SOPA-cking Stupid (Not to Mention Unconstitutional...)

There has been much ado about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that was proposed in the House; mainly because it is a monumentally stupid piece of legislation. Although it's purpose is described in the bills subtitle as such:

"To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." 

 it would actually act as a huge infringement on First Amendment rights as it is applied to the world wide web (a kind of wonky explanation, as well as links to memoranda from two leading legal scholars on the First Amendment, can be found here). The simplest argument against the legislation is that is unconstitutional because it is both overbroad and too vague; annddd you can get a taste of it on the above tagline with the uber-ominous and open-ended "[...] and for other purposes." Laws must be of a certain specificity and limited in scope so people on both sides of the law, those who are to comply with it and those that are too enforce it, know what exactly they are supposed to do and without empowering the government to enact a sweeping agenda. It is why we don't have laws saying simply "Don't do bad things," and almost every law is replete with definitions of terms in the beginning. Secondly, the bill cedes some enforcement capability to actual copy-right holders (let that sink it. Crazy right?). From the above linked article:

Coupled with this overbroad scope, the bills authorize remedies that lack the usual procedural safeguards, ensuring that even more protected, non-infringing speech will be restricted. Even though a judicial determination is generally required to remove speech from circulation, the House version empowers copyright-holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisers to shut off funding for non-infringing sites that meet the bill's broad definitions. The bills also encourage over-enforcement by making companies immune from suit for mistakenly punishing sites outside even the bills' over-expansive scope.

This is unequivocal nutbaggery. The bill essential says that a copyright-holder can have funding shut off. This cannot be used for nefarious purposes? An uninterested party should not hold this role whether it be a judge or an independent body?

The technocracy of the U.S. immediately responded by speaking out against the bill. We are talking Facebook, Google, Tumblr, Zynga, Mozilla... essentially everyone except GoDaddy and their eccentric (putting it kindly) CEO. After coming under attack from the social news website Reddit, where a broad GoDaddy protest thread led to a proposed boycott of GoDaddy. The site eventually folded to the increasing pressure and announced that it no longer supported SOPA, as well as the Senatorial version in the Protect IP act.

Inside of Congress, however, support still seems strong and there is a decent chance that a version of this disastrous act gets passed. If any of you (6 friends of mine) feel strongly against this as well, please contact your local representative in Congress and your state Senators and tell them to vote no to both SOPA and Protect IP or they lose your vote. The only thing they will strongly react to, aside from the threat of losing money from big business, is losing their position as an elected official.

Poorly Played Home Box Office...

HBO recently decided to renew their new show Enlightened, while canceling Bored to Death, Hung, and How to Make it in America. I am fairly certain that top HBO brass have deemed this "How to Kick America in the Balls: an enlightened method to bore the watching public to death until they death by hanging" (Disclaimer: this is probably not true). I like Laura Dern and all, and admittedly I never really gave that show much of a chance, but how could you re-up that while canceling Bored to Death, one of the better shows, with one of the best casts, on TV (in my humble opinion). Hung and How to Make it... were not nearly as innovative but seemed like they would appeal to a better target demographic than a middle aged female office drone who flips out in the office after an affair with a co-worker and then gets all zen.

I hope the next group of shows they have lined up strike a chord with viewers, because it seems to me that HBO has been steadily slipping as of late as Showtime and AMC continue to pickup faithful viewers (a.k.a., market share). Considering HBO's track record (or even just The Sopranos and The Wire), however, it's hard to doubt them (he said at the end of a post that is composed almost entirely with HBO doubts). Just do us all a favor and get Zach Galifianakis back on TV HBO. You owe us that much...

"Homeland"- An Apology to America for Excesses of "24"?

