The world is waiting on tenterhooks as the representatives and ministers from the G7, the G20, and the IMF try to figure out what in the dickens to do about the worldwide financial crisis:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Key nations threw their support behind efforts to tackle the financial turmoil and amid grim warnings of a “meltdown” European leaders pledged their own action ahead of a crisis summit Sunday.
With governments anxiously hoping to calm markets, the Group of 20 countries which account for 85 percent of the global economy said they had agreed to use “all financial and economic tools” to calm the storm.
The Washington meetings and others around the world stressed that efforts would be coordinated.
The G20 said action would be “closely communicated so that the action of one country does not come at the expense of others or the stability of the system as a whole,” said a joint statement.
The 20 nations endorsed a five point plan agreed by the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers at the weekend meetings in Washington to prevent the “failure” of key financial institutions.
As of this writing no actual agreement or plan of action had been reached.
Perhaps it’s my paranoia and xenophobia speaking but I can’t help but wondering if the world consensus isn’t that it’s the U. S.’s fault and that we should do something to get the entire world out of the fix that it finds itself in.
I certainly agree that we Americans deserve our share of the blame but we didn’t get into this fix entirely on our own. Greed is not a uniquely American quality; it is a human quality. We didn’t force banks all over the world to engage in speculative activities and excessive leveraging. Nor were we the only beneficiaries of these activities.
In an op-ed in the New York Times this morning, Richard Dooling discusses the role of computer models in the ongoing financial crisis:
The Wall Street geeks, the quantitative analysts (“quants”) and masters of “algo trading” probably felt the same irresistible lure of “illimitable power” when they discovered “evolutionary algorithms” that allowed them to create vast empires of wealth by deriving the dependence structures of portfolio credit derivatives.
What does that mean? You’ll never know. Over and over again, financial experts and wonkish talking heads endeavor to explain these mysterious, “toxic” financial instruments to us lay folk. Over and over, they ignobly fail, because we all know that no one understands credit default obligations and derivatives, except perhaps Mr. Buffett and the computers who created them.
Somehow the genius quants — the best and brightest geeks Wall Street firms could buy — fed $1 trillion in subprime mortgage debt into their supercomputers, added some derivatives, massaged the arrangements with computer algorithms and — poof! — created $62 trillion in imaginary wealth. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that all of that imaginary wealth is locked up somewhere inside the computers, and that we humans, led by the silverback males of the financial world, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, are frantically beseeching the monolith for answers. Or maybe we are lost in space, with Dave the astronaut pleading, “Open the bank vault doors, Hal.”
My final thought in this post is that I’ve heard it said that with the aid of a computer in a fraction of a second you can make an error that it would have taken you years to produce by hand and I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t the case with the financial crisis. For one thing I can see how the online trading systems might have put stress on the traditional investment banks’ business model. In response to that they adopted the complicated derivatives and mortgage-backed securities that have accounted for so much of their revenues lately. Were these things being computer-constructed? I suspect they were and that could possibly explain the rapidity of the collapse. I’m thinking of some sort of demonic philosopher’s dinner in which not only were the positive feedbacks of greed and rising real estate prices driving the system but there was an ever-increasing computer-assisted tempo which accelerated the collapse.
Thomas Lifson believes the “game changer” desperate Republicans are looking for could have arrived with this video from — and, sadly, I’m not making this up — someone calling themselves “Molotov Mitchell” at something called ” Illuminati Productions.”
The video is just shy of 11 minutes but, as Lifson describes it,
It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama’s citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world.
[...]
But you can get people to watch 11 minutes of interesting video raising a slew of questions for Obama, in fact cornering him, on the question of his birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office as POTUS under the Constitution. Especially if people start talking about the video. It’s called viral distribution.
As I’ve noted in previous posts, it’s rather clear that both Obama and McCain are natural born citizens under the Constitution and thus eligible for the presidency. Let’s stipulate, for the sake of argument, though, that Mitchell is not only right but that this commercial goes viral like nothing in the history of the Internet has ever done before, not only getting seen — twice — by every man, woman, and child but spawns catch-phrases, t-shirts, and a line of action figures.
Why would it matter?
