Sunday, November 08, 2009
The Afghanistan Conundrum
______________
THE AFGHANISTAN CONUNDRUM - A LOOK INTO BWANA'S McCHRYSTAL BALL:
A few days ago, I exchanged emails with one of my right wing yahoo redneck friends. He was all gung-ho about General Stanley McChyrstal's recommendation that President Obama should send more troops, a lot more, to Afghanistan. He pointed out, as the right wing yahoo media types will, that President Obama said Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." I said that simply because the General said we need more troops doesn't mean that it is a good idea. My RWYRN friend was aghast that I would diss the General.
When I pointed out that in every war, there is a losing General on one side, and perforce, a 50-50 record at best, he became quieter (you can NEVER silence a RWYRN type).
Of course, my RWYRN friend gets his talking points from Fux Newz. I asked if he had read the McChrystal report. Of course not. Well, I have, and here it is if you want to read it, but trust me, it's a waste of time. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/mcchrystals-report.
Now, I'm not going to presume to advise President Obama as to what his decision should be. Even if I were to make the decision, I would have to have far more information than is available to me. Indeed, some sections of the McChrystal report are redacted and there has to be much classified intelligence behind the scenes.
On the other hand, the entire exercise of airing the McChrystal report and the public discussion about what to do in Afghanistan has a component of PR vis-a-vis the American public. In fact, jerks like Dick CHEstpaiNEY said President Obama was dithering. I recall his words about Iraq: "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." I think it is fair to ask what questions we as the American public would like answered before the decision is made. I recognize that ultimately, when a General airs in public his request for additional troops, the President must either fire him or give him the troops.
Having read the McChrystal report, I am left without an answer to one basic question: Who is the enemy? From what I can gather, the "insurgency" is the enemy and most insurgents are Afghans, according to the General.
The second point about the report that troubles me greatly is whether we need more troops to do what troops do which, I understand, is fight an enemy. Well, it turns out that General McChrystal has a different role for the troops. It's going to be a touchy-feely force that is going to cuddle the Afghan population so that they will not be intimidated by the Taliban, other insurgents and will feel good about our occupation.
Well, in my opinion, this is pure, unadulterated rubbish.
But then, I didn't come to give my opinion but to suggest what questions should be answered.
As I read about Afghanistan, two points seems to stick out. The suggestion is made that if we do not "win" then the Taliban will re-establish themselves as the governing force and Al-Qaeda will gain a foothold in Afghanistan as a base for future terrorist attacks on the US.
On the other side, I read that the Taliban are not a threat to the US and Al-Qaeda is now no longer based in Afghanistan, but has bases in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.
I'd like to have some answers about all this.
I also understand that the Taliban are Afghani people, perhaps mostly Pashtuns. If so, how do we tell them apart from the rest of the Afghanis who are our "friends" and if we cannot do that, how do we define victory?
If we do send more troops, do we have the manpower to secure every village or valley in which the Taliban threaten people. If not, how do you define victory? If the Taliban are a part of the culture of the place, how do we change that culture? And is that our role anyway?
What is the cost of this adventure? I have read that every 1,000 soldiers will cost $1 billion per year. So, McChrystal's venture will cost an additional $48 billion to $60 billion per year. Is it worth it? His report says neither success nor failure is guaranteed.
If we go into Afghanistan, will we end up fighting the culture war with the Taliban only to see Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen yield more terrorists? If so, are we going to invade those three countries also? Do we have the manpower and resources to do this?
The Taliban originally gave shelter to bin Laden. We missed the opportunity to get him. We got Karzai instead. It was acknowledged that he stole the election and a runoff was set without changing the people who declared him the winner so the main opponent threw in the towel. So Karzai is Prezzie. His brother is said to be corrupt. So we have a government giving shelter to corruption.
Is this what America is all about?
Tough questions. I suspect, we'd be better off getting out and saying to the Taliban that if they ever get into power in Kabul, we'll drive them out again.
In the long run, that may be cheaper.
Cheerz...Bwana
_____________________________________
THE AFGHANISTAN CONUNDRUM - A LOOK INTO BWANA'S McCHRYSTAL BALL:
A few days ago, I exchanged emails with one of my right wing yahoo redneck friends. He was all gung-ho about General Stanley McChyrstal's recommendation that President Obama should send more troops, a lot more, to Afghanistan. He pointed out, as the right wing yahoo media types will, that President Obama said Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." I said that simply because the General said we need more troops doesn't mean that it is a good idea. My RWYRN friend was aghast that I would diss the General.
When I pointed out that in every war, there is a losing General on one side, and perforce, a 50-50 record at best, he became quieter (you can NEVER silence a RWYRN type).
Of course, my RWYRN friend gets his talking points from Fux Newz. I asked if he had read the McChrystal report. Of course not. Well, I have, and here it is if you want to read it, but trust me, it's a waste of time. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/mcchrystals-report.
Now, I'm not going to presume to advise President Obama as to what his decision should be. Even if I were to make the decision, I would have to have far more information than is available to me. Indeed, some sections of the McChrystal report are redacted and there has to be much classified intelligence behind the scenes.
On the other hand, the entire exercise of airing the McChrystal report and the public discussion about what to do in Afghanistan has a component of PR vis-a-vis the American public. In fact, jerks like Dick CHEstpaiNEY said President Obama was dithering. I recall his words about Iraq: "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." I think it is fair to ask what questions we as the American public would like answered before the decision is made. I recognize that ultimately, when a General airs in public his request for additional troops, the President must either fire him or give him the troops.
Having read the McChrystal report, I am left without an answer to one basic question: Who is the enemy? From what I can gather, the "insurgency" is the enemy and most insurgents are Afghans, according to the General.
The second point about the report that troubles me greatly is whether we need more troops to do what troops do which, I understand, is fight an enemy. Well, it turns out that General McChrystal has a different role for the troops. It's going to be a touchy-feely force that is going to cuddle the Afghan population so that they will not be intimidated by the Taliban, other insurgents and will feel good about our occupation.
Well, in my opinion, this is pure, unadulterated rubbish.
But then, I didn't come to give my opinion but to suggest what questions should be answered.
As I read about Afghanistan, two points seems to stick out. The suggestion is made that if we do not "win" then the Taliban will re-establish themselves as the governing force and Al-Qaeda will gain a foothold in Afghanistan as a base for future terrorist attacks on the US.
On the other side, I read that the Taliban are not a threat to the US and Al-Qaeda is now no longer based in Afghanistan, but has bases in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.
I'd like to have some answers about all this.
I also understand that the Taliban are Afghani people, perhaps mostly Pashtuns. If so, how do we tell them apart from the rest of the Afghanis who are our "friends" and if we cannot do that, how do we define victory?
If we do send more troops, do we have the manpower to secure every village or valley in which the Taliban threaten people. If not, how do you define victory? If the Taliban are a part of the culture of the place, how do we change that culture? And is that our role anyway?
What is the cost of this adventure? I have read that every 1,000 soldiers will cost $1 billion per year. So, McChrystal's venture will cost an additional $48 billion to $60 billion per year. Is it worth it? His report says neither success nor failure is guaranteed.
If we go into Afghanistan, will we end up fighting the culture war with the Taliban only to see Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen yield more terrorists? If so, are we going to invade those three countries also? Do we have the manpower and resources to do this?
The Taliban originally gave shelter to bin Laden. We missed the opportunity to get him. We got Karzai instead. It was acknowledged that he stole the election and a runoff was set without changing the people who declared him the winner so the main opponent threw in the towel. So Karzai is Prezzie. His brother is said to be corrupt. So we have a government giving shelter to corruption.
Is this what America is all about?
Tough questions. I suspect, we'd be better off getting out and saying to the Taliban that if they ever get into power in Kabul, we'll drive them out again.
In the long run, that may be cheaper.
Cheerz...Bwana
_____________________________________
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Here I am at Barajas
_______________________________
Here I am at Barajas:
October 11, 2009
I wrote this at Barajas airport yesterday while waiting for our flight. Back home safely now, but still wondering why the soft drinks on the plane and the 187.5 ml bottles of wine are okay.
Here I am at Barajas, Madrid’s sprawling steel and glass airport monstrosity where getting from point to point seems entirely to miss the point.