Homeland, Showtime's excellent new show about the possibility of an American POW(s) turned to terrorism that just ran its absolutely bananas season finale this past weekend, is brought to you, me and everyone else by the creators of 24, Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa, and seems (to me at least) to be a full throated mea culpa for the world view presented in their previous terrorism related television show. Don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on 24. I watched regularly and thought it was a delightful piece of escapism... it just presented a very binary and dark world. There was Jack Bauer and CTU on one side and then there were terrorists on the other. Something really bad would be happening in the next 24 hours if Jack Bauer did not stop it. Being under this single day time crunch, Jack might have to toss some civil liberties aside, maybe torture someone, and just get the job done. This has unfortunately been an inspiration to many Republicans, who think its legitimate to cite a fictional TV character in discussions about proper interrogation techniques.

Everyone on Homeland, however, lives in increasingly complex shades of gray. Is Sgt. Brody a patriotic hero, a terrorist, a family man, suffering from PTSD, all of the above? Is Carrie Mathison good at her job in spite of suffering from bipolar disorder or do the manic episodes drive her to be great? Abu Nazir is a terrorist, but he showed Brody compassion and went into a quiet mourning period when his son died (or did he show Brody compassion just to turn him and go quiet just to plan an immensely complicated terrorist attack taking out most of the national security apparatus using two turned Marines?). David Estes and Vice President Walden have ostensibly devoted their lives to protecting the American people, but ordered a drone strike on a school killing nearly a hundred children, including Abu Nazir's youngest son, and then covered it up in furtherance of their careers. This is without delving too much into the intertwining relationships between Brody/Mathison, Nazir/Brody, Mathison/Estes, Estes/Walden, Walden/Brody and Mathison with her mentor Saul Berenson. Nothing is as it seems and clearly divided into good and bad. 

Further, and more importantly in comparison to 24, Carrie's efforts to stop terrorist attacks on the nation do not involve torture at all. There is nary a gun to a prisoners head to be seen. Instead, she uses legal (most of the time) surveillance, legal (skirting the line, but still okay) interrogation, old fashion chasing of leads and hard work to connect the dots of why things have happened and how that indicates what is likely to happen. Even the turning of Brody indicates what type of interrogation is successful. Al Qaeda affiliates beat the hell out of him, but he doesn't turn and doesn't "talk" until he is shown kindness. In its willingness to look at the contradictions in life that make up the shades of gray, the multitude of mixed motivations for why people do what they do and its much more realistic portrayal of how terrorist attacks are investigated (or should be) and stopped, Homeland is like Gordon and Gansa taking a mulligan and promptly thwacking a hole-in-one. I cannot wait to see where this show goes next season and I can only hope that our lawmakers pay as much attention to the actions of Carrie Mathison and Saul Berenson (and learn a lesson from Walden/Estes) as they did from Mr. Jack Bauer. 

Plus, I am pretty sure that Clare Danes never attacked a Christmas tree.

NERD ALERT- Like a Rolling CERN

I'm taking artistic license on the title, so back up off me. CERN, a.k.a. the European Center for Nuclear Research, had its big reveal today on whether the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) had determined the existence, or non-existence, of the Higgs boson. And they revealed (drum roll please)... (dramatic pause to enhance excitement)... (pause/drumroll has gone on too long and now people are annoyed)... that they'd only found hints of the particle and would need another year of data to make any real determination! WOOO! The Higgs boson particle, and thus the excitement about it, is a little bit hard to explain, which is attempted with more success here, but it is essentially the smallest building block of the Higgs field which, according to the Standard Model, gives particles mass. This is disappointing for those hoping to know, either way, but there is, seemingly, a silver lining:

"Given the outstanding performance of the L.H.C. this year, we will not need to wait long for enough data and can look forward to resolving this puzzle in 2012.”

Over the last 20 years, suspicious bumps that might have been the Higgs have come and gone, and scientists cautioned that the same thing could happen again, but the fact that two rival teams using two different mammoth particle detectors had recorded similar results was considered to be good news. Physicists expect to have enough data to make the final call by the summer.

For those, like me, who geek out over this stuff, it only means that we've been thrown a cliff hanger that will bring us back in this summer. Kind of like the "Game of Thrones." That's good enough for me (at least CERN didn't pull a "The Killing"... people will probably be interested enough to come back for Higgs boson in the summer). 