Let’s go further and posit that Barack Obama was genetically engineered in a laboratory in a galaxy far, far away from the genetic material of Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama bin Laden, and Roseanne Barr and found in a rocketship just outside of Honolulu by Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham and raised as their own. If his life then proceeded exactly as it otherwise did and he turned out to be exactly the person that he is today, why would it cause someone who now prefers him to John McCain to change their mind?
Sure, as a technical matter, he would be ineligible under the Constitution. If elected, however, I can’t imagine that 1) the Supreme Court would intervene in a political matter of that magnitude and deny him the presidency and/of 2) we wouldn’t swiftly amend the Constitution to do away with the “natural born” requirement.
Googling to figure out who Brea Grant, who plays the new fast chick on Heroes, is, I stumbled across this photo montage on her blog about how much John McCain looks like Michael Hogal, who plays Colonel Tigh on BSG, under the heading “But how will he fight cylons AND run for president AND fix the economy at the same time?”
John McCain and Michael Hogan: Separated at birth?
The discussion in the comments section traces it to a January post from Adam Pieniazek but this is the first I’ve seen it.
Michael Doyle (no relation, so far as I know, to Jerry Doyle of Babylon 5 fame) takes it further, observing a passing similarity between Sarah Palin and Mary McDonnell in her Laura Roslin guise:
The parallels continue! McCain is a military man who spent time in a Vietnam prison camp, the character of Col. Tigh is a military man who spent time in a Cylon prison camp. Sarah Palin comes from a family of school teachers, the character of Laura Roslin was school teacher before becoming Secretary of Education (and then later President).
As has been noted here and elsewhere, the better pop culture parallel is between this election and the fictional one the last season of “West Wing.” But this is at least mildly amusing.
To join in, start a Caption Contest at your blog, edit it to add a link to this post, and then send a TrackBack. If your blog doesn’t automatically generate one, use the Send TrackBack feature below. For more information, see this post.
The Republican-dominated Alaska legislature released its Troopergate investigation results last night and Sarah Palin does not come out covered in glory.
Anchorage Daily News reports, under the headline “Troopergate report: Palin abused power,”
A legislative investigation has concluded that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in pushing for the firing of an Alaska state trooper who was once married to her sister, or by failing to prevent her husband Todd from doing so.
The report by investigator Steve Branchflower was made public late this afternoon by a bipartisan 12-0 vote of the Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation. Branchflower’s report contains four findings. The first concludes that Palin violated the state’s executive branch ethics act, which says that “each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
[...]
“Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda … to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,” Branchflower’s report says. “Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. … The term ‘benefit’ is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person’s advantage or personal self-interest.”
In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a “contributing factor.” Still, he said, Palin’s firing of Monegan was “a proper and lawful exercise” of the governor’s authority.
NYT weighs in with “Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers.”
What now lies ahead is not fully known at this point. Ms. Palin could be censured by the Legislature, but that is unlikely.
[...]
At a news conference Friday evening, a local McCain-Palin campaign spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, said that Mr. Branchflower’s abuse of power finding was the result of an “overreach” by the investigator who went beyond “the intent of the original” inquiry.
Ms. Stapleton added that the governor “feels absolutely vindicated” because the report concluded that Ms. Palin was acting within her legal authority when she “reassigned” Mr. Monegan. On July 11, he was told by the governor’s acting chief of staff that Ms. Palin wanted him to head the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and that she wanted to take the public safety agency in a new direction.
In an e-mail statement, Ms. Stapleton said the report showed that the investigation was a “partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior.”
A shameful response. Palin violated the law in numerous ways and her response is to blame the investigators for … what exactly? She’s the chief law enforcement officer of her state and essentially her first act in office was to break the law to settle a personal score.
It’s almost certainly too late for it to do much good but, certainly, McCain should drop Palin from his ticket.
Those answers were expected, given that most of the best pieces of evidence have been part of the public record for months. The result is not a mortal wound to Palin, nor does it put her at much risk of being forced to leave the ticket her presence succeeded in energizing.
But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.
The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor. The only surprise is that Troopergate is national news, not just a sorry piece of political gristle to be chewed on by Alaska politicos over steaks at Anchorage’s Club Paris.
A harsh verdict? Consider the report’s findings. Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued — in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines.
The state’s head of personnel, Annette Kreitzer, called Monegan and had to be warned that personnel issues were confidential. The state’s attorney general, Talis Colberg, called Monegan and had to be reminded that the call was putting both men in legal jeopardy, should Wooten decide to sue. The governor’s chief of staff met with Monegan and had to be reminded by Monegan that, “This conversation is discoverable … You don’t want Wooten to own your house, do you?”
