanon seemed at times terrified, at times resolute as Israel's attacks intensified.
There has got to be a way out of this aside from civil war for Lebanon. If there isn't, perhaps Israel will weaken Hizbollah's armory enough so that Hizbollah will come to the table with the Lebanese government. The US fought a tragic civil war when the southern states would not abandon slavery, so our nation has already consecrated our dedication to one principle with our own blood: You are your brother's keeper, and one part of a nation does bear moral responsibility for what another part does.

I hope Lebanon can get out of this without civil war, because that would cost Lebanon far more than the casualties Israel is inflicting now. In absolute numbers, the highest numbers of deaths in any US war were those in the civil war - 14.4% of the enrolled armies died in action or from other causes. Civil wars are terrible wars.


Saturday, July 15, 2006

Muzzle McGruff!

I bet you all have heard those public service messages from McGruff "Take a bite out of crime". Well, in Japan McGruff would get a muzzle:
A yakuza gang has asked the local education board not to show schoolchildren an anti-gang video local police are producing for fear it will lead to discrimination of gangsters' children, it was learned Saturday.
...
On June 29, the board received a letter titled, "Petition," signed by Takeo Hayashi, supreme adviser to the Kudo-kai crime syndicate, and its secretary-general, Mitsuhide Honda.

"If the video is shown at schools, children of crime syndicate members will be bullied. It would constitute discrimination," the letter partly reads.
Just think of the true glory of this worldview. It is true that teaching kids about crime might raise questions in the minds of the children of criminals. I guess we shouldn't teach about nutrition, because that would make parents who don't serve balanced meals feel bad? I suppose we shouldn't teach that smoking is bad for you, because the children of smokers might get bullied? Of course discussing the value of an education might make the children of those who haven't gone to college feel bad.... What a glorious vision for society! I got this from Lucianne.


History In The Making

A nice summary of events (both military and "diplomatic") in the ME:
"In my judgment, the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. "And that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon into Israel and because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers."
...
President Bush, on a trip to Russia, said it was up to Hezbollah "to lay down its arms and to stop attacking." Arab foreign ministers gathered in Cairo but fell into squabbling after moderate states, led by Saudi Arabia, denounced Hezbollah for starting the fight.
There is an interesting account of the UN meeting on the web. It's long:
...Lebanon's representative said the Council was meeting “in the shadow of a widespread barbaric aggression waged by Israel at this very moment against my nation”. He warned that Israel's destruction of vital bridges, roads and buildings, and the killing and maiming of hundreds of Lebanese civilians “will not resolve the problem, but will further complicate it”.

He said the Israeli Government had held Lebanon responsible for Hizbollah's acts, even though the Lebanese Government had issued a statement on 12 July, declaring that it was not aware of the incident, that it did not take responsibility for it, and did not endorse what had happened. Israel's subsequent aggression undermined Lebanon's sovereignty and attempts to exercise its authority over its entire territory, he said, calling on the Council to take a clear decision to establish a ceasefire and to end the air and sea blockade imposed on Lebanon.

Israel's' representative said that Hizbollah terrorists continued to act with impunity in southern Lebanon. They had carried out their heinous acts and then retreated to the Hizbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon. Israel had to respond, as any sovereign Government would, to the assault that had been carried out against it on a scale that had not been seen in recent years. Israel's actions had been in direct response to Hizbollah's actions, he declared, stressing that Israel had targeted Hizbollah strongholds and infrastructure, not civilian targets.

Unfortunately, since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese Government had chosen to succumb to terror, rather than vanquish it, and to relinquish control of its country, rather than exercise it sovereignty. It had become a country held hostage and tormented by decades of sectarian strife, political assassinations, full-fledged civil war and Syrian control. He said the Council had a duty to help the Lebanese people achieve the goal of a free, prosperous and democratic Lebanon. It was up to the Council and the international community to see that the opportunity was seized, for the sake of generations to come.
A sovereign nation cannot announce that it has no responsibility for what happens in its own territory. That's where I keep getting stuck. It's not enough to say "oops". It just isn't. If Israel cannot hold Lebanon responsible for attacks on Israel by Lebanon's citizens mounted from Lebanese territory, then anyone who wants to can attack Israel from Lebanon with impunity. According to the UN's Under-Secretary for Peace-Keeping Operations, Guéhenno, Israel's conditions for a cease-fire are that its two soldiers be returned. That amounts effectively to a demand that Lebanon assert at least veto power over the operations of Hizbollah in Lebanese territory.

I don't see any brokered solution here unless the UN were to come in to Lebanon and stop attacks on Israel, and everyone knows that it will not because they would take extremely heavy casualties if they tried. The UN's calls for Israel to restrict its attacks to "military" targets are ridiculous, because when your attackers don't wear uniforms and operate from civilian areas, there are no uniquely military targets. This amounts to a demand by the UN that Israel just sit, tolerate attacks within its borders and artillery barrages, and not respond. No country in the world would do that. But that is, of course, exactly what is being asked of Israel by people like this, and it amounts to a demand that Israel stand quietly and politely in front of the firing squad.

Perhaps the most moderate ones in all this are the Israelis themselves, who are very accustomed to being shot and bombed, as this Haaretz editorial shows:
Israel cannot and should not come to terms with a blatant violation of its sovereignty, along either the Lebanese or the Gaza borders. The launching of Qassam and Katyusha rockets at Israeli citizens in Sderot and the Galilee is unacceptable; the sole question is, what is the best way of stopping them.

After the government has authorized the Israel Defense Forces to use massive force and marked dozens of targets for attack in Lebanon - the Beirut airport being only the first, according to Interior Minister Roni Bar-On; after Lebanon has been placed under siege from land, sea and air, and after dozens of civilians have been killed, it would not be a sign of weakness for Israel to declare a time-out in its military assault in order to allow the Lebanese to reach their own conclusions.
...
If it is possible to achieve our security goals through diplomacy, a temporary cease-fire should be declared - and hopefully, these aims can be achieved without inflaming the entire region.
But it will never be possible unless the international community can rouse itself to insist that a sovereign nation must take responsibility for attacks launched by its citizenry from its own territory. And if Lebanon cannot physically do that and yet Lebanon will agree that this should be done and that this is their government's intent, then it will require armed intervention of outside powers to enforce that intent. That will not happen unless Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon, Syria and Iran are willing to prevent Hizbollah from attacking these forces. I do not see that Israel has any diplomatic options whatsoever at this time. The diplomatic ball lies with the world and most especially with the Islamic world, and no amount of yammering at the UN can change that.


Friday, July 14, 2006

It Iz Flu Friday

If itz Friday, it must be time for humor. Sadly, we in the blogosphere are still rocked back on our haunches acknowledging that no blogger can trump the Fast for Peas (let no vegetable die for oil) effort.

These are two genuine excerpts from
Cindy Sheehan's blog:
5th of July:
Some of us who will be fasting completely until the troops come home; some will be on liquids only until the troops come home; some will fast for 2 weeks, 2 days; or like me, until at least September 21st.
9th of July:
I find traveling out of the country very challenging Come (sic, she is getting lightheaded from hunger) to being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it. Traveling for 22 hours is very taxing under normal circumstances--but then again, when have we had normal circumstances since the 2000 and 2004 successful coup attempts that have brought BushCo into power?
If you can't beat her, join her. Extrapolating a bit:
13th of July:
The Paris for Peas coalition has welcomed me warmly, but I can find no Jamba fruit smoothies here. Avocados are unbelievably expensive too - it's further proof that Bush is destroying the world's economy in all peasful nations. Michael Moore sent me an Osterhaus chopper, and in order to get a little protein I chopped up four Big Macs in a McShake. This fast is really taking a toll on me, but I am determined to bring our troops home and see the illegal and immoral regime of Bush impeached, and then chopped up in an Osterhaus chopper.
17th of July:
I can't even find a McDonald's in Cuba, due to the illegal and immoral Bush boycott of the progressyve Cuban paradise. There are no Jamba fruit smoothies here - it appears that Rove's rascally tentacles reach everywhere. It's a conspiracy. The closest thing I could find to a fruit smoothie yesterday was the pina coladas at the hotel bar. It is very important to drink plenty of liquids when you are fasting, so I drank eight of them. I felt very lightheaded, yet I am determined to continue this fast until Rove's head is delivered to me on a pike and Occupied New Orleans is free once more.
23rd of July:
I feel bloated, and I now understand those pictures of starving kids with big bellies. Here at the mosque in London, they have no fruit smoothies. Due to the bloating, the only underwear I could fit into today were the ones I got on Michael Moore's slacker tour with the help of a few safety pins, but fortunately my burka fit well. In order to get a little roughage and protein I chopped up a steak and kidney pie in a pint of dark ale and quaffed it down. What Bush does not understand is that one must adapt to local customs instead of trying to impose an illegal and immoral terrorist regime on the world. Peas march coming up, so I must go. Do not worry about my health - I cannot think of myself when I consider the horrible bombings of innocent Iraqis by our dastardly troops.
28th of July:
The illegal and immoral Bush regime confiscated my Osterhaus chopper blades when I tried to get on the plane from Atlanta to Palm Beach. The fascists at the airport did a pat-down search under my burka because the safety pins set off the metal detector in the Rovian mind-ray booth. Clearly Bush's illegal and immoral regime is trying to obstruct the travels of Fasters for Peas such as myself. This SHALL NOT STAND. Fortunately I discovered that due to my weakened state, Michael Moore's briefs now stay up without the safety pins. I feel that I cannot last much longer physically, but my will is still strong. They have Jamba fruit smoothies in Palm Beach, and I have a date with them and destiny.
3rd of August:
My ankles are swelling, which I'm told is one of the symptoms of severe malnutrition. I felt lightheaded, and I don't think the Jamba fruit smoothies are agreeing with me any more. Fortunately, Code Pink bought me a KitchenAid blender while I was in Palm Beach, and I was able to chop up four avocados in a quart of egg nog today to get a little protein. This gave me enough strength to make it out to the Big And Tall Men's store. I have been wearing the Palm Beach version of the burka, which is flowered, in solidarity with my friends at the mosque in London. However, I needed more briefs and Michael Moore's package hasn't caught up with me yet. The fact that I can only find comfortable underwear at a men's shop is proof of Bushco's illegal, immoral and sadistic war against womyn everywhere.
8th of August:
Just when I thought I would not be able to continue on my speaking tour, I was saved by a recipe for fasting sustenance cake a friend sent me. Michael would not tell me where he got it but he assured me it would fix me right up. I blended half of the cake with a quart of egg nog in order to get my electrolytes back up, and I was able to electrify the crowd here at Hope, Arkansas. I will go on, my dear friends! My next appearance, if I am strong enough to make it, will be on a progressyve cooking show for fasters in Berkeley.