NBA Players- Before They Speak, Their Suit Bespoke

Grantland has an interesting article from Wesley Morris on the "rise of the NBA nerd." In his estimation, there has been a shift in black culture that has opened up possibilities for personalities such as Kevin Durant, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron James, not to mention Kanye West or Lil Wayne, throw on clothes that would get them beat up a decade ago. I think Mr. Morris tries to get too deep with it, however. It seems to me that, more so than a broad cultural shift illustrated by Jay-Z rapping "Y'all niggas acting way too tough / Throw a suit and get it tapered up" in Changes Clothes or, as above, Kanye rapping "Before he speak, his suit bespoke," in Estelle's American Boy, this represents a smaller shift amongst young and prominent black men. The lyrics themselves reveal this; there are not broad swaths representing young black culture grabbing bespoke suits after all. More representative would be "I'm not a businessman, I'm a BUSINESS, mannn." LeBron wants to be the first billionaire athlete and he has almost as many side business interests as he has endorsement deals (he's boys with Warren Buffett for the love of god). Amare seems to be actively attempting to become an NBA fashion icon (and not in the tragic D Rodman way). K Diddy is following in LeBron's footsteps. And all these guys are just going down the trail blazed by Kanye and, first and foremost, Jay-Z (aka, "the black Warren Buffett"). All of these gentlemen are still heavily invested in their image, it's just a different image that they are trying to cultivate. Street cred has ceded way to boardroom cred. To the young, black, talented and wealthy, drug dealing and getting shot at is no longer as cool as the Wizard of Omaha... who woulda thunk it?


(IMAGES: Too many to separate, but from Google Images [natch])

From the Annals of Common Sense- Legalize It

 

 Looking at the facts objectively, the illegality of marijuana is a failed policy. The U.S. spends roughly $8 billion dollars (BILLION) on enforcing the prohibition of marijuana with 88% of arrests coming from simple possession (See this article for more information/statistics). Despite this, the regulations are having a negligible effect on the number of people who consume marijuana. Further, since there is a federal law outlawing marijuana that supersedes any state law allowing medical marijuana, and since the DEA continues to enforce it despite the White House's proclamation they would not interfere with state medical marijuana laws, many people with serious medical issues are not able to get the significant relief that marijuana provides them with. This includes increasing comfort and hunger of those receiving radiation treatment for cancer and military veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Not to mention the fact that prohibition of marijuana seems to come from, originally, somewhat racist motives. For example:

 Around 1915, right at the height of its popularity, cannabis was in over 100 pharmaceutical preparations and seen as a medicine extraordinaire especially for difficult to treat neuralgia. It was in the early 20th century that America discovered jazz, and jazz seems to have been born with an affinity to the good herb. Louis Armstrong, besides being one of the best Jazz musicians of all time, was a cannabis ambassador and really was the very first cannabis activist. At that time cannabis was still legal. It was available in pharmacies, of course, but also could be ordered from catalogs as Hashish Candy and was commonly passed around amongst jazz musicians as cigarettes (“muggles“).[...]

According to Dale Gieringer [2] the very first anti marijuana law was passed in California in 1913. Dr. Gieringer reports that testimony that led up to the ban included this statement from a California pharmacy official: “Within the last year we in California have been getting a large influx of Hindoos and they have in turn started quite a demand for cannabis indica; they are a very undesirable lot and the habit is growing in California very fast…”
Anti-immigrant sentiment may have started the ball rolling, but it wasn’t long until marijuana was seen as a useful weapon to put the genie of African American civil rights back into its bottle.

The policy is even more nonsensical (see what I did there?) considering the United State's current economic dire straits, since the legalization of marijuana, even if only for medical purposes at a federal level, would allow for the more careful regulation and, more importantly, taxation of marijuana. According to the Cato Institute (re-link):

The potential of the industry as a whole is frequently overlooked. Marijuana is by most estimates a more valuable commodity than corn and wheat combined, with experts estimating its annual value to be between $10 and $120 billion. The employment potential of such a market is enormous. [...] If economic stagnation continues, however, employment and tax waste will become more and more relevant in driving public support for ending Prohibition. Unfortunately, that support may have to increase dramatically before any real ground is gained.