This is our fourth encounter with Barajas, arrival and departure last year being the first encounter, arrival and departure about ten days ago en route to Italy the second, arrival from Italy yesterday to find that it is not unusual for your bags to take thirty minutes to get to the carousel after you have already taken thirty minutes to get to the carousel and, that our flight back home did not leave yesterday, but the following day.
On our way to Italy my wife was interrogated about a wine opener, a corkscrew, you know one of those cheapo plastic ones that you can buy at supermarkets and liquor stores and which hotels proudly emblazon with their names and place next to the emblazoned ice buckets. Of course, they confiscated it. Why, you ask? Well, maybe an Afghani cleric, blind in one eye, who has befuddled the United States military and allied forces might have commissioned this diminutive blonde to make an IED out of a bottle of Mouton Cadet, er… wait a minit, we’re on Iberia, dummy, you meant a bottle of Rioja.
Last year when we came through security on the way home, I had a bottle of Diet Coke® (notice how I cleverly included the symbol for a registered trade mark? Hmmm, I wonder if Coke, the company that is, which likes to be known as The Coca-Cola Company has a secret process for making IEDs out of Diet Coke® - more likely all that chemical crap will cause Instantaneous Erectile Dysfunction and then they’ll name it Cokagra® - I have the rights to that name!)
I mention all this because last week Muhtar Kent (CEO of Coke) wrote a lengthy piece in the WSJ saying that Coke’s soft drinks have not caused obesity but that his company bears responsibility for being part of the solution to this issue. Well, it’s nice of him to be a part of the solution to a problem he denies having created. A worthy answer to Bill and Melinda Gates who have committed considerable wealth to solving problems they did not create, eh?
But what of Mr. Kent’s enterprise that makes a fortune from drinks bought by unsuspecting consumers who surrender them to security screeners who must destroy the unconsumed drinks? Well, the consumer, of course, buys a replacement. And where do you suppose the replacement is to be found at Barajas? Why, at the vending machine on the other side of security! Now, gimme a break! The bottle of Coke® or Diet Coke® you bring to the airport is dangerous but the bottle they sell to you is not!
It isn’t just Coke® but Pepsi® too. Pepsico CEO Indra Nooyi announced recently that her company will start offering lower priced snacks in view of cutbacks in consumer spending. I guess she’s going to take the 500 cc bottle of Pepsi® and shrink it to 150 ml (same thing as “cc” but I want to make sure you are confused) and then sell it for $0.20 or €0.20 (which is worth considerably more since Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, et al. began their bailout binge and debt diarrhea).
It may seem as if I digress but that 150 cc thingy is a big deal at Barajas. Today, as I went through security, I had my two-thirds used tube of shaving cream (mango lime from Trader Joe’s®) and my 58% or so used tube of toothpaste (from Crest®) in my carry-on bag. They were confiscated and “destroyed.” Great news TJ and Procter & Gamble, I’m going to have to buy replacements for the IED (Idiot Efficiency Department) that is airport security to confiscate next time I go through Barajas or Logan.
And why was I carrying this stuff at all in my carry-on bag? Well, when we learned yesterday that our flight was tomorrow i.e., today, we checked our large bags in yesterday and kept overnight stuff, including tooth paste and shaving cream.
Now I know how to defeat the IED – don’t brush your teeth and don’t shave. We know Mulla Omar doesn’t shave and I bet when he bares those deadly fangs, the stench is something to behold. At least, it seems to keep our military off the scent.
It seems to me that with all the money we spend on airport security, confiscating soft drinks, water bottles, shaving cream, corkscrews, toothpaste and hairspray (oh, I must mention, on peril of being accused of not being sympathetic, that Memsahib’s ultra-expensive hairspray of about 5 oz – it used to be 6 oz until Indra whispered softly to the CEO of Phyto® Volumizer her secret strategy to increase profits by making hairspray more affordable for Memsahibs by reducing the size from 6 oz to 5) if we could simply put all the money saved into a big jar – you know like those water bottles at the office into which fellow workers drop pennies for 9 years until they have enough to start a blood drive? – and buy one fooking big Daisy Cutter and drop it on Mulla Omar we might at least knock out his other eye (see these big devices are not precision guided) and see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I know I don’t feel any safer, just a whole lot more annoyed. And then, of course, some ass like CHEstpaiNEY will come along and say: “We haven’t been attacked by any Coca-Cola bombs, and what do you suppose is the reason for that?” Well, the reason, dummy, is that Coca-Cola will rot your teeth especially if you swish before you drink (my dentist told me that) but I sure as heck don’t know how to make it explode.
Yours ever with Cheerz….Bwana
Here I am at Barajas:
October 11, 2009
I wrote this at Barajas airport yesterday while waiting for our flight. Back home safely now, but still wondering why the soft drinks on the plane and the 187.5 ml bottles of wine are okay.
Here I am at Barajas, Madrid’s sprawling steel and glass airport monstrosity where getting from point to point seems entirely to miss the point.
This is our fourth encounter with Barajas, arrival and departure last year being the first encounter, arrival and departure about ten days ago en route to Italy the second, arrival from Italy yesterday to find that it is not unusual for your bags to take thirty minutes to get to the carousel after you have already taken thirty minutes to get to the carousel and, that our flight back home did not leave yesterday, but the following day.
On our way to Italy my wife was interrogated about a wine opener, a corkscrew, you know one of those cheapo plastic ones that you can buy at supermarkets and liquor stores and which hotels proudly emblazon with their names and place next to the emblazoned ice buckets. Of course, they confiscated it. Why, you ask? Well, maybe an Afghani cleric, blind in one eye, who has befuddled the United States military and allied forces might have commissioned this diminutive blonde to make an IED out of a bottle of Mouton Cadet, er… wait a minit, we’re on Iberia, dummy, you meant a bottle of Rioja.
Last year when we came through security on the way home, I had a bottle of Diet Coke® (notice how I cleverly included the symbol for a registered trade mark? Hmmm, I wonder if Coke, the company that is, which likes to be known as The Coca-Cola Company has a secret process for making IEDs out of Diet Coke® - more likely all that chemical crap will cause Instantaneous Erectile Dysfunction and then they’ll name it Cokagra® - I have the rights to that name!)
I mention all this because last week Muhtar Kent (CEO of Coke) wrote a lengthy piece in the WSJ saying that Coke’s soft drinks have not caused obesity but that his company bears responsibility for being part of the solution to this issue. Well, it’s nice of him to be a part of the solution to a problem he denies having created. A worthy answer to Bill and Melinda Gates who have committed considerable wealth to solving problems they did not create, eh?
But what of Mr. Kent’s enterprise that makes a fortune from drinks bought by unsuspecting consumers who surrender them to security screeners who must destroy the unconsumed drinks? Well, the consumer, of course, buys a replacement. And where do you suppose the replacement is to be found at Barajas? Why, at the vending machine on the other side of security! Now, gimme a break! The bottle of Coke® or Diet Coke® you bring to the airport is dangerous but the bottle they sell to you is not!
It isn’t just Coke® but Pepsi® too. Pepsico CEO Indra Nooyi announced recently that her company will start offering lower priced snacks in view of cutbacks in consumer spending. I guess she’s going to take the 500 cc bottle of Pepsi® and shrink it to 150 ml (same thing as “cc” but I want to make sure you are confused) and then sell it for $0.20 or €0.20 (which is worth considerably more since Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, et al. began their bailout binge and debt diarrhea).
It may seem as if I digress but that 150 cc thingy is a big deal at Barajas. Today, as I went through security, I had my two-thirds used tube of shaving cream (mango lime from Trader Joe’s®) and my 58% or so used tube of toothpaste (from Crest®) in my carry-on bag. They were confiscated and “destroyed.” Great news TJ and Procter & Gamble, I’m going to have to buy replacements for the IED (Idiot Efficiency Department) that is airport security to confiscate next time I go through Barajas or Logan.
And why was I carrying this stuff at all in my carry-on bag? Well, when we learned yesterday that our flight was tomorrow i.e., today, we checked our large bags in yesterday and kept overnight stuff, including tooth paste and shaving cream.