I am womyn, hear me roar.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Moral Seriousness

I have the flu, and I thought I'd spare you all my fevered musings yesterday. It is moving through our little local towns with the speed of light. But today my humanitarian impulses seem to have tailed off with my fever, so I thought I'd comment on the news.

First, Israel. All I can to do is pray that Dr Sanity is right, and I'm doing that. Naturally, Edgy Adji is partying. I wonder if he's ever heard the phrase "He who laughs last, laughs best"? Probably not. Israel is in a terribly difficult position, because Hamas is now promising that it will launch rocket barrages from Gaza, etc into Israeli territory. It's now clear that those who advocated for the Gaza withdrawal were wrong, and that's a fact that we'll all have to deal with to some extent, but the Israelis will have to deal with it immediately and forcefully. If they try for peace, the opposition's response is to grab an opportunity to kill them. So Israel has returned to the 1960's, and the question is whether they can avoid 1967. Edgy Adji wants a nuclear do-over of the 1967 war. That is clear.

Israel and Iraq are only small parts of a bigger battle going on in the world. Will most humans end up living under regimes that allow self-determination, which can only be found under a democracy, or will most of us be slaves? I felt acute sympathy with Gorbachev's dilemma in this ABC News article. On the first page he complains that Bush is unrealistic about wanting Russia to have an American-style democracy. On the second page he's complaining about the lack of glasnost and elections, but still claiming that he supports Putin because he believes Putin is a moral person who will bring democracy to Russia. By the end of the second page he's hoping that his grandchildren will live under a democracy in a peaceful world, but doubting it. How Gorbachev's advice or hopes really differ from that of President Bush I was unable to discover.

So the political question for the western countries is really what side we will be on. Will we try to work for an expansion of freedoms across the world? Or will we retreat into some sort of temporary, self-generated illusion that insists that the world is an entirely different place than it actually is? If we return to the 1960's in our country, it's another ten years of lethal Woodstock, followed by an era of extreme danger. There is one thing I could never stand about hippies, and that was their belief that it was okay to defecate in public and fail to clean it up. They would gather in large groups, proclaim a new era of wonderful idealism, and decamp, leaving piles of crap on the ground and an awful stench for the locals to remove unless they wanted the water contaminated. A worldview that does not include this basic sense of personal responsibility is one that is profoundly unhealthy on multiple levels.

The younger generations don't admire hippies. They stare at them in bemused worry:
"Tune in, turn on, drop out. Free love. Everything was free. No responsibility. We all still have that kind of feeling, that free spirit," Ms. Harvey told the Milwaukee newspaper. "We're talking about the Beatles and 'Love Child' and round, purple glasses. And we wear the badge proudly. I'm an old hippie."

Asked by the interviewer how a hippie ages, she replied, "Hey, we never do. We just progress."
...
We have lost the consciousness of dying, which is the consciousness that we must have before the consciousness of living. What the boomers are left with is not really a consciousness at all, but a feeling. And as the baby boomers taught younger generations, if it feels good, do it.
I would quibble slightly with the conclusion. We need a consciousness of our own deaths to live well. Life and death occur on automatic. But the consciousness of the temporary and limited nature of our individual lives is absolutely necessary for us to live determined and thoughtful lives that try to pass on better conditions for the next generations. And these types don't have that necessary rock on which to stand. They are determined to remain children, but they wish to be admired as some new, highly evolved form of super-adult.

In their world, as Dr. Sanity points out, fasting to end war includes coffee and ice cream. Nor is this a cheat or quiet sneak. Oh, no, when Cindy Sheehan talks about the difficulties of fasting while travelling, she herself bemoans the fact that all she can find to sustain her fast is coffee and vanilla ice cream. I guess the hippie concept of fasting is that the thought trumps the action? They are a group of people who have raised amorality to an art form.

Dr. Sanity wrote:
We have a terrible choice before us. Terrible, because no matter what option we take American blood will be spilled. But if we meekly submit to the terrible vision of the depraved religious fanatics of Islam; if we do what Jimmy Carter did in the 70's; and what most Democrats and those on the left desire we should do now; then the cost--in lives and in liberty-- will be incalculable for generations of Americans to come.
...
Iran is confident that even George Bush will not dare stand against their plans for Middle Eastern Armageddon.

I think that Ahmadinejad is wrong about this. The part of America that has lost the courage to stand for what is right; and who have been in psychological denial since 9/11, are not in power today--and I fervently hope they won't be for years to come.
The question is one of numbers, because this is a democracy. Will those who do have some contact with reality retain control of power? Will there be enough of them to produce a workable public debate? Good government can never be a matter of avoiding idiocy; it must include a serious and credible opposition. Without realistic alternatives developed out of a realistic debate, those in power become corrupt very rapidly. Without a Democratic party capable of nominating a reasonable candidate, we could easily find ourselves in the position of choosing between a fool and a knave. The thought of an Al Gore type in power and an Edgy Adji cavorting unobstructed through the "Persian" Gulf fills me with deep anxiety, but I don't want to be forced to vote for a Nixon type either.

Update: Mover Mike has written on Israel's dilemma. I am afraid he is correct in his conclusion:
If...Israel decides upon the aggressive course, do not threaten. Attack the designated targets immediately. Do not let the Arabs prepare and the U.S. intercede. Governments rarely give way to threats, certainly not autocratic governments and not in religious matters. To delay aggression would greatly increase the cost of victory.
Betsy Newmark contemplates Israel's position:
It is clear that Iran is orchestrating what its minions in Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas have done to attack Israel. This may be just the beginning.
...
This is all part of Ahmadinejad's quest for nuclear weapons. Does anyone have any doubt that they or their willing tools would use such weapons. And in Iran's point of view, it doesn't matter if they use it against Americans and Iraqis or against Israelis. Both would serve their malign purposes. Israel is fighting our war now.
More than our war, unfortunately. They are fighting a war for all nations that want to maintain a possibility of a world not dominated by pure thuggery. Ugly as this all is, it is happening. Shrinkwrapped makes an excellent point in his disappearing-and-reappearing post on Asymmetric Psychology. Perhaps the best identification of the dilemma of the west and of all Muslims who want to be Islamic in freedom is SC&A's post today:
Universal laws no longer exist in the Arab world. What was once assumed to be understood as universal expressions of civilized behavior is no longer a reality in the Arab world.
There's the asymmetry and their only advantage.


Tuesday, July 11, 2006

If Ya Wanna Laugh...

If you want to laugh, if you want to laugh until you cry, if you want to keep laughing at odd and inappropriate moments until you die.... you must read Ann Althouse's post about the "Islamic studies" lecturer hired by the University of Wisconsin (her university), who plans to devote a full week of his class to the MIHOP theory. The University of Wisconsin has decided that this teaching is protected under academic freedom, thus raising the collective hopes of DU for those full professorships that had always heretofore eluded their brilliance. They always knew it was a conspiracy.

The full, heart-pounding joy is in the comments. Several moonbats show up, and well, I'll let Pogo take it from there:
It's hard to out-crazy people.

In my early training, I worked at a VA hospital in the psychiatry locked unit. Some of the posts here have that familiar earnest lunacy about them.

Best visual analogy occurs in the film "A Beautiful Mind", when the wife of mathematician John Nash enters his office to find a crazy quilt of unrelated newspaper and magazine article with red marker circling"evidence" and colored string tying various pieces together.
This must be preserved for posterity. Here is just one tiny piece of a comment embodying that "familiar earnest lunacy":
- Why did John Ashcroft stop flying commercial planes before 9/11? What did he know?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
Did you know that steel cannot be melted by a hydrocarbon fire? You didn't? This is apparently one of the mainstays of the technical MIHOP support. For some reason, welders don't find this argument convincing....

Most people know how iron was first smelted. You need ore, fuel and a structure to contain and concentrate the heat. Here a guy (it's always men who decide that it would be fun to smelt some copper in the back yard) demonstrates how to smelt your own copper. The first iron extraction was done in basically the same way at relatively low temperatures, and, should you wish to go into the ironworking business, there is always some helpful male on the internet to show you how to proceed. Ah, the DU dummy cries triumphantly, iron is not steel. Go here, twit. Most steel has a lower melting point than iron. So, like, uh, suppose you wanted to make a really hot oven - do you think a giant basement with tons of debris on top with fires burning for weeks would form a smelting oven? Yes, indeed it would.

This is how stupid these people are. You don't even have to know any science to figure out how completely stupid they are. Some very basic cultural history of the type any liberal arts student should know is all that's needed to understand how pathetically unfounded at least some of their claims are. This type of history was taught in grammar school back when I attended (true, we had just emerged from the Iron Age, which may account for the lack of such information in elementary schools now).