That is a rather large spectrum that the Cato Institute is offering but, going conservative with their estimate, even if the value was only $40 billion, you would probably be looking at, roughly, a $15 billion swing to the government. This accounts for the taxes that could be established on the newly found industry as well as a little under $8 billion that would no longer have to be spent on the prohibition of marijuana (if simple possession was also decriminalized). If the government goes for full legalization (since many feel that marijuana is safer than either alcohol or cigarettes), even more could be raised with excise taxes being added on the purchase of marijuana.

Change is gonna come and the  U.S. government (C'MON Obama, we know you inhaled...) should embrace it sooner rather than later. The vast majority of Americans support medical marijuana and roughly 50% support full legalization. Why not give the people what they want and help refill the coffers/decrease unemployment? Tis a no-brainer, no? Getting ahead of public opinion policy wise (barely at that) seems much better, albeit somewhat less safe, than obstinately staying the course and allowing federalism to take its course as public opinion continues to change. Plus, everyone knows the founding fathers were all about the herb... that's just science.

David Stern- Titanic Tool of a Tyrant

Things I love: the National Basketball Association and alliteration. Things I despise: hypocrites, liars and David Stern.

As I am sure most are aware, the NBA (read: David Stern) vetoed a trade the would've sent Chris Paul to the Lakers, Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets and Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a 2012 First Round Draft Pick to the NoLA Hornets. NBA analysts and commenters found, universally, that this was an eminently fair trade with many saying that Dell Demps, GM of the Hornets, did a fantastic job of getting a respectable haul back for Paul. Despite this, Stern and the NBA owners, with Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavs being the most vocal, decided to kill the trade for "basketball reasons" thinking that the Hornets were better served by retaining CP3 in a Hornets jersey.

There have been a lot of articles (some much better than this post) covering this, but the basic gist of all of them is that this is a load of horse shit. Other owners who have spoken out get closer to the truth; after the lockout recently ending, the NBA didn't want another NBA star to force his way out of a small market team to a team like the Lakers. Whiny school boy biatches like Gilbert threw a fit (again) and Stern, in his determined effort to destroy any legacy he might have, caved to their whims. This has created problems for every team involved with the trade and led to disgruntled players. The problem is that there is really nothing the NBA can do about preventing players from trying to dictate where they liked to play. Chris Paul has made it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no chance that he re-signs with the Hornets. Therefore, the teams options are they trade Paul for the best mix of established players and you building blocks for the future, which they accomplished in this trade, or lose him for absolutely nothing in free agency. Sure Paul's options would be limited in free agency and determined by who has enough cap room; but his options were limited in this situation. His expressed first choice, the New York Knicks, had nowhere near enough trade prospects to try and get Paul. He, therefore, was settling for the Lakers, who were taking a tremendous risk by trading a lot of size to create the best back court in the league. The trade, and the discussion regarding possible trades before it was consummated, also re-generated interest in the NBA immediately after the agony of the lockout. Just as people were forgetting about it, however, Stern reminded everyone by giving the Demps, the Lakers and the fans a giant middle finger. Additionally, he and the owners are exhibiting an epic conflict of interest as the Hornets are owned by the 29 NBA owner's collectively. I don't know about casual fans, but I'm incredibly offended by this abuse of power (and this comes from a self-avowed Laker-hater who was pissed to see them get CP3).

I do not know how Stern plans to next destroy his legacy but I'm looking forward to see what he pulls out of his ass in the way that people wait excitedly for a car accident once they hear the screeching of brakes. I fully expect, however, to see Stern walking back from this decision after some superficial changes are made to the trade. It is almost shocking to see a once prescient commish, who seemed to be 5 moves ahead at all times, become completely reactionary... but that's where we're at.

Eff you David Stern.

Image from Google Images (and probably a collection of pictures of people who look even douchier with beards. I call dibs on the rights to make that coffee table book...)

(Belated) Music Video Mondays

Because it is one of the most beautiful songs ever...

Music Video Monday

Because the Black Frank White was the illest. RIP.