Now I know how to defeat the IED – don’t brush your teeth and don’t shave. We know Mulla Omar doesn’t shave and I bet when he bares those deadly fangs, the stench is something to behold. At least, it seems to keep our military off the scent.
It seems to me that with all the money we spend on airport security, confiscating soft drinks, water bottles, shaving cream, corkscrews, toothpaste and hairspray (oh, I must mention, on peril of being accused of not being sympathetic, that Memsahib’s ultra-expensive hairspray of about 5 oz – it used to be 6 oz until Indra whispered softly to the CEO of Phyto® Volumizer her secret strategy to increase profits by making hairspray more affordable for Memsahibs by reducing the size from 6 oz to 5) if we could simply put all the money saved into a big jar – you know like those water bottles at the office into which fellow workers drop pennies for 9 years until they have enough to start a blood drive? – and buy one fooking big Daisy Cutter and drop it on Mulla Omar we might at least knock out his other eye (see these big devices are not precision guided) and see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I know I don’t feel any safer, just a whole lot more annoyed. And then, of course, some ass like CHEstpaiNEY will come along and say: “We haven’t been attacked by any Coca-Cola bombs, and what do you suppose is the reason for that?” Well, the reason, dummy, is that Coca-Cola will rot your teeth especially if you swish before you drink (my dentist told me that) but I sure as heck don’t know how to make it explode.
Yours ever with Cheerz….Bwana
Monday, June 22, 2009
Free Internet As A Tool Of Foreign Policy
SHOWING SOLIDARITY WITH THE IRANIAN PEOPLE (AND CHINESE PEOPLE TOO?)
June 21, 2009
There has been much discussion about how much President Obama should speak out in favor of the protestors (and hopefully revolutionaries) in Iran. Recently, on the anniversary of the Chinese crackdown in Tiananmen Square, there was nary a whimper from the world about Chinese repression.
About a week ago, I read a story about an American company seeking an injunction against use of its protected software code in computers shipped to China. Apparently, the Chinese government has issued an edict that as of certain date, all computers are to be equipped with a filter that allows certain web sites to be blocked and some say, may allow tracking of what people are doing. The US company complains that its software codes have "mysteriously" appeared in the system being prepared for compliance with this edict.
It goes without saying that shutting down the Internet, cell phone networks, telephone systems and TV and radio broadcasts is inimical to our notions of freedom.
In the past the US broadcast via Radio Free Europe and the VOA.
Now, it's time to enter the modern age.
I think one of the best policy initiatives the United States could implement is to use our Satellites to provide free Internet access for all Iranian and Chinese people to counter government shut downs. Whether this should be expanded to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and be 24/7/365 are issues to be determined.
The United States should also provide access to a free cell phone network allowing calls and text messages by Iranian and Chinese citizens whenever their governments shut down local networks.
We should also provide free relay broadcasts of TV and radio news and information broadcasts under these conditions.
This is a heck of a lot cheaper than military force or economic sanctions, would frustrate the piss out of the Chinese and Iranian governments, and demonstrate the power of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Cheerz...Bwana
June 21, 2009
There has been much discussion about how much President Obama should speak out in favor of the protestors (and hopefully revolutionaries) in Iran. Recently, on the anniversary of the Chinese crackdown in Tiananmen Square, there was nary a whimper from the world about Chinese repression.
About a week ago, I read a story about an American company seeking an injunction against use of its protected software code in computers shipped to China. Apparently, the Chinese government has issued an edict that as of certain date, all computers are to be equipped with a filter that allows certain web sites to be blocked and some say, may allow tracking of what people are doing. The US company complains that its software codes have "mysteriously" appeared in the system being prepared for compliance with this edict.
It goes without saying that shutting down the Internet, cell phone networks, telephone systems and TV and radio broadcasts is inimical to our notions of freedom.
In the past the US broadcast via Radio Free Europe and the VOA.
Now, it's time to enter the modern age.
I think one of the best policy initiatives the United States could implement is to use our Satellites to provide free Internet access for all Iranian and Chinese people to counter government shut downs. Whether this should be expanded to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and be 24/7/365 are issues to be determined.
The United States should also provide access to a free cell phone network allowing calls and text messages by Iranian and Chinese citizens whenever their governments shut down local networks.
We should also provide free relay broadcasts of TV and radio news and information broadcasts under these conditions.
This is a heck of a lot cheaper than military force or economic sanctions, would frustrate the piss out of the Chinese and Iranian governments, and demonstrate the power of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Cheerz...Bwana
Bravo Sarko!
MONDAY MORNING SPECIAL TO CELEBRATE THE FIRST EVIDENCE OF COMMON SENSE SINCE Liberté, égalité, fraternité
June 22, 2009
I have said it often, and I will say it again - the problem with Muslim fundamentalism, Christian right wing yahoo fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Mormon wackoism, and all other funnymental-isms is that people conflate asinine practices and acts with faith or religion.
When someone declares that stoning an adultress or beheading an infidel, or bombing a bus with women and children is an act of religion, and the rest of the world stands by and equates what these wackos do with being a "part" of some aspect of the religion, we simply foster the notion that they are entitled to some modicum of recognition and tolerance.
This is wrong. Even the US Constitution, one of the few written declarations on the subject, does not endorse or condone wacko practices but is aimed at allowing people to believe or not to believe.
Put this in perspective for a moment in terms of almost any problem involving secular politics that is addressed by religious people. Whether it is Osama bin Laden or a Catholic Bishop interfering in politics, it is wrong.
Some day, in a Bwana world, we'll limit religion in a sensible way -- one simple rule: you can believe or not believe as you wish, but do it on your own time and don't try to impose it on anyone else.
There is only one TRUE religion - and that is TRUTH.
Bravo Sarko!
Cheerz...Bwana
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4kami0kotl0#
Sarkozy Says Burqa Violates Dignity, 'Not Welcome' (Update1)
June 22, 2009
I have said it often, and I will say it again - the problem with Muslim fundamentalism, Christian right wing yahoo fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Mormon wackoism, and all other funnymental-isms is that people conflate asinine practices and acts with faith or religion.
When someone declares that stoning an adultress or beheading an infidel, or bombing a bus with women and children is an act of religion, and the rest of the world stands by and equates what these wackos do with being a "part" of some aspect of the religion, we simply foster the notion that they are entitled to some modicum of recognition and tolerance.
This is wrong. Even the US Constitution, one of the few written declarations on the subject, does not endorse or condone wacko practices but is aimed at allowing people to believe or not to believe.
Put this in perspective for a moment in terms of almost any problem involving secular politics that is addressed by religious people. Whether it is Osama bin Laden or a Catholic Bishop interfering in politics, it is wrong.
Some day, in a Bwana world, we'll limit religion in a sensible way -- one simple rule: you can believe or not believe as you wish, but do it on your own time and don't try to impose it on anyone else.
There is only one TRUE religion - and that is TRUTH.
Bravo Sarko!
Cheerz...Bwana
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4kami0kotl0#
Sarkozy Says Burqa Violates Dignity, 'Not Welcome' (Update1)
By Helene Fouquet
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the country's National Assembly should debate a ban on the burqa, the Muslim garment that conceals a woman's face and body, saying it was "not welcome" in France
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of servitude," Sarkozy said today in a speech to both houses of parliament at the Versailles Palace on the outskirts of Paris. Calling it a violation of women's "dignity and freedom," Sarkozy said the burqa "will not be welcome on French soil."
A group of French lawmakers have called for a total burqa ban. Sarkozy asked them to "open a debate" on the matter. Only a small minority of women wear burqas and the Opposition Socialist Party would favor a ban "of the burqa or the nikab," Benoit Hamon, its spokesman, told Le Monde newspaper today.
The clothing rule would come five years after France outlawed head scarves and other "ostentatious" religious symbols, including large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps, in state offices and schools. The 2004 law prompted protests in France and criticism from some Muslim groups, including the second-in-command of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Sarkozy's speech today marked the first time a French president has addressed lawmakers since 1875 after a law preventing such direct communication was overturned last year.
Budget Minister Eric Woerth said yesterday the Burqa "should not exist in France." Sarkozy characterized it today as a "fence" in front of women's faces.
Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, the government-recognized representative of Muslims, called the use of burqas in France "extremely marginal."