Monegan consistently emerges as the adult in these conversations, while the Palin camp displays a childish impetuousness and sense of entitlement.
But at least it doesn’t put her in any danger of being tossed from the ticket.
Several commentators have objected to my characterization of Sarah Palin as an”ignoramus” in the post below. I’m simply using the term in its precise meaning as “an extremely ignorant person.”
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
She fits the bill in all those but especially 2. She’s likable and, I presume, of above average intelligence. She is, however, utterly lacking in knowledge or training about matters of public policy, law, or international affairs that one expects a vice presidential nominee to bring to the table.
I didn’t call her an idiot or a moron. I don’t think she’s too stupid to learn about any of those things but she’s demonstrably spent the first 44 years of her life without displaying the curiosity to do so.
Scott Adams (of “Dilbert” fame) says we’re all idiots, just about different things. Sarah Palin knows more about moose hunting and snowmobiling than I’ll ever know. Unfortunately, those things are of only tertiary help for one who could, in a little over four months, be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I’m hardly an outlier in this view. According to two national surveys taken after the VP debates, a plurality of Americans agree with my assessment:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: “Forty-nine percent say that Pali is unqualified to be president if the need arises, compared with 40 percent who say she’s qualified. By contrast, 64 percent believe Biden is qualified to be president, versus just 21 percent who disagree.”
CNN/Opinion Research: “87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified.”
So, incidentally, do a growing number of prominent conservative commenters.
George Will: “The man who would be the oldest to embark on a first presidential term has chosen as his possible successor a person of negligible experience.”
Christopher Buckley: “And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?”
David Brooks: “She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”
Peggy Noonan: “The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. “
Charles Krauthammer: “Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status.”
David Frum: “Ms. Palin’s experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall.”
Kathleen Parker: “Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.”
Everyone from MoveOn and DailyKos to Pajamas Media and Next Right to Wikipedia and Reddit are begging Barack Obama and John McCain to change the rules so that the third debate won’t be so mind numbingly boring as the first two.
It’s not going to happen: The “debates” are boring precisely because both candidates’ reps negotiated the rules in such a way as to minimize the chance of their guy screwing up. McCain might be willing to go for something more freewheeling at this point, given that he’s got a lot of ground to make up, but it’s almost inconceivable that Obama will go along.
No matter. As Walter Mears, who’s been covering these things since well before I was born, reminds us the last debate never matters unless it’s also the first. And sometimes not even then.
That is in large part because the debates tend to reinforce impressions and opinions rather than to change them markedly. The first President Bush probably wouldn’t have suffered so severely for glancing at his watch in a 1992 TV debate but for the impression that he was disengaged and out of touch. Bush got one more chance in a third debate, but it didn’t help. Bill Clinton and Ross Perot took turns criticizing him, and Clinton held his plurality in the polls and in the election.
When Michael Dukakis got an ambush question — whether he’d change his view on capital punishment if his wife were raped and murdered — he said no, dryly, he’d still be against the death penalty. That fit the adverse image of the emotionless bureaucrat, which was the way Republicans wanted Dukakis viewed.
John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon debated four times in 1960, but the first in the series is the only one much remembered now. That was the night a haggard Nixon looked terrible on television, to Kennedy’s lasting advantage. Their final debate was notable because Kennedy had just advocated U.S. support for Cuban forces in exile who might overthrow Fidel Castro. In the debate, Nixon called the idea dangerous, although he actually supported secret administration planning for such operations. The upshot, after Kennedy became president, was the failed invasion attempt at the Bay of Pigs.
In 1976, the next campaign in which candidates debated, President Gerald R. Ford made a debilitating mistake in the second debate by claiming there was no Soviet domination of eastern Europe. Jimmy Carter capitalized on the blunder, and Ford couldn’t fashion a comeback in their third debate. It was a subdued standoff, to Carter’s advantage.
McCain’s doing so badly at this point that he’s got folks like Christopher Buckley rooting for the other team. He’s down to running ads (and having his ignoramus of a VP nominee) accusing his opponent of being a terrorist sympathizer.
I honestly don’t know what a “game changer” looks like at this point.