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

How to Fail At Legislating by Really, Really Trying

This post may very well get pretty long and quite possibly convoluted, so I request your patience/forgiveness in advance. A probably (definitely) better written piece that takes on similar themes can be found here (it's Rolling Stone, but not Matt Taibbi. So back off). Feel free to jump to the last paragraph of this post for the punch line.

In a surprise to no one, the (Not so) Super Committee on Debt Reduction failed miserably at their mandate and did not even get a proposal together that they could vote on. There are a variety of reasons for this failure but (as some may have guessed) I place the blame squarely at the feet of GOP orthodoxy (religious term usage intended) on taxes. Simply put, Republicans on the Debt Reduction Committee refused to budge on additional revenue to work in tandem with the spending cuts the Dems were offering. Specifically, the GOP was requesting that the Bush tax cuts lasted beyond 2012. Obama has pushed for the continuance of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class before, but the Republicans required that ALL of the tax cuts, including for the wealthiest in this county, are extended as well. Despite the fact that the country can no longer afford them. And despite repeatedly and vociferously preaching debt reduction. The basic argument, as far as there is one, is that taxes upon the wealthy impede growth and the economic growth is really the only way we can pay down our national debt. Classic Trickle-down economics (aka Reaganomics).

There are NUMEROUS problems with this theory, but I'll try to contain myself as much as possible. First and foremost, if this is the case then WHERE THE EFF IS THE MOTHER EFF'N GROWTH YOU GODDAMN MORONS? (Looks like my Caps Lock got stuck. Whoops.). This is not some hot new theory that Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie hatched at a slumber party being all GOP young guns and such. As the name suggests, the Bush tax cuts have been around since the presidency of, wait for it... you ready?... I don't know if you are, but here it is... George Walker Bush. Yet the growth hasn't come.  Now, I guess, the plan is to maintain the status quo and hope beyond hope that the spirit of the Gipper makes it all better? These tax cuts have taken billions from our revenue stream and, along with two unfunded wars, helped mightily in bringing the US into the situation we are now in. Despite GOP mythologizing, even President Reagan raised taxes when it was necessary to keep the US economy on an even keel. You do not stand on orthodoxy when the country is reeling; you find solutions that work (such as spending cuts + increased revenues = balance; yes, that would be Personal Finance 101- Your Checkbook).

Additionally, and lastly (thankfully for you), the current talk of tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations spurring hiring and ACTUAL growth through capital investment, R&D, new products, et al., is just a steamy load of horse manure. As today's NY Times points out, many companies, currently sitting on enormous amounts of cash, are not reinvesting that money in ways that would ACTUALLY help the economy grow. Rather, these companies are artificially approximating growth by instituting share buy backs,which push up the earnings per share. This is accounting legerdemain being used to simulate growth. The truly sad part is that investment in research and development would, eventually, help a company ACTUALLY grow. It just requires taking the long view. And in lies the rub. The short term artificial growth helps executives hit required earnings per share/growth numbers and, thus, get performance based performances attached to those numbers. Likewise, usually top executives making these decisions hold a large amount of stock in the company and can directly benefit from these buy backs. This is, clearly, a potential conflict of interest but courts give a wide amount of latitude in business judgment. Unless there is a clear breach of fiduciary duties, the games continue. All tax cuts would do is grow the pile of money that corporations are sitting on and help those running those companies get richer while paying lower tax rates. Sounds totes fair, right?

So, in other words, shit is eff'n crazy pants to the max. I can only hope that the POTUS sticks by his promises to veto any attempt to roll back the automatic spending cut trigger and a full extension of the Bush tax cuts. It may take some brass ones but, considering our current political environment (those federalists/anti-federalists were lil schoolboys comparatively), this may be the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Dope v. Hope

First off, apologies to my six or so faithful readers for my absence. Last week was a busy one and the blogging dropped off. I was appropriately shamed, however, so I hope to make up for it in the coming week(s).