In a statement today, he expressed "profound preoccupation" about "stigmatizing Islam and French Muslims."
To contact the reporter on this story: Helene Fouquet in Paris at Hfouquet1@bloomberg.net.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Ultimate Credit Default Swap
____________________________
MARCH 24, 2009
BREAKFAST WITH BWANA:
THE ULTIMATE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP
Well, hello from Tel Aviv again. It's past lunch time here and probably past breakfast time in the US, but what the heck, I can't write a message titled "Afternoon Snack With Bwana."
First, something positive. If we believe Ken Lewis of BAC, the guy from WFC, Jamie Dimon from JPM and Vickram Pantsuit from Citigroup, these companies are all now profitable, at least in the first quarter. Since the market is a discounting mechanism of future expectations, you have to pick the point at which it is safe enough to jump in.
Now something negative. GE projected some 2-3 months ago that their Credit arm would earn $8 billion in 2009. Then they said it would earn $5 billion. Last week, the number dropped to $2 billion. By the way, they are projecting huge losses in the portfolio, to the tune of $6-8 billion or more, so the $2 billion projected earnings don't take portfolio losses into account. OKAY, so what's a little voodoo accounting between friends? Someone asked me why I continue to be negative on GE and the simple reason is that you cannot trust a single word from the management. Immelt said that they had enough money to pay the dividend and two weeks later cut it. He also said that he was prepared to run the company with both a dividend cut and as a lower than AAA company. That told me he believed it was lower than AAA. I'm still very chary about this company.
Getting back to the banks mentioned above, the fact that they are profitable is good in the sense that it means they won't likely go under. Of course, we've already heard that Citigroup will fracture itself into more than one company. But it doesn't mean that their stocks will rise because in order to do that - in a meaningful way, that is - they have to show the ability to raise capital internally. That will happen eventually - Meredith Whitney who is pretty skilled at this sort of stuff projects about two years. So, if you have a long, long-term horizon and can stand another drop in the market, you can consider buying this kind of stock.
However, keep something in mind. The Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bought into Citibank when it was last in big trouble. In connection with the story about the call by Vickram Pantsuit to the Prince and one of the Sovereign funds (Singapore? perhaps) about converting preferred to equity, I read that his princely basis was about $2. So, here is a guy who literally made BILLIONS in Citigroup stock and forgot the basic reason for buying stocks -- to make money and rode it all the way back down. At some point, if you make a huge profit, you have to ask whether it is time to take it. I know this goes against the Warren Buffet school of thought, but then he has sold positions in companies, so I'm not totally off.
Okay, back to Tim Geithner's plan. The basic problem that I have with it is that it is a deceptive and fraudulent plan - no, I'm not suggesting that Geithner is deliberately trying to defraud, but I think he is a victim of circumstance and not being able to think out of his sandbox.
Geithner and President Obama come into the extant situation knowing that much is expected of them -- Wonder Boy Treasury Secretary and Messiah riding to the rescue. How deflating would it be to say "My fellow Americans, we really don't need to do anything about these big banks because we have done enough and they are now making money" - I mean, how deflating? So, wonder boy has to come up with a plan. Nobody seems to like deflation.
Timothy Geithner is a creature of Wall Street -- Repugnos should take note that he and Paulson crafted much of the pre-Messiah Burning-Bush infusions of public monies into the coffers of AIG, JPM (Bear Stearns and WAMU or Wachovia), WFC (WAMU or Wachovia - JPM got one and WFC the other and it doesn't matter which is which), BAC (Merrill), Citigroup, etc.
They cannot stand the idea that one of these "pillars" of the financial system should go under - while they manipulated the salvaging of the above-mentioned. A lot of this comes from the Wall Street legend of recent vintage that allowing Lehman to fail was a major mistake. Oh, you didn't notice that they actually allowed Lehman to fail? Makes you wonder where the logic is for saying the rest of the bastards shouldn't be allowed to fail.
So what does Geithner do? Why, he says that we need to have these banks get back to a position of being able to lend again. Never mind that these institutions will not lend on any scale without getting a credit default swap, the very thing that brought AIG and us to this state of affairs. Never mind that the credit markets are still frozen after trillions of infusions. What if the feds had simply made a trillion dollars of credit available without going through these banks? Never mind...
And is Geithner's plan anything other than one GIGANTIC CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP? I don't think so. Here's the deal. As the Treasury (or the FDIC) explains it, they will finance purchase of the "legacy" (nee toxic) assets on a 6:1 basis. So, if a bidder were to offer $84 for a portfolio nominally face-valued at $100, the FDIC will provide a loan of $72 and the bidder and Treasury will each put in $6 in cash to make up the $84. Folks, those numbers are from the Treasury's or FDIC's explanation - even a Bwana couldn't make up something that stupid.
If the "legacy" assets work out, i.e., pay back, the private bidder gets 50% of the profit for its $6 investment and the taxpayers get 50% of the profit for their $78 investment. If the deal doesn't work out, the private guys lose at most the $6 they put in.
In effect, the feds are guaranteeing that the credit will work out. This is actually better than a credit default swap. It allows a private bidder to gamble that an asset on which yields only 6% of face value will produce a breakeven situation and anything above that is gravy.
One obvious question beyond whether this plan will work or is a good plan, is simply this: Is it necessary?
If the objective is to free up credit, why not just take the $500 billion to $1 trillion and make loans? Oh, and buy Credit Default Swaps against default -- just don't buy 'em from AIG because that is our own money!
No, the real deceptive and fraudulent reason is that you have to pretend that these institutions really want to make loans in a low-interest environment and further pretend that they are not doing so because they have legacy assets preventing such loans.
This is just pure poppycock.
It won't work because the premise on which it is based is flawed. It is more than flawed ... it lacks intellectual honesty and practical soundness.
And, I haven't mentioned whether on default, the feds will have a physically settled transaction (in fact, we don't even know if the feds will be the owners of the purchased "legacy" assets) or a cash settled transaction. I'm betting on the latter and will sell you a credit default swap that even the $6 is not at risk!
But then, if you are a white knight riding with a lance in the Messiah's cause, you have to stick that lance into something, even if you perhaps just sat on it. Just be careful you don't poke Messiah in the eye. One-eyed Messiah's can become much to focused.
Cheerz....Bwana
___________________________
MARCH 24, 2009
BREAKFAST WITH BWANA:
THE ULTIMATE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP
Well, hello from Tel Aviv again. It's past lunch time here and probably past breakfast time in the US, but what the heck, I can't write a message titled "Afternoon Snack With Bwana."
First, something positive. If we believe Ken Lewis of BAC, the guy from WFC, Jamie Dimon from JPM and Vickram Pantsuit from Citigroup, these companies are all now profitable, at least in the first quarter. Since the market is a discounting mechanism of future expectations, you have to pick the point at which it is safe enough to jump in.
Now something negative. GE projected some 2-3 months ago that their Credit arm would earn $8 billion in 2009. Then they said it would earn $5 billion. Last week, the number dropped to $2 billion. By the way, they are projecting huge losses in the portfolio, to the tune of $6-8 billion or more, so the $2 billion projected earnings don't take portfolio losses into account. OKAY, so what's a little voodoo accounting between friends? Someone asked me why I continue to be negative on GE and the simple reason is that you cannot trust a single word from the management. Immelt said that they had enough money to pay the dividend and two weeks later cut it. He also said that he was prepared to run the company with both a dividend cut and as a lower than AAA company. That told me he believed it was lower than AAA. I'm still very chary about this company.
Getting back to the banks mentioned above, the fact that they are profitable is good in the sense that it means they won't likely go under. Of course, we've already heard that Citigroup will fracture itself into more than one company. But it doesn't mean that their stocks will rise because in order to do that - in a meaningful way, that is - they have to show the ability to raise capital internally. That will happen eventually - Meredith Whitney who is pretty skilled at this sort of stuff projects about two years. So, if you have a long, long-term horizon and can stand another drop in the market, you can consider buying this kind of stock.