You know what's even funnier? These students in an intro course are going to have to sit through a week of this, and none of the great intellectual lights of the esteemed Unversity of Wisconsin appears to be able to summon up the intestinal or intellectual fortitude to refute it. Kiss civilization goodbye, because a society that can't do better than this on the objective reality index is culturally pancaking straight into the ground.

Why would anyone think that a person can get an education in an institution like this? It must be an intellectual lunatic asylum. Academic freedom doesn't protect the right to teach falsehoods. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation, but no one is entitled to teach their own set of facts.

Hey, before I go, a really, really rare bird makes an appearance on this thread. He's a Christian Anarchist Aerospace Engineer who doesn't know how to smelt iron. You just can't make this stuff up:
The other main two are the presence of pools of molten structural steel in the basements of all three buildings that collapsed that day (including WTC-7). Hydrocarbon fires like the fires in the towers don't melt steel like that. The other big one is the fact that the towers collapsed at virtual freefall speed, which indicates they encountered no resistance on the way down. The indicates the superstructure of all three buildings was completely compromised at the timeof collapse. The "pancake theory" cannot account for this.
Dr. Sanity takes a lot of heat for pointing out that some people on the left appear to be nuts. I think the post and the comments above should be factored into an assessment of her analysis before anyone disputes it, though. Stupidity cannot explain what we are seeing in our "institutions of higher learning". There's something else at work.

130 Dead And Mounting In Bombay Blasts

Update: The deaths from the blasts are up to 200 now, and over 600 are injured. Mumbai Help has a communications post in which people try to help each other in the comments, if you want a human perspective. Also see Writers Against Terrorism blog. The people of Bombay (Mumbai) went to work like normal this morning. As this writer says:
We are not Hindus and Muslims or Gujaratis and Marathis or Punjabis and Bengaliies. Nor do we distinguish ourselves as owners or workers, govt. employees or private employees. We are Mumbaikers (Bombay-ites, if you like). We will not allow you to disrupt our life like this. On the last few occassions when you struck (including the 7 deadly blasts in a single day killing over 250 people and injuring 500+ in 1993), we went to work next day in full strength. This time we cleared everything within a few hours and were back to normal - the vendors placing their next order, businessmen finalizing the next deals and the office workers rushing to catch the next train. (Yes the same train you targetted)

Fathom this: Within 3 hours of the blasts, long queues of blood donating volunteers were seen outside various hospital, where most of the injured were admitted. By 12 midnight, the hospital had to issue a notification that blood banks were full and they didn't require any more blood. The next day, attendance at schools and office was close to 100%, trains & buses were packed to the brim, the crowds were back. The city has simply dusted itself off and moved one - perhaps with greater vigour.

We are Mumbaikers and we live like brothers in times like this. So, do not dare to threaten us with your crackers. The spirit of Mumbai is very strong and can not be harmed.
End update.

This is shocking:
Seven bombs hit Bombay's commuter rail network during rush hour Tuesday evening, killing 131 people and wounding more than 300 in what authorities called a well-coordinated terrorist attack. There was no immediate claim of responsibility in the bombings, which came in quick succession -- a common tactic employed by Kashmiri militants.

India's major cities were put on high alert after the blasts. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called an emergency Cabinet meeting and said that "terrorists" were behind the attacks.
Earlier.
Mumbai Help is offering updates and communications assistance. They are reporting 8 blasts. Hospitals are putting out calls for blood and supplies. Vantage Point gives the attack locations as:
The locations(from south to north) are - Mahim, Matunga Road, Bandra, Khar, Santacruz, Jogeshwari, Borivali, Mira Road
The official fatality count is 139.
PS: In the face of these tragic and highly disturbing bombings, a couple of posters on DU make some telling comments:
10. I hate to say this, but It' 7/11 and Mumbai is a city of 16 million and "the cosmopolitan main nerve of a booming Indian economy."
...
12. I'm betting on Muslim extremists.
I'll take that bet, $20. You in? (Easiest 20 I'll ever make)

A question...
This is a huge terrorist attack, at least 100 people killed. Why such a deafening silence on the boards? A Psychedelic Mushroom article has 5 times as many posts. Do DU'ers feel that acknowledging the existence of terror somehow helps Bushco? It seems like we are ignoring a pretty significant event.
...
13. Silence on this board stems from difficulty blaming this on George W. Bush
That's the fact.
...
15. Darnit!

i just heard Indian authorities arrested members of a Islamic terror cell too. I guess I'll just have to earn that $20. BTW, I'm sure someone will find a way to blame this on Bushco, probably through Musharraf.
Replying to #13 above...
40. Now that's unfair.
I think we all want to see whomever did this found out and brought to justice.
At least I know I do.
...
45. Right. Combined with a little leeriness of how Bushco will use this to justify more war and destruction of civil liberties.
It's not about Bush and not about the US. Talk about the ultimate in self-referential thinking! 139 dead now, and hundreds seriously injured.


Stalagmites And Myths: Global Warming

I'm going to be posting a series with a bunch of links to interesting climate research, but in preparation I wanted to post a couple of links. The first is to a post at Chicago Boyz, and I want to quote a comment by Shannon Love:
We have something of a classic chicken-and-egg problem in figuring out whether greenhouse gas (GHG) levels drive the cooling and warming associated with ice ages or whether changing temperatures alter the levels of the gasses. A warmer planet will have more GHGs in its atmosphere than a cooler one due to basic chemistry even if the GHG have no significant contribution to the temperature level itself. For example, if all major temperature change was driven completely by insolation, the GHG levels would rise and fall in trailing sync with the temperatures. If you could not measure insolation but only GHG levels, you might easily conclude that the changes in GHG were driving the change in temperature.

There exist about a 600-800 year lag in the end of ice ages and the rises in levels of GHGs. An even longer lag in the decrease in greenhouse gasses occurs at the start of some ice ages. Clearly, GHGs do not drive major temperature trends but merely amplify trends begun by other factors. It is the degree of amplification that is under question.

The weak correlation I mention is not between temperature and GHG levels (which is strong but largely irrelevant) but between GHG level change followed by temperature change. There is a stronger correlation between temperature change followed by GHG change than the other way around.

Some researchers believe that the cores confirm their computer models but the models were designed to fit the data curves of earlier ice core samples. Simplistically, the models may have just copied the shape of the general curves themselves without accurately modeling the actual natural forces involved. This kind of problem shows up in computer modeling all the time. For any data set, there are a large number of possible models which will generate that data set. In order to really test the model, you must use it to predict a data set that wasn't used in the creation of the model in the first place. I don't think this was done in this case.

I don't think the ice cores tell us much about global warming one way or the other. The time frames we are worried about are on the order of 100 years or less. The ice cores can't even resolve a time span that small. Its quite possible that a C02 levels briefly reached the levels we have now but were not captured in the ice. More importantly, the temperature swings associated with ice ages are massive and clearly driven by some powerful non-atmospheric factor. They really don't tell how much extra-heating we could cause by pushing already high C02 levels (compared to what they were at the end of the ice age) a bit higher.
The second link is to an excellent and extremely readable paper by McKitrick discussing the Mann hockey stick. It explains the problem clearly in 18 pages. See especially pages 5 containing the borehole reconstruction from the IPCC's 1990 effort and page 6 with another borehole reconstruction. ClimateAudit carries continuing debates along the same lines.

The third link is to a 67 page paper by Soon and Baliunas reviewing the types of proxies and the evidence for a highly variable climate during the last 1000 years when compared to this century. This paper is particularly good because it discusses the different effects seen, resolution of different proxies, etc. The last 40 pages are occupied with references, so this shouldn't occupy too much of your time. The article points out the following:
It might seem surprising or frustrating that paleoclimatic reconstruction research has not yet provided confident and applicable answers to the role of anthropogenic forcing on climate change. This point is particularly sharp when considering the fact that even though some proxy records (e.g., those from Overpeck et al. 1997) show unprecedented 20th century warmth with most of the increase occurring in the early to mid-decades of the 20th century, when the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the air was less than 20–30% of the total amount there now. Unless there are serious flaws in the timing of the early-to-middle 20th century surface thermometer warming, or unknown anthropogenic mechanisms that caused a large amplification of surface temperature of the then-small increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, then the early part of the 20th century warming must be largely dissociated from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Other anthropogenic factors still need to be studied on a case by case basis.
In other words, the recent and less recent historical record shows that the earth has a highly variable climate. If anything, the historical reconstruction shows that CO2 increases seemed to occur hundreds of years after sudden warming, rather than to precede it.

It's not scientifically controversial that the oceans emit CO2 when warming, btw. Also CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuates significantly from one part of the year to the next every year due to growth-related CO2 uptake and decay emission. This site on the Mauna Loa record contains both a data table and a graph showing these fluctuations. It's also uncontroversial that burning fossil fuels is slowly raising atmospheric CO2, which, btw, is measured in parts per million.

The earth's climate is so variable that whenever you look at actual data, it is easy to generate an up or downward trendline depending on the beginning and end of the slices. For example, see this Junkscience-hosted Gulf of Alaska record:


Bombay, India Train Explosions

This is not good:
Six explosions rocked Bombay's commuter rail network during Tuesday's evening rush hour, ripping apart train compartments and reportedly injuring dozens, police and Indian media said.

Indian television news channels broadcast images of the wounded sprawled on train tracks and being carried through stations...
Update: Forbes reports 7? At least 15 people are dead, but it's hard to believe that casulties will be that low.


Sunday, July 09, 2006

North Korea, The Nuclear Midget

There's been a lot of talk about the threat of North Korean missiles, and I think Kag Report's editorial cartoon sums up the tactical situation.