60 Minutes ran two segments highlighting two individuals, Grover Norquist and Christine Lagarde, that could not be more different in my mind. They both are clearly very intelligent people but people who utilize their intelligence in very different manners. Grover Norquist, of Harvard and HBS, has formed a a libertarian advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, whose "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" has held Republican congressman hostage for decades. Even in his short 60 Minutes segment, Norquist comes across as the dorky kid in high school that got a taste of a bit of power and now clearly revels in the fact that he has the rich, popular kids come to kiss his ring. He wisely deflects questions about being a tool for corporate interests and not divulging his supporters by stating that he is looking out for the American voter, despite the majority of Americans supporting tax increases. Long story short, I think he's a scourge on the American electorate and he gives me the willies. Christine Lagarde, on the complete opposite hand, is my homegirl. She was the first female chairman of Baker & McKenzie, a massive international law firm, then became the first female minister in charge of economic affairs in France, and just recently became the managing director of the IMF. Clearly she's one bad ass mofo (fafo?). Unlike Norquist, she comes across as a humble, hard working pragmatists that was too proud to join an elite French law firm because they stated she would never make partner as a woman (she just walked out of the interview... bad. ass.). She called out the French worker for being too lazy, Wall Street for ignoring the coming financial crisis in 2008 and now calling out the entire global financial industry for not accepting regulations quickly enough.

I'd recommend watching both segments and making your own decisions but I think many of the problems in the US exist because people like Norquist have too much power and  not enough people like Lagarde do.

Music Video Mondays

Because Bradley Nowell died too young, because it is a good song and because Tiny Lister is a scary dude.

The Hot Mic Heard Round the World

In what has been variously labeled a horrible gaffe or a fleeting glimpse of the truth, depending on who you are talking to, President Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were overheard speaking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a less than flattering fashion at the G20 summit. Their off-the-record discussion was on a microphone that was, unbeknownst to them, live at the time. A small group of reporters in a different area heard what was said and, despite an initial reluctance to report on a private conversation, the facts eventually leaked out. According to Reuters, the conversation went as follows:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

To me, this doesn't seem like the biggest deal in the world. I mean, Netanyahu seemed to go out of his way to go on an Eff You Obama tour of the U.S. on his last visit. Not the biggest surprise that Obama might not be his biggest fan. Around Congress, however, the histrionics are going to be turned up to 11. This will be especially true at the GOP debate tomorrow evening where, I can only imagine, the POTUS will be accused of treason for daring to speak (mildly, kinda, sorta, in a milquetoast way) ill off the Israeli Prime Minister. In some circles, to say anything remotely negative about Israeli means that you are a filthy anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizing, puppy kicker. Or, at the very least, not a Christian.

Personally, I don't understand the knee jerk support of Israel on ALL issues, ALL the time. Or why a modern, developed, (relatively) wealthy country would receive more U.S. foreign aid than any other country. Like any relationship, the U.S. and Israel should have a give and take (instead of Israel being the abusive boyfriend the U.S. won't leave). Maybe the leaking of this conversation will make Israel re-think its recalcitrance, but I doubt it. Especially when a large number in Congress go out of their way to support the Prime Minister of Israeli while taking shots at the President of the United States.

UPDATE: See link for a well put analysis by Sully.

Music Video Mondays

Because it's Weezy F. Baby, and the F. is for favorite.

A Beautiful Legal Mind... Getting Clowned

Recently (somewhat), Jack Balkin, an esteemed Constitutional Law Professor at Yale, Dean Don Durkett look alike, and blogger at the eponymous Balkinization, wrote a post that suggested that the Occupy Wall Street movement co-opt the strategy of the Tea Partiers and make their point in light of the Constitution. Specifically, he feels that their struggle should couched in terms that reflect Article IV's "Guarantee Clause," which, essentially, guarantees a republican form of government. In his estimation, the OWS movement is arguing that our system of government is broken and no longer truly republican as corporate interests and the "1%" have taken over (i.e., we have an oligarchy, I guess).