However, keep something in mind. The Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bought into Citibank when it was last in big trouble. In connection with the story about the call by Vickram Pantsuit to the Prince and one of the Sovereign funds (Singapore? perhaps) about converting preferred to equity, I read that his princely basis was about $2. So, here is a guy who literally made BILLIONS in Citigroup stock and forgot the basic reason for buying stocks -- to make money and rode it all the way back down. At some point, if you make a huge profit, you have to ask whether it is time to take it. I know this goes against the Warren Buffet school of thought, but then he has sold positions in companies, so I'm not totally off.
Okay, back to Tim Geithner's plan. The basic problem that I have with it is that it is a deceptive and fraudulent plan - no, I'm not suggesting that Geithner is deliberately trying to defraud, but I think he is a victim of circumstance and not being able to think out of his sandbox.
Geithner and President Obama come into the extant situation knowing that much is expected of them -- Wonder Boy Treasury Secretary and Messiah riding to the rescue. How deflating would it be to say "My fellow Americans, we really don't need to do anything about these big banks because we have done enough and they are now making money" - I mean, how deflating? So, wonder boy has to come up with a plan. Nobody seems to like deflation.
Timothy Geithner is a creature of Wall Street -- Repugnos should take note that he and Paulson crafted much of the pre-Messiah Burning-Bush infusions of public monies into the coffers of AIG, JPM (Bear Stearns and WAMU or Wachovia), WFC (WAMU or Wachovia - JPM got one and WFC the other and it doesn't matter which is which), BAC (Merrill), Citigroup, etc.
They cannot stand the idea that one of these "pillars" of the financial system should go under - while they manipulated the salvaging of the above-mentioned. A lot of this comes from the Wall Street legend of recent vintage that allowing Lehman to fail was a major mistake. Oh, you didn't notice that they actually allowed Lehman to fail? Makes you wonder where the logic is for saying the rest of the bastards shouldn't be allowed to fail.
So what does Geithner do? Why, he says that we need to have these banks get back to a position of being able to lend again. Never mind that these institutions will not lend on any scale without getting a credit default swap, the very thing that brought AIG and us to this state of affairs. Never mind that the credit markets are still frozen after trillions of infusions. What if the feds had simply made a trillion dollars of credit available without going through these banks? Never mind...
And is Geithner's plan anything other than one GIGANTIC CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP? I don't think so. Here's the deal. As the Treasury (or the FDIC) explains it, they will finance purchase of the "legacy" (nee toxic) assets on a 6:1 basis. So, if a bidder were to offer $84 for a portfolio nominally face-valued at $100, the FDIC will provide a loan of $72 and the bidder and Treasury will each put in $6 in cash to make up the $84. Folks, those numbers are from the Treasury's or FDIC's explanation - even a Bwana couldn't make up something that stupid.
If the "legacy" assets work out, i.e., pay back, the private bidder gets 50% of the profit for its $6 investment and the taxpayers get 50% of the profit for their $78 investment. If the deal doesn't work out, the private guys lose at most the $6 they put in.
In effect, the feds are guaranteeing that the credit will work out. This is actually better than a credit default swap. It allows a private bidder to gamble that an asset on which yields only 6% of face value will produce a breakeven situation and anything above that is gravy.
One obvious question beyond whether this plan will work or is a good plan, is simply this: Is it necessary?
If the objective is to free up credit, why not just take the $500 billion to $1 trillion and make loans? Oh, and buy Credit Default Swaps against default -- just don't buy 'em from AIG because that is our own money!
No, the real deceptive and fraudulent reason is that you have to pretend that these institutions really want to make loans in a low-interest environment and further pretend that they are not doing so because they have legacy assets preventing such loans.
This is just pure poppycock.
It won't work because the premise on which it is based is flawed. It is more than flawed ... it lacks intellectual honesty and practical soundness.
And, I haven't mentioned whether on default, the feds will have a physically settled transaction (in fact, we don't even know if the feds will be the owners of the purchased "legacy" assets) or a cash settled transaction. I'm betting on the latter and will sell you a credit default swap that even the $6 is not at risk!
But then, if you are a white knight riding with a lance in the Messiah's cause, you have to stick that lance into something, even if you perhaps just sat on it. Just be careful you don't poke Messiah in the eye. One-eyed Messiah's can become much to focused.
Cheerz....Bwana
___________________________
The Scatology of Geithner's Legacy (Toxic) Assets Plan
______________________________
SUNDOWNER WITH BWANA
March 23, 2009 - Tel Aviv 7:30 PM
THE SCATOLOGY OF GEITHNER:
Well, here I am in Tel Aviv at cocktail hour -- otherwise known as the "Sundowner" in Colonial Brit strongholds like Kenya where there was sun -- and watching the market soaring by some 300+ points. Now, before you get all excited, with the Dow divisor being about 10+ a bit, that means the average Dow stock has gained $1. Yes, 'tis true, if all 30 Dow stocks go up $1 each, the DJIA is up 300+ points!
This morning, while those of you in the US who get these messages were asleep, I watched the futures soaring ahead and read an op-ed column in the WSJ by Treasury Secretary Geithner setting out his plan.
After reflecting on this for a few hours, I began to wonder what effect this will have on the mark-to-market argument. Simply stated, that argument posits that although bank and financial company assets are currently valued at less than face value, they should not be marked down to current market conditions because given time, they will recover. It is grossly unfair the anti mark to market forces say, to force companies to mark assets down to what they are actually selling for because this makes the the companies appear to be worth less because marking everything to market means they are worthless.
So, Timothy Geithner's plan begins with the recognition that banks are loaded up with so-called toxic assets. You can analogize this in scatalogy as observing that a house with four bedrooms and five bathrooms has become virtually unusable because the septic tank is full and the bathrooms cannot handle any more.
A reasonable person might conclude that the solution is to pump out the septic tank and let the process of refilling it start anew. This appears to be Secretary Geithner's preliminary approach to dealing with the toxic assets. He is treating them as waste that needs to be hauled away.
The problem of course, is that Secretary Geithner's plan is similar to saying in the case of the house, that since the bathrooms are unusable, they need to be ripped out. "But," yells the homeowner, "if you rip out the bathrooms, the house is worthless."
Precisely.
The fundamental argument has been that banks should be allowed to hold these toxic (that really means worth a lot less than what one paid for them) assets until they recover in value. However, the problem with this idea is that it still leaves the septic tank full. We have to empty the septic tank without ripping out the bathrooms.
One way to do this would be for the federal government to buy the toxic assets from the banks at a reasonable value - meaning something that would not affect the banks with a punitive loss. Ah, a punitive loss -- well, you see, if the banks were to 'fess up that the junk they are holding is really what should be in the septic tank, they would be deemed insolvent and have to raise more capital -- is to be avoided. And, of course, you have to ask who would pay full price for the contents of the septic tank (other than the federal government, that is)?
Why cannot the federal government just do this? After all, they've been spending willy nilly to bail all sorts of boats. The reason is that it has become politically unpalatable - the Repugnos and Democraps alike want to make sure the taxpayers don't get stuck with bad assets and suffer losses. What about AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, WAMU, Wachovia, Fannie, Freddie? Be quiet. You ask too many questions.
Now, cross-eyed Timmy is a smart guy. So, he says, let's get private parties -- this means people with money, like PIMCO, hedge funds, etc. -- to bid at auction for these toxic assets. Now, there is a great marketing plan -- ask people with real money to declare how much they are willing to pay for poison. But it gets better. Timmy thinks this means a fair price. But a fair price for what? My Bwana nose tells me that these private guys will bid only on the best quality stuff and then underprice it because they want to make a profit. What's wrong with that? But Timmy is not through. Even though we have a "fair" auction, and ergo a fair value, the feds are going to subsize a portion of the price.
As I see it, there are two problems with the plan. First, how do we force the banks to sell? And if they do sell and get market value, isn't this the ultimate mark-to-market scenario? And second, if private parties bid on only the high quality assets, what price does the government pay for the stuff that should be in the septic tank?
I said "two problems" but there is a third which is more a consequence than a problem. That consequence is simply this: if the banks sell the toxic assets at auction prices, meaning distress prices, they have essentially not only marked to market, but eliminated ANY POSSIBILITY of recovering any additional value for those same assets. This means they are effectively declared insolvent.