I'm sure I'm betraying my troglodyte nature by writing this, but where's the threat, and why should we negotiate with nuclear midgets? It only encourages the drive to nuclear midgethood by various unsavory countries. As Howard of Oraculations writes:
When will we all face the fact that everybody can make an atomic bomb? Idiots can, and have, made them. The only question is when and for what purpose will they be used.
The democracies don't suddenly whack their neighbors with nukes. The threat is not nukes but countries hagridden with crazed dictators. With that in mind, I don't think the US should negotiate with North Korea. I think we should just announce that if Iran or North Korea nukes another country or threatens to nuke one as a way to force that country into anything, we will demonstrate the consequences of nuclear midgethood in no uncertain matter. The only reason that anyone could believe that North Korea is a threat to us is the unconscious assumption that we would not retaliate in kind. We should remove that assumption, and we should remove it from ourselves first.

The surrender monkey politicians now trotting around Washington would have lost WWII, and the consequences would not have been good for the world. To hell with regretting Hiroshima; the Japanese government was about to launch bioweapons attacks on the US and China. They tested them in China, btw, and on captured US servicemen, some of whom
they infected and then dissected alive to assess the physical effects. The Japanese regime of that era was an evil, racist entity that knew no moral boundaries whatsoever (understand Japan of that era, and you will never again deride the Judeo-Christian tradition), and it would never have surrendered as long as it believed that we would not annihilate it if we needed to. Shrinkwrapped's post on ending arguments is necessary reading in this context.

It is time that the US recovers the ability to look at evil and recognize it for what it truly is. The Japanese people did not deserve Hiroshima, but no moral law requires a country to kill a million of its own servicemen in order to preserve the lives of 100,000 powerless civilians of a nation engaged in amoral pursuit of raw power. If the US people could once again grasp that concept and summon up the grit to express it, 90% of the international BS would be over.

If Howard is correct about Iran being an oligarchy, and my guess and anything I can find says that he is, then the nutcases will be emasculated if we can only make ourselves clear about the consequences of exercising nuclear midgethood there. The "dangers" we face internationally are mostly self-inflicted. We are facing monsters shored up by our own refusal to make accurate moral judgements. How did this happen? Is Dr. Sanity right:
In case you wonder what kind of a perverse fantasy world such people live in--it is one where they are so aghast at their own rageful and violent nature that they refuse to acknowledge they even possess such feelings. This enables them to wrap themselves in moral virtue and project those unacceptable impulses onto convenient targets so that they can remain morally pure and untainted. They see themselves as the anti-war movement, but they are truly the repositories of an unconscious cesspool of violence and hatred that breaks through quite regularly in their speech and behavior.
In other politically incorrect news, a Kuwaiti newspaper pointed out that shooting rockets from Gaza into Israel after Israel pulled out is an absolute provocation and that Hamas deserved what it got in response. BDS sufferers everywhere expired in shock, the UN scheduled a continuous debate over Israel's evil for the next century, and somewhere, Karl Rove is smiling. Kuwait just held its first election in which women voted. Not surprisingly, nothing revolutionary happened. Women are not natural revolutionaries.

PS: I did not link to anything about Japan's doings, and that is because they were truly revolting and I wanted to avoid inflicting suffering upon the innocent. If anybody dares challenge me about those statements, I will support them, and anyone who dares to read the links will vomit their guts out. The information isn't hard to find.


Mexican Election: The Aftermath

According to the Mexican laws governing elections, all the counting of votes is over. However Calderon has not yet won; the IFE must now go through its process and must determine the winner by September 6. We are now in the period in which challenges can be presented to the IFE judges.

A lot can happen between now and September 6, and Obrador knows it. His coalition held a rally in Mexico City (his power base - he was mayor there) this Saturday. They appear to be planning rolling demonstrations, but they also appear to be measuring public sentiment carefully. For example, they are saying that such demonstrations should be peaceful and that roads should be left open. In an early indication of the potential success of this strategy, Mark in Mexico reports that the teachers' demonstration in Oaxaca, which had been called off in the wake of the election, is now back on. Officially this has nothing to do with the election, but in practice it may.

So far Obrador has not said much of substance in public; he merely insists that the election was stolen and makes claims against various organizations and individuals. The claim is that some ballot boxes were recounted, and that he gained votes. But those ballot boxes were recounted legally, because of tally discrepancies. What happens at the polling place is that the votes are counted in the presence of observers from the parties. Each observer gets a copy and a tally is kept with the sealed box. This provides a mechanism for each party to challenge discrepancies in the reported count, and if the box appears to have been tampered with or a discrepancy exists, it will be recounted. Obrador's demand to recount all the boxes is not legal under Mexican law.

Mark in Mexico continues to have excellent coverage of the election. The American papers have bad coverage, and I have given up reading them entirely. El Universal is carrying stories as the situation develops, including the various statements and press conferences on the topic. If you don't read Spanish, try Worldlingo.com's website translator. The translations may not be great, but they will give you an idea of what is really happening.

Obrador and his party delayed a presentation itemizing their claims (that they can mathematically prove that the count was fixed, etc) today, although on Saturday Obrador had said that they would make the claims to the court on Monday, so I am assuming that there is considerable public pressure to show up with something meaty. I'm not getting a good impression of Obrador, because I think he has mistepped considerably by claiming that the IFE had become the ram of the right. There is no evidence yet of this at all, and statements like this might be turning some public sentiment against Obrador. Nor is it politically astute; after all, the IFE's decision in this election is final under Mexican law. Challenging the election is one thing; challenging the integrity of the body deciding the election is quite another.

That presentation has been delayed for several hours, and Obrador is reported to have gone home with his family. A Catholic bishop has said that Obrador has the right to challenge the election (which he does under law, but he must make it to the election courts) in a remarkably careful statement:
Monseñor Carlos Briseño Arch hizo un llamado a la prudencia y a la concordia, al tiempo que exhortó a los mexicanos a respetar el derecho ajeno así como a buscar ante todo la paz y la reconciliación como país.
(a call for prudence and harmony, an exhortation to respect everyone's rights, and for everyone to seek peace and reconciliation for the country. In other words, let's not be hotheads.)
Entrevistado luego de oficiar la misa en la Catedral Metropolitana y en representación del cardenal Norberto Rivera Carrera, quien se encuentra en España en el 5 Congreso Mundial de la Familia, destacó que Andrés Manuel López Obrador está en su derecho de presentar la impugnación de las elecciones del pasado 2 de julio.
(Obrador has the right to present his challenge.)
El obispo auxiliar de México destacó que no hay índices de violencia en el país, y que lo que sucede es que no estamos acostumbrados a una competencia tan reñida, además de que se puede impugnar unas elecciones y que la decisión final está en manos del Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación.
(There are no indications of violence, it is just that Mexico is not used to such a close election. The challenge can be made and the final decision remains in the hands of the IFE.)
“Es una realidad en la democracia acudir a las instancias del tribunal electoral. López Obrador no ha ido hasta el momento en contra de ninguna ley”, externó.
(Until now, Obrador has not violated any law.)
“El tiene todo el derecho a manifestarse, tiene todo el derecho a impugnar si está inconforme; claro, demostrando que existe algún tipo de irregularidades e inconsistencias en las elecciones”, puntualizó el monseñor.
(Everyone has the right to present claims and challenge inconsistencies, demonstrating that irregularities or inconsistencies in the election exist. This struck me as a veiled suggestion to put up or shut up. Below the bishop reiterates that Mexico everyone should seek reconciliation and the common welfare, and this creates an invitation to the citizens and the politicians to pursue an integrated country.)
En este sentido Briseño Arch destacó que lo que se debe de buscar ante todo es la paz y la conciliación, ya que al final de cuentas somos un mismo país y todos vamos “jalando la misma carreta”, por lo que hizo una invitación a la ciudadanía y a los políticos a luchar por la integración del país.

Señaló que la decisión final está en el TEPJF, por lo que se debe dejar que trabaje como ya lo ha hecho el IFE, que cumplió en la realización del proceso electoral del 2 de julio.
The Catholic church in central and southern America has by no means a lock on the population. There are various evangelical churches which in some areas have more adherents than Catholicism. However, the Catholic church is greatly respected. This is hardly an endorsement of Obrador's behavior so far. Obrador's party is called Por El Bien De Todos, or For the Good of All. The nuance of the statement above, as quoted in El Universal, might be read as appealing to the basic concept of that name, a declaration that the rule of law serves the basic concept, and a strong suggestion that certain tactics might violate it.

One puzzling aspect of Obrador's behavior is that his party was left in a pretty strong position by the election results. They did not win the congress, either, but they were a strong second. They ought to be able to negotiate for substantial representation in the government, and such an outcome could be a very good one for Mexico. However Obrador is looking very erratic and hotheaded here, and I wonder if it is not his own personality that cost him the election. I had been waiting to post this hoping for release to the press of Obrador's "proof", but I gave up.


Saturday, July 08, 2006

I was very touched by Tigerhawk's eulogy to his father (hat tip Villainous Company) and it seems extraordinarily appropriate to the issues of the day. There's a long history behind the intellectual dead-end we have walked into, and we'll only be able to back out if we understand the way we got here. His father was a historian and a university professor, and here is what his father had to say to his class in 1972:
Because there is such pressure for conformity in a large industrial society, a university has to promote diversity more than ever before. But it cannot offer you diversity of opinion or provide anything more than mere indoctrination unless every faculty member has the fully guaranteed right to say what he thinks is the truth, not simply what one political group wants him to say. This right is academic freedom. Without it, I could not remain in this profession and your prospects for a broad and diversified educational experience would be gone ….
And in 1971, writing to protest the draft Statement on Professional Ethics prepared by the Faculty Council:
[w]hen conditions on campus are abnormal, the threat usually involves a demand for scapegoats, as some tried to make ROTC a scapegoat for last year’s Cambodian intervention. It is at these crucial moments that the first obligation of faculty members must be to act rationally and to stand firmly behind any member of the community whose rights are threatened. Standing firm is a difficult matter, since capitulation often appears to be the only way of averting violence. Nevertheless, every time we sacrifice somebody else’s rights in the hope of avoiding bloodshed we are guilty of unethical and unprofessional conduct and make our own rights less secure and less respected.
What "diversity" means now on campus is that there are untouchable ideas and groups. 1984 wasn't far off, was it? The rot in our society has gone deep. FIRE has publicized an incident at Johns Hopkins in which a conservative campus newspaper got into trouble for expressing certain viewpoints:
Johns Hopkins University (JHU) ended this school year by engaging in shameful viewpoint discrimination and denying its students freedom of the press. First, JHU turned a blind eye to the theft of a conservative student newspaper, The Carrollton Record (TCR), then stifled its right to distribute in dorms while allowing other papers to continue distributing there.
...
TCR’s May issue contained an article objecting to a recent campus appearance by pornographic film director Chi Chi LaRue. The cover photo pictured LaRue along with members of JHU’s Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance (DSAGA) student group, which hosted the event. The pictured DSAGA members were apparently displeased to see their pictures on the newspaper’s front page, and some have filed harassment charges against TCR staffers.
Things used to be somewhat rowdy back in the Pleistocene when I was hanging at institutions of higher learning (and "higher" should really be in quotation marks, given the amount of drugs that were around, and I'm not talking about just the students). I would say that the students back in my day were perfectly capable of having sex without outside assistance, and I truly have wondered what has happened since to impel Ivy League university administrations to believe that student life needs assistance in this area from professionals. Even stranger yet is the apparent belief at some universities that students are unable to figure out whether and which church to attend without the benevolent guidance of the adminstration. Things sure have changed.

I'm intensely curious as to why harassment charges were filed, and whether they were. Johns Hopkins banned the offending paper from dorms, prompting FIRE to write a letter to the administration, which replied admitting that they had removed the paper from the dorms. The letter disputes that formal harassment charges were filed. FIRE posted pictures of another paper still being distributed in a dorm on its usual summary page with the back-and-forth. The latest is that a Maryland senator has weighed in.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Friday Fasts

Update: While I still claim that no blogger is going to be able to top the epic comedy of 24 hour fasts to end evil, it must be admitted that the MIQ (moral IQ) of bloggers is significantly above that of Hollywood types. Proving that even rocks aren't as dumb as the denizens of Hollywood, the Kag Report expands upon the strategy, and Peace Moonbeam provides an on-the-ground report of the proceedings. Howard of Oraculations doesn't even have time for caustic contempt re this nonsense; he's all about reality. Liberal Larry does have time, and has figured out a way to enhance participation by shortening the fasting period to ten minutes. End Update.

I like to post some comedic links on Friday, preferably to bloggers. I regret to report that no blogger ever born has been, or will be (although The Anchoress does come close when discussing fruit, and Ferdy deserves an honorable mention), able to trump the awesome comedic spectacle of 2,700 Hollywood types fasting for 24 hours each in an attempt to inspire a US revolt against the war in Iraq:
Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

Though the anti-war movement is trying hard to puncture public perceptions, some experts believe such protests have little impact on how Americans view foreign wars.
Indeed they don't, we agree, as we stand wiping the streams of tears from our eyes after swallowing half a bottle of Valium in a last-ditch effort to stop laughing or crying. Indeed they don't. Waving goodbye at the airport to friends and family in uniforms might have a wee bit more impact on our views.

While I believe that most Americans respect those who have genuine scruples of conscience about waging war, it is impossible for a sane individual to respect someone fasting for 24 hours to protest a war. Such a protest amounts to a toddler having a temper tantrum because he's been made to stand in a corner just because he tried to shove his rotten sister down the stairs. The thing is, people die in wars. People are maimed in wars. All wars are terrible - the best war can only be a necessary evil. So war is a serious, serious thing, and if you have honestly concluded that the only way to convey to society your deep conviction that a particular war is unjustified and a crime against humanity, by fasting, you are going to have to do it seriously.

Fasting for 24 hours can only be
I do have a suggestion though - let's make a joint blogging offer to these awesome humanitarians. Let's tell them that we will consider them serious if they sign up for a publicity fast to protest the war. Until the last man and woman in our Armed Forces comes home, our peerless protesters must pledge to never make another film, TV appearance, hold another interview, pose for another photograph, write another book, screenplay, column or article. Until then, we cannot take their consciences seriously. All such a protest would amount to is asking them to endanger their money and their egos - but the millions of volunteers in our armed forces are already endangering their lives for their beliefs, and they darned sure don't make much money in the Armed Forces even in peace.

If we never have to hear from or see the stupid, self-satisfied, amoral faces of these Hollywood protesters again, we'll get a chance to rationally assess the type of vacuum that their absence creates, and a chance to contrast the empty space they leave with the echoing vacuum our friends and family over there, in the hospital or underground have left in our lives.

Until
then, we'll be right here, laughing at the protestors, mourning for those who have died or been injured in this war, contributing money to veterans' groups, and in general, earnestly working for a better world as our own consciences dictate. Because the truth is, we do have consciences, and we do not need publicity for them to kick in. And the truth is, these Hollywood types deserve nothing but universal and caustic contempt for what they are doing.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Mexican Election Update

El Universal continues to update the tally. Currently 99.75% of the votes are counted, and Calderon is .51% ahead. Calderon's got 35.85% of total votes and Obrador's got 35.34%.

Update: 99.95% of the votes are counted. Calderon is .56% ahead of Obrador. Total vote: Calderon has 35.87 and Obrador has 35.31% of the votes. This morning Obrador said he was disputing the election and called on his supporters to gather this coming Saturday at the Zocalo:
El candidato de la coalición Por el Bien de Todos, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, informó este jueves que impugnarán la elección presidencial y convocó a sus simpatizantes a congregarse en el Zócalo capitalino el próximo sábado.
I think you can pull this sort of thing off better if you have more support overall; as it is I am not getting a favorable impression of this dude. No matter how this ends, the winning candidate does not have a strong base of support and will have to deal. Newsday has conceded to reality, although you can feel their pain. If you are in the mood to laugh at lefty suffering here's a DU sample. This is cool logic:
34. .51 with 99.72 counted
Looks like Calderon will end up with the same .6 margin he started with. Which proves fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. FULL RECOUNT!
In another thread, a DU'r gives a course in DU logic, brilliantly explicating why it is obvious that Bush had his terrifying (yet stupid! very stupid!) tentacles in this one:
48. "IT MEANS NOTHING HERE"? I recommend a course in logic for you.
Probably the main reason that Obrador's election was "Bushed" is that he threatened to nullify the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements. "And how" the curious mind could ask, "would that effect us here in King Georgeland"?

Obrador's intent to nullify NAFTA and instate fair pay and working conditions for the poor was a direct threat to all the corporations doing manufacturing in Mexico. It would have removed the main reason for american business to offshore labor to mexico: cheap labor.

With most of central and south america now moving to the left, that would mean that the oligarchy would have to start paying decent wages to labor and - heaven forbid - a real middle class might just get started in those nations.

It would also mean that with good wages and working conditions the Mexican poor would no longer have a reason to cross the Rio Grande and look for lousy paying and illegal work here. And that would certainly piss off the american corporations that depend on cheap labor to pocket the big profits, like agriculture and construction, which use a lot of 'day labor'.

So you see, Pavulon, with a little knowledge and a smidgen of logic we now can see that far from Obrador's stolen election meaning nothing here, it HAD to be stolen, else his policies would have had huge effects on the people of Mexico, but more importantly, they would have had bigger effects on the people of the United States.
End update.

I think Calderon will be given the official thumbs-up, but I don't think Obrador's going to give up quickly. According to El Universal, opponents are still asking for a vote-by-vote recount. I believe only the courts can order that, but it certainly looks like Calderon's total vote lead will wind up being less than 250,000 out of 41 million.

On the other hand, the good news for Mexicans is that their electoral system seems to work quite well in terms of consistency and reproducibility, and that's quite an endorsement. The first count really varies very little with this one.


Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Mexico's Nailbiter

Update:
Once the vote is official, then the legal challenges can begin. These results are consistent with the quick tally, in which the districts reporting last now reported early, giving Calderon his consistent lead in the preliminary count. What's being counted are the tally sheets for the ballot boxes. The election workers count the box and seal the box. Each party's observer gets a copy of the tally sheet and so does the official in charge. The box is only supposed to be opened and recounted if there are discrepancies. Mark in Mexico has good information and Publius Pundit is covering the election and provided this excellent link to English-language coverage of Mexican election blogging. The IFE has to make a final determination of the winner by September. If you don't read Spanish, the news is pretty much as you would expect. Calderon's lot held a very early morning victory party as they moved into the lead, and Obrador's camp was pretty silent. He is supposed to hold a press conference this morning.

99.39% counted
35.80% Calderon
35.39% Obrador
99.12% counted
35.76% Calderon
35.42% Obrador
96.85% counted
35.70% Obrador
35.49% Calderon
95.86% counted
35.80% Obrador
35.39% Calderon
Now it's 94.85% counted:
35.89% Obrador
35.30% Calderon
Who'd want to the winner of an election this close? It's going to be very hard to govern. We started with
93.77% counted:
35.99% Obrador
35.22% Calderon

Apparently the Mexican law requires them to keep counting all night. Calderon is gaining ground; apparently Mexico has red and blue states too:
Lopez Obrador, a former mayor of Mexico City, led pro-U.S. former energy minister Calderon by less than 1.3 percentage points on Wednesday night with returns in from 90 percent of polling stations.