Okay, okay, a fourth problem: what if Citigroup and Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, Wells Fargo --- omigosh, even AIG and GE -- decide these bargain-priced toxins are worth a gamble and decide to bid on them? This is like having OPEC buy North Sea Crude or the Mexican Drug Cartel buy Afghani opium.
Folks, I may be missing something big here, but if this market doesn't crash in a week as soon as the dummies have figured out what is going on, I may just flush the toilet and see if it works.
Timothy Geithner's new plan is full of $$$$hit.
I don't think I've heard more nonsense so highly concentrated in a long time.
Cheerz...Bwana
_________________
SUNDOWNER WITH BWANA
March 23, 2009 - Tel Aviv 7:30 PM
THE SCATOLOGY OF GEITHNER:
Well, here I am in Tel Aviv at cocktail hour -- otherwise known as the "Sundowner" in Colonial Brit strongholds like Kenya where there was sun -- and watching the market soaring by some 300+ points. Now, before you get all excited, with the Dow divisor being about 10+ a bit, that means the average Dow stock has gained $1. Yes, 'tis true, if all 30 Dow stocks go up $1 each, the DJIA is up 300+ points!
This morning, while those of you in the US who get these messages were asleep, I watched the futures soaring ahead and read an op-ed column in the WSJ by Treasury Secretary Geithner setting out his plan.
After reflecting on this for a few hours, I began to wonder what effect this will have on the mark-to-market argument. Simply stated, that argument posits that although bank and financial company assets are currently valued at less than face value, they should not be marked down to current market conditions because given time, they will recover. It is grossly unfair the anti mark to market forces say, to force companies to mark assets down to what they are actually selling for because this makes the the companies appear to be worth less because marking everything to market means they are worthless.
So, Timothy Geithner's plan begins with the recognition that banks are loaded up with so-called toxic assets. You can analogize this in scatalogy as observing that a house with four bedrooms and five bathrooms has become virtually unusable because the septic tank is full and the bathrooms cannot handle any more.
A reasonable person might conclude that the solution is to pump out the septic tank and let the process of refilling it start anew. This appears to be Secretary Geithner's preliminary approach to dealing with the toxic assets. He is treating them as waste that needs to be hauled away.
The problem of course, is that Secretary Geithner's plan is similar to saying in the case of the house, that since the bathrooms are unusable, they need to be ripped out. "But," yells the homeowner, "if you rip out the bathrooms, the house is worthless."
Precisely.
The fundamental argument has been that banks should be allowed to hold these toxic (that really means worth a lot less than what one paid for them) assets until they recover in value. However, the problem with this idea is that it still leaves the septic tank full. We have to empty the septic tank without ripping out the bathrooms.
One way to do this would be for the federal government to buy the toxic assets from the banks at a reasonable value - meaning something that would not affect the banks with a punitive loss. Ah, a punitive loss -- well, you see, if the banks were to 'fess up that the junk they are holding is really what should be in the septic tank, they would be deemed insolvent and have to raise more capital -- is to be avoided. And, of course, you have to ask who would pay full price for the contents of the septic tank (other than the federal government, that is)?
Why cannot the federal government just do this? After all, they've been spending willy nilly to bail all sorts of boats. The reason is that it has become politically unpalatable - the Repugnos and Democraps alike want to make sure the taxpayers don't get stuck with bad assets and suffer losses. What about AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, WAMU, Wachovia, Fannie, Freddie? Be quiet. You ask too many questions.
Now, cross-eyed Timmy is a smart guy. So, he says, let's get private parties -- this means people with money, like PIMCO, hedge funds, etc. -- to bid at auction for these toxic assets. Now, there is a great marketing plan -- ask people with real money to declare how much they are willing to pay for poison. But it gets better. Timmy thinks this means a fair price. But a fair price for what? My Bwana nose tells me that these private guys will bid only on the best quality stuff and then underprice it because they want to make a profit. What's wrong with that? But Timmy is not through. Even though we have a "fair" auction, and ergo a fair value, the feds are going to subsize a portion of the price.
As I see it, there are two problems with the plan. First, how do we force the banks to sell? And if they do sell and get market value, isn't this the ultimate mark-to-market scenario? And second, if private parties bid on only the high quality assets, what price does the government pay for the stuff that should be in the septic tank?
I said "two problems" but there is a third which is more a consequence than a problem. That consequence is simply this: if the banks sell the toxic assets at auction prices, meaning distress prices, they have essentially not only marked to market, but eliminated ANY POSSIBILITY of recovering any additional value for those same assets. This means they are effectively declared insolvent.
Okay, okay, a fourth problem: what if Citigroup and Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, Wells Fargo --- omigosh, even AIG and GE -- decide these bargain-priced toxins are worth a gamble and decide to bid on them? This is like having OPEC buy North Sea Crude or the Mexican Drug Cartel buy Afghani opium.
Folks, I may be missing something big here, but if this market doesn't crash in a week as soon as the dummies have figured out what is going on, I may just flush the toilet and see if it works.
Timothy Geithner's new plan is full of $$$$hit.
I don't think I've heard more nonsense so highly concentrated in a long time.
Cheerz...Bwana
_________________
Monday, January 12, 2009
REQUIEM FOR A LIGHTWEIGHT
_________________________
January 12, 2009
The fighter came into the ring, his last fight on a stage he had commanded for oh so long. Yet, he seemed unsure, he had aged, the lines of fatigue accentuated every wrinkle as he winced or tried to feign a smile. His shorts were ill fitting, the band pulled too tight, the cod piece much bigger than necessary for what they covered for it is said that the cojones of a bully shrink with each confrontation.
It marked the last few days, a sad and sorry tale of a man ill-equipped for the task and in way over his head. This was the last round, as he bobbed and weaved, not deftly, almost like a rodent surveying a room from a corner. Just as Harlan "Mountain" McClintock exhibited Dementia pugilistica or "punch drunk syndrome" this one exhibited Great Windbag Syndrome (GWB) or Dementia Politica.
He had steered this great ship that we call our home for the last eight years and found shoals, tax cuts into the biggest deficits of all time, Katrina, a Mission heralded as Accomplished before it had fired its sorry afterburners, every child left behind. Yet, these shoals were not enough to mark the pitiful ineptitude of this man. For he had steered the ship as if he had the GPS coordinates of every iceberg and was determined to hit it. There was the dishonesty about WMD, weapons of mass destruction. He would say today when asked what mistakes he had made: "Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment."
One has to pause and shake one's head. Not having your lie vindicated was a disappointment? How many thousands killed? How many tens of thousands wounded? A disappointment? Indeed.
If Iraq were not the biggest iceberg, the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of the world, each new iceberg was of no less stature for he managed to ruin the entire economy and Wall Street itself. Sure, the ice cubes that got chipped off that iceberg were big enough: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Citigroup, Fannie, Freddie ... may I stop for the list is long? The Constitution itself was not worthy of respect: torture, warrantless surveillance. No act was low enough, ask Scooter Libby.
As he moved in the ring, no float of a butterfly, no sting of a bee, one wondered what could have been for this nation without this has-been? Reflect back on the day we heard the Supreme Court's decision that he was to be anointed. Dies iræ, dies illa? No, we did not see it that way. But neither was this last flailing exhibition a day of rejoicing, only of relief that the end is nigh.
And speaking of being anointed, for a man who claimed to have been placed in that position by God, the plaint of the requiem "Absolve, Domine!" might have been fitting.
But this is a man who does not see that the nation needs to forgive, he has learned nothing. When asked what he had learned from his time in office, not from a policy perspective, but as a person, he told Kimberly Strassel, "I've learned that God is good. All the time."
Indeed, if God were, and God were good, and as we reflect on God's role in this folly and go back to that somber and fateful morning in 1999 when God was contemplating who the next President of the United States should be, and as we wonder whatever might have possessed HER to tap the shoulder of the nincompoop of Crawford, we might also reflect that we tapped his shoulder, not once but twice.
For this exercise in power transition, we pat ourselves on our collective back but that pat is not the same as the tap on the shoulder which is a call to arms. His arms were unworthy, never able to cradle the nation's desires nor to turn the helm through the shoals or away from the icebergs. Reflecting on his Presidency, one sees a man who forgot to steer the ship, who tried too hard to be President of the World and forgot to be President of the United States.