But Calderon was rapidly gaining ground as results came in from north and west Mexico, his strongholds. Officials said it was still too close to declare a winner from Sunday's election.

Calderon's aides were confident the final result would confirm his victory.

Protests broke out in the capital to press home claims that Lopez Obrador was the victim of fraud in the preliminary count, and he warned electoral authorities to be thorough.
So I guess tomorrow morning in Mexico City will be very interesting. Obrador was demanding a ballot-by-ballot recount, but it seems the law does not allow that except in very defined circumstances. El Universal is carrying a a running tally, right now it's 35.99% Obrador and 35.22% Calderon with 93.77% counted. But no! Now it's 35.98% Obrador and 35.23% Calderon with 93.88% counted.

Even DU thinks Calderon is going to pull ahead, so now it's a search for ballots, a la King County. Jimmah and AlGore should be flying in with some jets loaded with lawyers any moment now.


RE: A Look At Arizona

Arizona Central often carries detailed articles about local real estate. The market there has been very hot, but in some places the latest developments seem to have been sold largely to flippers. I know people were laughing about Queens Creek last year.

This particular article has some anecdotes, and this one in particular seemed almost emblematic of such areas:
When Titus and Angel Metzger paid $135,000 for their 1,480-square-foot Maricopa home in July 2004, they never envisioned 2005's run-up in prices.

When they refinanced their house into a $174,000 loan, they couldn't have imagined 2006's market cooling.
...
They've been trying since January to sell their corner-lot home in time to buy a bigger new home in Maricopa.
...
They have gradually whittled their original asking price of $269,000 down to $229,000.
...
Ironically, builder D.R. Horton has slashed the price of the new 2,200-square-foot home they want from about $300,000 to $215,000, cheaper than the smaller, older home they're trying to sell, and offered a $10,000 down payment if they finance through the builder's preferred lender.
They've already put a $5,000 deposit down on the new home, and may have to default on it. There you have it. The buy, the cash-out refi, the desire to move up, the inability to sell and the discovery that they are being undercut by the builder. Elsewhere in the article it says that if they manage to sell for the $229,000, they'll only clear $30,000. That means that somewhere since the last refi they must have taken at least another $10,000 in equity out, even allowing for buyer credit, commission and fixup expenses. They probably got a home equity line, and used some of it to put down the $5,000 deposit on the new home, and spent some. The builder will most likely be adjusting its sales figures on this one. My guess is that those seemingly excellent new home sales figures from last month will be adjusted downward....

There's another example of the current dynamic in the same area in the article:
Cool down. Warm up.

It doesn't matter much to investor Dana Byron, as long as any downturn doesn't become so frigid that he can't find occupants for his seven rental homes, including five he bought in May in Maricopa, Queen Creek and the Santan area.
...
He recommends sound money management to cover an unexpected crisis like sudden repairs, finding quality tenants, and not fretting over the little things like collecting rent that is lower than monthly mortgage payments. "You can't be upset you lost $200 on a rental when you made $10,000 in equity," he said.
$10,000 in equity in a month? Not very likely! If he's running a monthly cash-flow deficit on some of these houses he's really living off the equity by drawing on lines of credit. How long will that last? The article says he bought his first in 2001, so he did have some solid gains. But you just know he drew on that equity to buy those 5 houses in May. No doubt he was an answer to some prayers when he decided to buy in May! Hopefully he sold a few for a profit earlier.

It's extraordinarily difficult to divine the dynamics of these "hot" markets from looking at statistics alone, but it's like dominoes falling. Acre after acre of developments have been sold in this merry-equity-go-round, and now the apparatus is grinding to a halt.

Ziprealty has listings by many of these neighborhoods in the Greater Phoenix area, and I've been following them. Queen Creek is up to 2,351 single-family houses for sale. Of those 1,148 have been reduced in price. For several months in early spring it was hanging at about 1,900, and about a third of those were reduced. I don't know when the numbers will stop swelling, but they haven't yet. Tonight Ziprealty showed 50,079 homes for sale in Greater Phoenix. For comparison see this March post by Mish at Global Economics.

Arizona State University has good real estate sales information for this area. In May 6,870 sales were recorded for Greater Phoenix. Year to date sales are 30,870, so there's about 8 months of inventory on the market. Look at recorded sales in May compared to single family, townhouse/condo listings now:
Glendale 575 sales and 1,914 listings.
Mesa 790 sales and 3,460 listings.
Chandler 485 sales and 2,541 listings.
Surprise 275 sales and 2,313 listings.
Sun City 120 sales and 537 listings.
Sun City West 45 sales and 426 listings.
Goodyear 125 sales and 1,113 listings.
None of the markets listed in ASU's summary had higher sales than a year ago, and most had significant drops. There's been a significant pickup in sales since April, but it doesn't look like it will be enough to stop the rise in inventories. ASU will have their June report out next week, and I'm waiting for it with great interest.

Nationally, I am guessing that new home sales in the second quarter will end up really hurting due to cancellations from people unable to sell their current homes, even while home sales continue to show stronger owner-occupier activity than last year. The thing is, there are bargains out there one way or another in most areas compared to a year ago. I have recently heard that builders in some areas are offering 8-9% commissions plus bonuses to realtors. They have to move product to maintain cash flow.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

!

Discovery Launch

Discovery's up, but some foam was lost. According to SciGuy's blog, more info on that might be released soon. Space.com has this:
A video camera mounted to Discovery’s external tank caught at least three, possibly four, pieces of shuttle fuel tank foam falling away from its perch two minutes and 47 seconds into the launch, NASA space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said.

“It could be an ice frost ramp, it could be something else,” Hale said during a post-launch press briefing here at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC), adding another piece of foam was also seen almost five minutes into launch. “Both of those are interesting because they are after the time we are concerned about aerodynamic transport doing damage to shuttle tile.”

North Korea

North Korea launched. There are multiple reports, but this WND article seemed the most detailed. Two short, but one long-range is reported to have failed early. Also, the article says that this was from a different location than the one they've been watching.

Houston Chronicle.

The Independence Day From Plausible Deniability

Happy Fourth of July, to all of you - even if you're not citizens of the USA. The founding principles of the USA transcend nationality, and in celebrating our Independence Day, we are really celebrating the right and duty of humans everywhere to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You need a reasonable degree of freedom to do it, and that's why we celebrate our Independence Day. Once we acquired the freedom to act, then we became responsible for achieving our goals.

We didn't start out as a great nation. The long, slowly built success of our nation has tracked very closely with our long, long struggle to achieve the fulfillment of those ideals. As Lincoln said, our identity as a nation is wrapped up in those goals. When this nation was born, inequality was the rule, and not the exception, as it is now. The United States of America is the longest surviving popular democracy in the world. It has shown the way and borne the proof that popular democracy is possible. We didn't create those ideas. We have merely shown that they can succeed in practice; this is a great achievement in world history.

Betsy Newmark has a superb post up on patriotism. You're cheating yourself if you don't read it. It's long, comprehensive, filled with links and basically revolves around this idea:
A conservative (or as Sowell terms it - the constrained vision) accepts that man is imperfect and that the choices we have are often between two rotten alternatives. A liberal (or in Sowell's term - the unconstrained vision) is more likely to focus on the faults and not accept that the ideal was not possible.
The implicit corollary to the idea that the undefined ideal is possible and achievable now is that society is a matter of static, discrete conditions rather than a somewhat chaotic and continually evolving construct. If you accept the first idea about society, then the duty of the moral individual must be to throw all of his support toward moving society into a better state, and one does not have to worry about the processes or the details necessary to maintain that state - they will automatically be solved once we reach that state. In fact, you don't even have to define that state - it is the "right" state. Just get there. In other words, first the revolution, then no need to worry any further. This is the maxim of the progressyves (all hail Professor Chomstein).

Aha! The progressyve cries, "What about the American revolution?" Well, first, you don't really approve of the American revolution, I reply. And I know exactly why you don't - because the American revolution was not your type of revolution. It was a cynical revolution. It wasn't aimed at achieving some wondrous state dominated by rightthinkers who would automatically solve everything, but at achieving a condition of relative freedom in which the colonists could try to work things out for themselves by avoiding the worst evils of society and trying to preserve enough individual freedom to let the better ideas and innovations flourish.

The Constitution of the United States is an awesome document precisely because it is a profoundly cynical document. It assumes that individuals and factions will struggle for power. It assumes that people will commit crimes. It assumes that the highest elected official in the nation may commit such severe crimes that he may need to be deposed. It assumes, to sum it up, that humans will continue to be just the same corrupt, productive, selfish, plundering, kind, merciful, unselfish, loving, abusive beings they have always been. This assumption has not been disputable over the 230 years of our history.

The Constitution of the United States is also an awesome document because it is a profoundly idealistic document. It assumes that even while human nature will remain the same, deeply imperfect thing it has always been, human rationality will still be able to create a counter-balancing system which will allow the imperfect humans in the system to achieve a better state of existence through solutions and experiments conducted by those imperfect humans. And this has held true over the 230 years of our history.

A less utopian foundation for government was never written; a more successful blueprint for government does not yet seem to have been found. I define Jeffersonian liberalism as a cynical pursuit of human ideals.

Keeping the above in mind, let's turn to LGF's collection of Kossite expressions of despair at patriotism. Here's one:
Today I walked out of church about a third of the way through the service. A soloist was performing “God Bless the USA.” I have always found that song to be especially cloying, but when I noticed it listed in the bulletin I decided to attempt to tolerate it. And I might have managed to do just that had not one or two individuals prompted the entire congregation to stand.
A scarifying experience for the recounter, I suppose, who explains further:
How could I in good conscience stand to embrace the lyrics “I’m proud to be an American” in the very same week we learned U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime?
(My first inkling was to search to see if this commenter had ever expressed an opinion on Tookie's demise, but I suppressed it.) No one's asking you to be proud of that. The perps are going to get what they deserve for that crime (after receiving a trial, and if the evidence holds up). There can be no possible nation, priesthood, profession, ministry, army or police department which does not contain individuals who fall so short of perfection that they commit crimes. The logic contained in the above statement pretty much indicates that the writer of the statement is not capable of feeling pride in, or expressing support for, any human institution.

But without human institutions, the only alternative is anarchy, and anarchy is a state in which a strong person is perfectly free to beat in the head of other inconvenient, weaker persons. Thus anarchies don't last long - instead they evolve swiftly into feudal states in which the stronger and less morally conscious prevail, and then easily shift into an autarchy like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The nastier the autarch, the greater the rebellion and then the slaughter of the people enslaved under the autarch.

To express such distaste for the criminal or criminals who commit such a crime while ignoring or celebrating the "self-determination" of a criminal regime such as Saddam Hussein's is inexplicable to me. Surely a bad deed is a bad deed. Surely those who blow up civilians in marketplaces are criminals of the worst and most dangerous sort. Surely a person who believes in moral responsibility for his or her own actions should also believe in moral responsibility for inaction?

And why does this commenter go to church, anyway? Churches are awfully human institutions. I hope this person was never under the impression that this was a company of saints. People may go to church for many reasons, but surely the primary one ought to be that the attendees are entertaining at least the dim suspicion that they themselves might be imperfect and might need to improve on those imperfections. Churches and temples are for sinners. Churches are for the despairing, the sorrowful, the suffering and the striving. Churches exist to offer a better teaching, faith, inspiration, to support our willingness to continue to try to turn away from our worst and move toward our best. This is why despair is the worst of all human errors; it is the ultimate denial of our own individual responsibility and the ultimate embrace of individual irresponsibility.

All faiths teach us to recognize the bad consequences of our actions, to resolve to stop acting badly, and to attempt to provide whatever remedy we can for the bad consequences of our own actions. That's the meaning of repentance. It's not about feeling, but about action. It's the ultimate acceptance of personal responsibility.

A church is not to blame if it finds that a member of its congregation was stealing donations from the collection for the poor, acts to stop it, and does not endorse the activity. To engage in an agony of remorse for what you couldn't control is really a redirection of your attention from your own responsibilities. No faith or ethical system that holds together tells you to repent for and repair your neighbor's misdeeds. People who do this are embracing irresponsibility. Nations which do it are embracing irresponsibility too.

I'll express sorrow for the lack of action in Rwanda, and I will accept that the United States should try to reimburse Iraqi civilians for unintended harm to them by our armed forces. But I will never accept the idea that evil should not be opposed, because it is the ultimate argument of despair, and the ultimate abnegation of responsibility. I will not accept it individually, and I will never support our nation's acceptance of this idea.

Finally, I leave you with this Kossite keening on the occasion:
The United States of 2006 is, sadly, not my United States. As a middle class, middle aged WASP, I feel as disaffected and isolated as perhaps my darker, poorer, non-Christian fellow citizens feel. I want a democracy that values all of its citizens and their faiths, regardless of their personal wealth and social standing. I want a president, a Congress and news media that shares my image of the United States that attracted millions of immigrants to its shores, the image encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (sic) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It's fascinating to see how the different camps quote the same thing, isn't it? I bookended Betsy's observations and the Kossite Kamp's for a reason. First we'll let Lincoln rebut this understanding of the Declaration of Independence, as quoted by Betsy in her must-read post:
Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. ... I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.
And now I'll let Chief No-Nag (who solemnly laid out his red-white-and-blue golfing outfit last night) point out to the Kos Komplainant above that it is those darker, poorer people who are flooding to the United States, and that their complaint of oppression is related to exclusion from our society's benefits. They clamor at the gates for admission to the society that this WASP so mourns. What does that say about his essential argument? Africa has great natural resources, but most of Africa's nations have slid back during my lifetime instead of advanced. The truth is that our society would totter and fall within a year if we opened our doors to all who wanted to come. We literally could not feed, clothe or house all the people who would arrive.

Knowing that, a responsible person would seek to somehow offer the keys to our success to other nations, and those keys lie in our cynical yet idealistic approach to human life. We are what we are, but that does not mean that we cannot improve the net sum of our imperfections. For other peoples and nations to achieve the same results, they don't have to be paragons of perfection - but they must accept real responsibility for their lives.

Our system of government only works because we accept responsibility for our own lives and our own futures, and we have historically realized that rational laws can be both cynical about human nature yet allow human condition to improve. I would advise the Kossite above to continue to vote his conscience, but I would also warn him that this is a democratic nation, not his nation. It's a mutually generated and held possession, and what is of importance for our future is not just his vision, but the sum total of all our visions. See Photon Courier for elaboration.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Scorpion In The Bathtub

So, this morning a scorpion showed up in my bathtub. In some areas in South GA we do have scorpions. One o those areas is my house. I have found them in the sink, in the dryer and in the living room. This is the first one to show up in the bathroom, though.

The scorpion did not seem pleased to see me, either. It glowered and waved its tail around, and then it tried to climb out of the bathtub and attack me. Oh, sure, I can almost hear some wacky environut muttering that it was trying to escape. Suuuuuuuuuuuure. You did not see its menacing stance and the fact that came towards me, brandishing its claws and waving its tail. The stinger is in the tail.

I refused to take a shower, although the shower and the bathtub are separate, because the scorpion looked like it might succeed in getting out of the bathtub. It was using its tail like a spring thing to hike itself a good way up the bathtub wall, and on one end of the bathtub there are some sort of shelf thingies. Sooner or later it was going to find those. It looked to be almost three inches long. Three venemous inches of determined malice.

You have to close your eyes when you take a shower, right? You know, to avoid the soap and the shampoo from getting in them? The thing could have attacked at any time, or that was my theory.

So instead of taking a shower I made a dignified retreat and beseeched Chief No-Nag to go and do something manly about the situation. He laughed. It is hard to maintain your dignity in the face of No-Nagian laughter, so I made a dignified retreat to the office. It better be gone when I come home, that's all I can say.

PS: In case y'all are scorpion skeptics, see this GA outdoor forum thread. At least I don't wear boxers:
I got out of the shower one night and grabbed a pair boxers outta the drawer and climbed in bed. You all know where this is going, anyway my wife said I looked like michael jackson the way I was dancing around the bedroom!

I finally figured out, with the help of a county extension agent, (them fellers is smart) that my 2 years worth of firewood piled up next to the house and pine straw mulch was prime breeding ground.

After removing these, and a throwing out a pretty good dose of diazanon granules, I quit sleeping necked'.
HawHAWHAWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! But we have no brush or anything near the house because of snakes. (In south GA, the wise thing to do is build an off-the-ground rack for your firewood. Otherwise getting firewood can become a real adventure between scorpions, ants and most of all, the snakes.) Snake bite is not a theoretical hazard in my neck of the woods. Two of our neighbors lost dogs to snakebite within the last year.
They crawl on use in the bed at night. We have learned that when you feel something crawling get up and turn on the light before swinging and swatting. If you hit it in the dark and make it mad it can ruin your night.
Mine was already mad. If you get stung by one you can get a huge swelling. It depends how big they are. It's dry now, which is why they are coming in the house more. But at least my problem isn't this bad:
any experts out there??..........this time of year, they seem to literally be coming out of the woodwork............killed 4 last night in the girlfriends house...........anybody know why they are so active this time of year??
I think I'd move.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

And Every Knee Shall Bow

This post is not about religious freedom, but about human freedom. Read to the end before you dispute me.

Last week Cardinal Trujillo made some remarks on the Catholic church's legal future:
"I fear that, faced with current legislation, speaking in defense of life, of the rights of the family, is becoming in some societies a crime against the state, a form of disobedience of the government, a discrimination against women.

"The church risks being brought in front of some international court, if the debate gets any more tense, if the most radical opinions are heeded," Lopez Trujillo told Famiglia Cristiana, a Catholic Italian weekly.
He's not imagining things. For example, when the EU Constitution was being voted on last year, groups had already made plans to sue under the human rights provisions to demand that the Catholic church allow women to become priests. As for the "radical opinions" discussed, let's visit DU:
3. this is a basic debate : democracy against theocracy
read further down in the article

"He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.

"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said."

sorry father, it's not to you to LEGALLY decide what's an human right or not, it's for the majority of the nationals of a country. You have the right to manifest your disagreement, but if you actively attack and HARASS members of a community that you disagree with (like gays, researchers or women having an abortion) you are commmitting a hate crime. If you put that into a system, even if you live in another country you can be prosecuted at an international court.
Since the church is hardly running around attacking people physically, the obvious presumption is that promulgating an organized body that follows the moral rules of the church instead of the moral rules of society and advocates for those rules in society is what this person considers to be a hate crime. In other words, the Catholic church may not "live" its doctrine. It may not maintain that killing a fetus at eight months is a crime and that those who do so are murderers, and it may not tell its adherents that this should be reflected in the civil laws under which they live. It may not require that members of its own follow these rules, because that is a "hate crime".

We are already seeing the first fruits of these ideas in the US. See Kobayashi Maru's post on Catholic Charities of Boston, which was forced to discontinue adoption and foster services. State law requires that such agencies not discriminate against same-sex couples or homosexuals, and Catholic doctrine now requires that children not be place with same-sex couples. The reasoning is that such people are, ipso facto, in rebellion against Catholic doctrine and so cannot provide the religious upbringing the church considers necessary. You are free to disagree with Catholic doctrine, but this decision is completely self-consistent with the doctrine of the Catholic church.