So we are left to blame ourselves for allowing this to happen.
Others will write about the pieces that define the wreck that he created. I expose the central failing of a man who learned, not to think, but to mouth mantra and shibboleth of the right wing. He did it because it won him applause in the confined halls where people of shared illusions met. Mired in denial, he sought venues where captive audiences of cadets or soldiers or political contributors flashed obedient smiles and clapped audible but soulless applause. If there is no sound to one hand clapping, there is no substance to only the RIGHT hand feigning applause.
Thus, we got tax cuts in the teeth of a tottering economy and swelling deficits. We got sucked into war by Cowboy bravado about a doctrine of preemption. Never once did he pause to think that the strength of the doctrine of preemption comes not from declaring its existence, but demonstrating its use only when really needed.
It was fitting that the clapping should be soulless for he was a man without a soul. The irony still rings from the time he professed to have looked into the eyes of Putin, another soulless dog, and declared that he had "seen" his compatriot's soul. This vision was recorded by the eyes of the same person whose ears heard the call of a higher power guiding his hand to the helm of this great ship we know as our home. A common illusion was augmented by unyielding delusion. A man who professed to be motivated by the joy of spreading democracy formed a bond with the antithesis of democracy.
The course he followed might make a movie - except that it has already been made - The Titanic. We have seen the collapse of our economy, of Wall Street, of standards of justice and common decency, and lost the innocence of a nation firmly believing that it was based on justice and decency and fairness.
His parting shot was to say: "In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." No, you are ending on a near depression and if it is not an economic depression, you have certainly left us depressed.
But what this soulless twit did not take from us is the soul of this nation. It is fitting too, that in his exit, we should celebrate the achievement of that fundamental truth first stated in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
So, this is our requiem for a lightweight. He leaves us but he cannot take away hope that better things are in our future. No lightweight has a punch strong enough to knock us out.
For him, we might all say Kyrie Eleison.
Cheerz.... from a not so cheerzful Bwana
___________________________________________
January 12, 2009
The fighter came into the ring, his last fight on a stage he had commanded for oh so long. Yet, he seemed unsure, he had aged, the lines of fatigue accentuated every wrinkle as he winced or tried to feign a smile. His shorts were ill fitting, the band pulled too tight, the cod piece much bigger than necessary for what they covered for it is said that the cojones of a bully shrink with each confrontation.
It marked the last few days, a sad and sorry tale of a man ill-equipped for the task and in way over his head. This was the last round, as he bobbed and weaved, not deftly, almost like a rodent surveying a room from a corner. Just as Harlan "Mountain" McClintock exhibited Dementia pugilistica or "punch drunk syndrome" this one exhibited Great Windbag Syndrome (GWB) or Dementia Politica.
He had steered this great ship that we call our home for the last eight years and found shoals, tax cuts into the biggest deficits of all time, Katrina, a Mission heralded as Accomplished before it had fired its sorry afterburners, every child left behind. Yet, these shoals were not enough to mark the pitiful ineptitude of this man. For he had steered the ship as if he had the GPS coordinates of every iceberg and was determined to hit it. There was the dishonesty about WMD, weapons of mass destruction. He would say today when asked what mistakes he had made: "Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment."
One has to pause and shake one's head. Not having your lie vindicated was a disappointment? How many thousands killed? How many tens of thousands wounded? A disappointment? Indeed.
If Iraq were not the biggest iceberg, the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of the world, each new iceberg was of no less stature for he managed to ruin the entire economy and Wall Street itself. Sure, the ice cubes that got chipped off that iceberg were big enough: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Citigroup, Fannie, Freddie ... may I stop for the list is long? The Constitution itself was not worthy of respect: torture, warrantless surveillance. No act was low enough, ask Scooter Libby.
As he moved in the ring, no float of a butterfly, no sting of a bee, one wondered what could have been for this nation without this has-been? Reflect back on the day we heard the Supreme Court's decision that he was to be anointed. Dies iræ, dies illa? No, we did not see it that way. But neither was this last flailing exhibition a day of rejoicing, only of relief that the end is nigh.
And speaking of being anointed, for a man who claimed to have been placed in that position by God, the plaint of the requiem "Absolve, Domine!" might have been fitting.
But this is a man who does not see that the nation needs to forgive, he has learned nothing. When asked what he had learned from his time in office, not from a policy perspective, but as a person, he told Kimberly Strassel, "I've learned that God is good. All the time."
Indeed, if God were, and God were good, and as we reflect on God's role in this folly and go back to that somber and fateful morning in 1999 when God was contemplating who the next President of the United States should be, and as we wonder whatever might have possessed HER to tap the shoulder of the nincompoop of Crawford, we might also reflect that we tapped his shoulder, not once but twice.
For this exercise in power transition, we pat ourselves on our collective back but that pat is not the same as the tap on the shoulder which is a call to arms. His arms were unworthy, never able to cradle the nation's desires nor to turn the helm through the shoals or away from the icebergs. Reflecting on his Presidency, one sees a man who forgot to steer the ship, who tried too hard to be President of the World and forgot to be President of the United States.
So we are left to blame ourselves for allowing this to happen.
Others will write about the pieces that define the wreck that he created. I expose the central failing of a man who learned, not to think, but to mouth mantra and shibboleth of the right wing. He did it because it won him applause in the confined halls where people of shared illusions met. Mired in denial, he sought venues where captive audiences of cadets or soldiers or political contributors flashed obedient smiles and clapped audible but soulless applause. If there is no sound to one hand clapping, there is no substance to only the RIGHT hand feigning applause.
Thus, we got tax cuts in the teeth of a tottering economy and swelling deficits. We got sucked into war by Cowboy bravado about a doctrine of preemption. Never once did he pause to think that the strength of the doctrine of preemption comes not from declaring its existence, but demonstrating its use only when really needed.
It was fitting that the clapping should be soulless for he was a man without a soul. The irony still rings from the time he professed to have looked into the eyes of Putin, another soulless dog, and declared that he had "seen" his compatriot's soul. This vision was recorded by the eyes of the same person whose ears heard the call of a higher power guiding his hand to the helm of this great ship we know as our home. A common illusion was augmented by unyielding delusion. A man who professed to be motivated by the joy of spreading democracy formed a bond with the antithesis of democracy.
The course he followed might make a movie - except that it has already been made - The Titanic. We have seen the collapse of our economy, of Wall Street, of standards of justice and common decency, and lost the innocence of a nation firmly believing that it was based on justice and decency and fairness.
His parting shot was to say: "In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." No, you are ending on a near depression and if it is not an economic depression, you have certainly left us depressed.
But what this soulless twit did not take from us is the soul of this nation. It is fitting too, that in his exit, we should celebrate the achievement of that fundamental truth first stated in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
So, this is our requiem for a lightweight. He leaves us but he cannot take away hope that better things are in our future. No lightweight has a punch strong enough to knock us out.
For him, we might all say Kyrie Eleison.
Cheerz.... from a not so cheerzful Bwana
___________________________________________
Thursday, January 01, 2009
THE YEAR IN REVIEW – 2009
JANUARY 1, 2009
HAPPY NEW YEAR all! Since everyone is writing a review of the just dead annus horribilus 2008, or worse, producing an inane video discussion of it, I thought I would, as a change of pace, (p)review the coming year for you.
It will all start easily enough with President-elect Barack Obama walking across the Potomac for his inauguration. The Pope will suggest that the new President, like the Popes, should take on a different name (Obamadict XVI? - no, I don't think so) and the idea of President St. Barry will come to mind. However, after the inauguration, Obama will try to walk across the water on his way to the White House and instantly be submerged and the populace will shout "Look, he's all wet!"
Talking about being submerged, Vice CHEstpaiNEY will reveal that he had the CIA secretly train Michael Phelps for the Olympics by having him waterboarded twice a day for two years. The IOC will attempt to revoke Phelps' gold medals only to find that the Chinese medals were not real gold.
President Bush will be at the swearing-in of Obama and Barack's daughters will jointly shout: "Look, King George 43 has no clothes!" And the populace will wonder how they missed his nakedness for eight years - Bush will be holding the Bible upside down to follow along. Just as the nation utters a thankful "Good riddance," Dick CHEstpaiNEY will announce that he is not ready to give up being Prezzie and henceforth, the country will be run by Halliburton of which he is once again the Supreme Commander and the company will be renamed Warburton.