The impingements of this current legal atmosphere are hardly restricted to the Catholic church. In California, for example, the CA Supreme Court has just permitted a lawsuit filed against a Lutheran religious school to go forward:
The suit filed in Riverside County Superior Court seeks readmission for the students, unspecified damages and an injunction barring the Wildomar school from excluding gays and lesbians.

California Lutheran, which has 142 students, argued that as a religious organization it had a First Amendment right to exclude gay students and that it was not subject to a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The two girls in this case were seen making out a party; considerable gossip ensued at the school, and then the principal interviewed and expelled them.

The CA Supreme Court has previously not been respectful of such claims. And in June, the CA Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a case in which the appellate court ruled that a lesbian could not sue a fertility clinic for their refusal to artificially inseminate her:
An appeals court ruled last year against Benitez, saying that the doctors could use religious freedom as a defense against her lawsuit. The doctors say their refusal was based on the fact that Benitez was unmarried, not because she's a lesbian.

In their appeal to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for the Los Angeles office of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said there is an "urgent public need to resolve persistent confusion" over whether religious rights can trump protection under state anti-discrimination laws.
This one should be interesting; as scocblog reports in a link, most observers believe that the Court is likely to reverse the appeals court based on their 2003 decision requiring a religious organization to fund birth control prescription coverage regardless of its religious objections to birth control, and based on the way the case is described on its website:
Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation, or do the provisions of the Unrah Act (Civ. Code Section 51) preclude such discrimination in the provision of services notwithstanding the physician's religious beliefs?
Framed in that way, the court appears to have already answered the question. SFGate:
Pizer, Benitez's lawyer, said the 2003 ruling involving Catholic Charities and birth control prescriptions, and an earlier ruling on a landlady's refusal to rent to an unmarried couple, stand for the proposition that business proprietors who can't comply with a law for personal reasons should change their practices or go into a different business.
...
But Tyler, lawyer for the clinic and its doctors, said the physicians' individual liberties should receive more consideration than the religious positions of a commercial entity like Catholic Charities. He also contended sexual orientation is not entitled to the same level of protection against discrimination as gender, the basis of the Catholic Charities ruling.

Because the U.S. Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, Tyler said, the doctors should be allowed to explain why they refused treatment to Benitez, and "the jury would have to decide if their actions were based on sincere religious belief.''
I really don't think Tyler's argument will prevail in CA, since I cannot see why religious belief as codified and practiced by an highly traditional religious entity should be treated less seriously than an individual's statements about their own beliefs. I have also known several completely areligious persons who are adamant in believing that single women should not seek to become pregnant with the intention of raising a child alone; each one of those people felt that doing so was pure selfishness and obvious proof of unfitness to be a parent. Are their deeply held beliefs less worthy of respect than someone's religiously held beliefs?

I would say not. I think it is the right of conscience which should be protected here, and not just the right of religious conscience. Regardless, it is the position and goal of some organizations (NOW, Lambda, etc) that such matters of conscience are not reserved to an individual, but to the state. The essence of this battle is that individual consciences may not be lived out in practice, and that even private religious voluntary associations (such as the Wildomar school) may not act in accordance with their principles if others find those principles offensive.

This is a very broad matter which should be seen for what it is. If a state can enforce non-discrimination in private consensual organizations, a state can also enforce discrimination in private consensual organizations - which is, btw, pretty much the Ninth US District's position.

Furthermore, I reason out the Benitez case as follows:
  • I have no hesitation in saying to myself that any man who has sex with a fertile woman he believes is not fit to be a mother is both very foolish and acting immorally. He has no control over what happens if she becomes pregnant, and he may be creating a horrifying situation for a child. The whole "whatever's consensual is okay" has no real meaning in such a context, because the child has no ability to consent to anything. The meaningful idea of "consent" in this case is the man's consent to the idea that the woman is fit to have charge of a child.
  • While artificial insemination has allowed new life to come into the world, the doctors in such circumstances are literally inseminators; they cannot escape responsibility for the lives that they create by such acts.
  • It therefore follows that there are certain women no doctor should artificially inseminate, such as women who have previously killed their children, abused them, drug abusers, etc. I don't believe any rational person would deny this.
  • Since any rational person must concede that in some cases doctors should not perform artificial insemination on a woman, any rational person must also concede that individual conscience and knowledge will play a role in such decisions. I maintain that if a doctor would be unwilling to inseminate a women naturally (or would advise her brother not to, in the case of a female doctor), that doctor is absolutely correct in not inseminating her artificially.
And so it goes. The type of liberty at stake is here is a very fundamental one; Cardinal Trujillo is enlisted in a humanist battle as a well as a religious one. The real question which is arising all over the United States is whether non-state organizations and private individuals may have moral consciences which do not conform to the official conscience of the state.

Everything that's old is new again; Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan:
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance?
...
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.
Some of today's "rights" organizations are attempting to place our state in the role of the Emperor Trajan. The Judeo-Christian tradition is associated with the development of the humanistic concept of individual conscience and human freedom. This must be preserved, and if we do not preserve it then we are betraying Jeffersonian liberalism utterly and condemning ourselves to existence under a tyranny which could not possibly conceive any bounds to its rights and thus cannot concede that an individual has any rights of his or her own.


Saturday, July 01, 2006

It's Canada Day

July 1st is Canada Day, and Canadians should not be sneered at. They are getting fighting mad over there. I'm sure it's going to be a shock to a number of radical mullahs when they find out what Canada is really like. The mullahs have mistaken civilization for wimpiness, genuine tolerance for indifference, and politeness for fear. Eh, bad mistake! This will be an epic collision between a society defining itself by values and a society defining itself by tribalism. Don't hold your breath - this horse race is already fixed. The Canucks win going away.

See this (read all the comments), because if you don't, you'll miss gems like:
The Muslim Canadian Congress has strongly protested the depiction of Pakistanis as ‘Sunni Muslim Extremists’ by RCMP and other law enforcement agencies. The organization has asked the RCMP to unconditionally apologize for this act of racial profiling. The group also condemned the arrest of 19 innocent men on August 14 and demanded the immediate release of these detained men.
MCC, which is a grass roots Muslim organization based in Toronto, was reacting to the assertion by the agencies that the men were terror suspects simply because they were born in the Pakistani province of Punjab. Jehad Aliweiwi, a founding member of the MCC said, “the allegations against these young men are so flimsy, they befit a cheap post 9/11 paperback thriller, not worthy of publication even backwater Texas.”
Which is rebutted by this:
...he fails to mention all of the 19 were in Canada illegally and had bogus ID and passports as I mention about in the post ,two had been caught staking out the Pickering Power Plant cool-water intake pipes, plus they took flying lessons at a school that flew near the Plant.
Just a few minor details left out, right?

Mind you, the delightful individual in question was just touring the US this spring. This is a sample of his motivational rhetoric:
The moment we say something, we are branded fanatics, terrorists, extremists, and no one dare utter the ‘J’ word. The ‘J’ word has become taboo [...] the ‘J’ word can never be mentioned [...] So much is happening and yet we are expected to remain silent, we cannot even say ‘ouf’. [...] The ‘J’ word is Jihad in the way of Allah subhana wa ta’alaa [Islamic praise of God]. When the Chechenians rise, when the Palestinian Muslims rise, when the Kashmirians rise, when any Muslim force rises against the oppressors, they are branded extremists and fanatics. Not only is their blood made halal [meaning, shedding their blood is permissible], but anyone who is affiliated to them in anyway, his blood is made halal [...] Allah subhana wa ta’alaa says: “And why should you not fight in the way of Allah and in defence of those poor, weakened, oppressed men, women, and children who are calling out and pleading to Allah ‘Oh Allah, remove us from this city whose inhabitants and occupants are so tyrannical against us and so oppressive against us’”.
That all parses to "The infidels fight back! How dare they!" Think of Beslan's apologists. Hey enlightened one, do you have any words of wisdom for us on Jews?
Nobody speaks of Jewish extremism. In order to understand the current crisis, and in order to fathom why soldiers armed to the teeth are shooting little children, girls and boys in the head with live ammunition, without any shame, without any loss of moral feeling, without any conscience, in order to understand this, one has to look at Jewish extremism. There is no other explanation. And then we will understand why they behave in this manner. And we’re not just talking about a handful of trigger-happy soldiers, we are talking about the very foundations on which the state of Israel was formed. We are talking about the very tenants of their religion on which the whole of Jewish society, except for the few secular ones, is founded [...] it’s this mentality which persists and which leads them to viewing Muslims as being subhumans, in fact as aliens.
The word "Beslan" comes to mind here, followed by the psychological theory of projection. "Jewish extremism" here means Jews who fight back. This is so immensely off-base that it's hard to even know where to start. It is the Muslim jihadis who are claiming that Allah has declared Jews to be pigs and apes, a description helpfully provided in Saudi textbooks. Read some of the Pew surveys for more perspective.

Anyway, because it's Canada Day, because I'm glad they're on our northern border, because I believe they will refuse to drink the multi-culturalist KoolAid, because they are a country founded on English Common Law, because civilization is founded on equality under law, not on blood or in superstition - a little Shakespeare:
KING OF FRANCE
The kindred of him hath been flesh'd upon us;
And he is bred out of that bloody strain
That haunted us in our familiar paths... This is a stem
Of that victorious stock; and let us fear
The native mightiness and fate of him.

EXETER
Bloody constraint; for if you hide the crown
Even in your hearts, there will he rake for it:
Therefore in fierce tempest is he coming,
In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,
That, if requiring fail, he will compel;
And bids you, in the bowels of the Lord,
Deliver up the crown, and to take mercy
On the poor souls for whom this hungry war
Opens his vasty jaws; and on your head
Turning the widows' tears, the orphans' cries
The dead men's blood, the pining maidens groans,
For husbands, fathers and betrothed lovers,
That shall be swallow'd in this controversy.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?