So, January ends. In February, Barack will attempt to walk cross the Delaware River to celebrate Washington's birthday. He will fall in and Michelle will announce that she buys her towels at J. Crew.
GM and Chrysler will announce they have spent their bailout billions and determined that American consumers prefer full-sized spare tires to the mini wheels now found in their cars. As Americans continue to refuse to buy GM's and Chrysler's lousy cars, Michigan will announce incentives for Honda and Toyota to relocate to Detroit and offer to rename the state Michihonda. Barack will show up for the ribbon-cutting ceremony but find himself all wet as he attempts to walk across Lake Michigan.
The credit crisis will continue unabated but in an effort to declare that it has been solved, newly appointed Treasury Secretary Geithner will announce that the credit crisis is over and we now have a Debt Crisis - it's the same thing but with a change of name. They did promise change, didn't they? This will give newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the idea of renaming Iraq to create the impression of victory. In honor of Barack, it will be renamed Hussainistan. Many Iraqis will think that this is a tribute to Saddass Noosein the former President, but Barack will attempt to walk across the Tigris to quell the crowds and fall into the water again.
The nation's health care crisis will continue unabated and Barack will announce a new health care plan. The 43% of Indian doctors in the US will protest, forming an organization known as Lashkar-e-Ilaj and refuse to treat patients unless they are paid as much as Detroit auto workers. Barack will announce a bailout and attempt to walk across the Hippocrates River. This time, he will not fall in (the bed is dry), but will dislocate his big toe and be flown to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany for treatment at the US Army Field Hospital. German engineers will confer with him secretly and reveal that they have been working on a solution to his walking-on-water attempts. They will outfit him with swimmies on each arm. Joe Biden will ask why the German engineers cannot design a decent cup holder for Mercedes, BMW, Audi or VW. Angela Merkel will tell him to be quiet and massage her back like George used to.
We will now find ourselves in July and to celebrate Independence Day Barack will announce that he is accepting Pakistan's application to be the 51st state. Indian PM, Manmade Singh will go on a hunger strike to protest and start wearing a red turban instead of his Carolina blue one. This event will re-energize the Republican Right Wing Christian Yahoo Society who will announce that Caroline Kennedy has decided to change her party affiliation and become a Repugnican. She will attempt to walk across the Hudson River and almost make it to New Jersey only to be told that her attempt was successful up to a point because she was walking on the waste that Exxon has dumped into the river for the past 40 years.
Speaking of Exxon, the nation will come to realize two truths about alternative energy: 1. It costs more than the alternative, and 2. It only works on alternative devices. As a result, a clamor will rise to force Saudi Arabia to apply for the slot Pakistan seeks and Supreme Commander Dick CHEstpaiNEY will announce that Warburton has a plan. The cost will be $60 trillion which is more than the Credit Default Swaps that have been issued. AIG will offer insurance for the endeavor. Bank of America and JP Morgan will offer to take over the federal government.
By now we will be in October and the country will feel more comfortable with Barack's 9-months of experience as President. He will announce that "Yes we can" is being replaced by "We must change again." He will attempt to walk to Hawaii for his Thanksgiving holiday and Michael Phelps will be forced to swim 1200 miles to rescue him. Barack will award Phelps the Presidential Medal of Honor but Phelps will suffer neck strain from the weight of all the medals hanging off him.
In early December, we will realize that nothing has been accomplished in eleven months but that we feel decidedly better about things since the stock market will be closed for the day as soon as the Dow drops by more than 10 points.
GM's management will announce that they have hired Alan Greenspan as a consultant and he has come to the conclusion that it is irrational exuberance to hope to make a profit by continuing to manufacture cars nobody wants to buy. He will recommend that GM convert its factories to making typewriters that nobody wants to buy as a means of lowering overhead.
Barack will announce that although his Administration has spent all of the $800 billion of infrastructure money, none of the Wall Street MBA's (Mediocre But Arrogant) has shown any ability for manual labor and, therefore, all road and bridge building has been subcontracted to CHEstpaiNEY and Warburton.
Mercifully, 2009 will end and the campaign for the Presidential election of 2012 will start so that we can talk about how new leadership will bring change.
Cheerz . . . Bwana (a/k/a Bwanadict XVI)
Friday, April 13, 2007
IMUS AND THE MOHAMMED CARTOONS
BWEST OF BWANA
AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE
It was many moons ago that we witnessed outrage, on both sides of the Islamophobia divide, on the one hand at the publication and republicatoin of the Mohammed cartoons, and on the other hand at the violent reaction to those cartoons among Muslims and to the supposed upholding of the exercise of “free speech” by western news publications standing in so-called solidarity with the misguided fool Flemming Rose of Jyllands Posten.
I commented then that the essence of the problem seemed to lie in the falsity of the content of the alleged speech which was, after all hate speech. In reflecting on this, I mentioned the oft-repeated example of the man shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Then I pointed out that Mr. Justice Holmes never mentioned a crowded theater at all and what he actually wrote in Schenck v. U.S., the 1919 case, was: “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
This past week, Don Imus was dumped first by MSNBC and then by CBS from his simulcast TV broadcast and radio talk show. Obviously, the outrage of many played a big part in the decision as did the financial impact of advertisers pulling their sponsorship dollars.
What strikes me about this situation is that a certain maturity was displayed by the American audience. There were, at best, only a few isolated bleats that Don Imus should be allowed to speak freely.
Americans, it seems, have come to understand what Mr. Justice Holmes articulated in 1919 – there is no unfettered right to make false statements.
When Imus joined with his producer McGuirk in describing the Rutgers Basketball team’s members in derogatory terms laden with sexist and racist overtones, the sense of falsity was not palpable although the sense of political incorrectness was evident. By the time the members of the Rutgers team and their coach stood up and showed the nation how rotten to the core Imus was, the verdict of the court of public opinion was all but sealed.
Now, let us reflect back to the ease with which we accepted Flemming Rose’s protestations that he was standing up for free expression. While one cannot condone the incitement to violence by many clerics and other leaders in the Jyllands Posten debacle, perhaps we can also understand now that those cartoons, like Imus’ hate speech, were not in any way, shape, or form, related to freedom of speech.
Cheerz…Bwana
AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE
It was many moons ago that we witnessed outrage, on both sides of the Islamophobia divide, on the one hand at the publication and republicatoin of the Mohammed cartoons, and on the other hand at the violent reaction to those cartoons among Muslims and to the supposed upholding of the exercise of “free speech” by western news publications standing in so-called solidarity with the misguided fool Flemming Rose of Jyllands Posten.
I commented then that the essence of the problem seemed to lie in the falsity of the content of the alleged speech which was, after all hate speech. In reflecting on this, I mentioned the oft-repeated example of the man shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Then I pointed out that Mr. Justice Holmes never mentioned a crowded theater at all and what he actually wrote in Schenck v. U.S., the 1919 case, was: “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
This past week, Don Imus was dumped first by MSNBC and then by CBS from his simulcast TV broadcast and radio talk show. Obviously, the outrage of many played a big part in the decision as did the financial impact of advertisers pulling their sponsorship dollars.
What strikes me about this situation is that a certain maturity was displayed by the American audience. There were, at best, only a few isolated bleats that Don Imus should be allowed to speak freely.
Americans, it seems, have come to understand what Mr. Justice Holmes articulated in 1919 – there is no unfettered right to make false statements.
When Imus joined with his producer McGuirk in describing the Rutgers Basketball team’s members in derogatory terms laden with sexist and racist overtones, the sense of falsity was not palpable although the sense of political incorrectness was evident. By the time the members of the Rutgers team and their coach stood up and showed the nation how rotten to the core Imus was, the verdict of the court of public opinion was all but sealed.
Now, let us reflect back to the ease with which we accepted Flemming Rose’s protestations that he was standing up for free expression. While one cannot condone the incitement to violence by many clerics and other leaders in the Jyllands Posten debacle, perhaps we can also understand now that those cartoons, like Imus’ hate speech, were not in any way, shape, or form, related to freedom of speech.
Cheerz…Bwana