Anywhooo, this brought a response from Tim Zick, a former professor of mine (not at William and Mary and who I did not particularly like) in the Concurring Opinions blog (I SWEAR this is the last dorky legal theory plug I'm plugging today). Prof. Zick argues that if OWS really wants to become a Constitutional movement, it has to look no farther than the Preamble. In his own words,

“We the People“ . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” 

These fundamental principles seem to reflect what the protesters are most concerned about.  This is a nascent populist movement.  I’m sure if they were polled, the ”99 percent” would embrace the notion of a ”Republican form of government.”  But they would embrace that principle because it is supposed to produce ”a more perfect” union, justice, tranquility, general welfare, and the “blessings of liberty” across generations.

As much as it pains me to say this, Professor Zick seems to nail it dead to rights and totally clowns JB. What the hell is happening? My world is getting turned upside down. (Pardon the coming legal theory nerd out) Professor Balkin is getting clowned by Professor Zick? This follows his former co-blogger Marty Lederman leaving for the Office of Legal Counsel, after years of beating the Bush administration up for expansion of executive powers, and promptly okays the targeted assassination of a US citizen in a secret memo. The same OLC that is basically continuing the expansion of executive power started by Bush is now headed by former Yale Law Dean Harold "Hanju" Koh. Harold, bro, what happened to my dude who practically got into a physical altercation in regards to the expansion of executive power at a national security and the law forum? I seens it with my own eyes. We miss you...

Listen, I shed no tears over Anwar Al-Awlaki but I also cannot stand blatant hypocrisy. Jumping from criticizing, vituperatively, the Bush administration for writing secret memo for actions possibly outside the Constitution, and then turning around to do the exact same for the Obama administration? Duuudddeeessss...

(RANT OVER). On a happier note, hey there Jack Goldsmith. 'Sup buddy? How's Harvard treating you? That's coooolll. So, wanna be best friends now? Excellent! Say hello to ya motha for me.

From the Annals of Common Sense- The Sense Strikes Back...

An article in the New York Times detailed how, despite raucous clamoring from various corners for reduced corporate taxes, 280 of the biggest publicly traded firms paid about half of the official corporate tax rate. In full disclosure, the study is based on a report from the liberal leaning Citizens for Tax Justice but it is still clear that many corporations use any loophole they can find to limit their tax exposure. A money quote from the article:

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

It seems, considering the facts from this article and the GOP reluctance to raise taxes, the easy solution would be to lower the corporate tax rate, say by 10% to a total of 25%, and close the loopholes. Thus, you would not have some corporations paying 10% (or 0%) and some corporations paying 35% (the actual rate) for an average 18.5% corporate tax rate. Instead, everyone pays a lower rate of 25%, which actually brings up revenue by 6.5%. And, as an added bonus, all corporations are treated fairly with none getting screwed for creative accounting. Seems fair, no? And would satisfy both political parties, no? Getting to the meat and potatoes of the matter...

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system. 

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school — things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

Worrrdddd. Again, I do not understand why this is even an argument. You cut taxes (and give Grover Norquist a boner) while raising revenues. What's not to love? Yo, POTUS... I'm ready to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Or you can slap me into that supposed Super Committee. Whenever you're ready. Just for the record, I play ball (in terrible shape, but decent court vision... classic PG) and recently gave up cigarettes (and we can cheat together. I'll never tell. I'm like a lock box). We can do this sir. YES WE CAN!

(Image from rally requesting NoMas Paine for C.E.A. Or a random Google Images pic. None of us have any way of knowing...)

From the Annals of Common Sense...

Bi-partisan fiscal policy experts (two Democrats and two Republicans) testified in Congress in from of the so-called Super Committee on Tuesday and dropped the common sense hammer.

Bi-partisan agreement on a plan that raises $1 in additional revenue for every $3 in spending it cuts (for a total deficit reduction of 4 trillion dollars)... kinda just makes sense, no?

Hopefully the panel itself will come to its senses. This country was built on compromise and this is as good a  time as any to revisit that tradition.

Speaking of Nonsensical... 'Sup NBA Lockout

As a big NBA fan, I have been toying with the idea of a lockout post for a little while. Today, however, I came across a post in Grantland, Bill Simmons' new offshoot of ESPN, that tackled the issue better than I could.

Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).  (Emphasis added).

I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]." 

Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...

Getcha Nerd on with PBS' New Nova Series

I caught pieces of a new series on PBS called the "Fabric of the Cosmos" last night and found it incredibly interesting. Though I am in no way literate in physics or math, I find it all very interesting and will wrap my head around the little that I can when it comes to string theory, quantum mechanics, quarks, higgs-boson, black holes and anti-matter. Dr. Greene is very engaging and the material is presented in a (somewhat) accessible light. I would recommend the series, which stretches over 4 weeks starting yesterday, for anyone interested in this material.

Oh, no one else? It's just me? Ok, groovy... I'm just going to sit in this corner with my Greene and Kaku books now. Thanks.

David Frum Flips the Script on the Euro Crisis

As noted first by Sully, David Frum has an interesting take on the benefits Germany derived from the Euro and how it had a deleterious effect on the rest of the Euro-zone. Essentially, the currency manipulation inherent in the Euro made it so that Germany became the Euro-zone's lender and many countries (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain... sound familiar?) racked up an enormous amount of debt because interest rates were so low. On the other hand, because Germany had changed to the Euro and no longer had the Deutsche Mark, there was no currency appreciation in Germany that would have negatively affected their trade surplus, retention of corporations and unemployment. Basically. Germany was able to continue to grow on fundamentals while the rest of Europe built castles in the air supported by massive amounts of loans from Germany.

Not to take away from the foolish behavior of the other countries (the Irish built like a they were dru... nevermind, Greece's public sector and taxation was/is a bloody mess, etc.), but I think it's an interesting take on how Germany should cop to their complicity and stop playing the victim.

(Image from the Economist)

Surprise, Surprise... The Joint Deficit Reduction Committee Ain't That Super

The (self-proclaimed) non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (it's level of partisanship has been debated), released a study the other day on the proposals presented by the democratic and republican members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was put together in the crisis averting, debt ceiling raising deal this past August. Not all that surprisingly, the republicans on the committee still stick to the formula that it is all about spending cuts, with no additional revenue. Y'know, the Jack and the Beanstalk economic plan... plant the magic beans, wait for growth and then get your golden eggs (and much like Jack and the Beanstalk, it's a goddamn fairy tale). They also go rogue on the baseline for their estimates bu assuming that the Bush tax cuts continue (y'know those tax cuts that have been around for almost a decade but have yet to lead to one iota of economic growth) while every other estimate supposes that they expire. This is in clear contrast to Senator Max Baucus' plan, which proposes some revenue increases but that also requires significant spending cuts; including deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, that plan was quickly rejected by the republican members of the "Super Committee."

If the POTUS cannot take advantage of republican intransigence and differentiate between the fairy tales offered by the GOP with the compromise offered by the democrats, I don't know what to say. I guess that would prove, once and for all, that BOTH parties are completely incompetent.

EDITORS NOTE: I use y'know faarrrr too much. Don't worry, I'm working on it. Just so y'know.

The Applicability of the RICO Act to SAMCRO (A Study in Extreme Nerd-dom)

Ya, that's right. I'm doing an analysis on the legal applicability of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original (SAMCRO) as shown in the fictional show (I am not completely convinced it is not a documentary) Sons of Anarchy. Wanna make something of it?

Sons of Anarchy, in my humble opinion, is a WAY underrated show. Led by the acting chop filled troika of Ron Perlman (Hellboy), Katey Sagal (Everything, EVER, and Married With Children), and the painfully under-appreciated Charlie Hunnam, who killed it in Green Street Hooligans (drama) and in the Judd Apatow created show Undeclared. Not to mention that it features a motorcycle club, the IRA, Shakespearean overtones in the first season calling MacBeth to mind, the IRA, a season in Ireland, copious amount of fight scenes, and the IRA (sorry to pull a Peter King... I think the spirit of my great-grandfather slipped in there somehow).

Annyyywhhooo, this season features an overzealous Assistant U.S. Attorney who is trying to take down the Sons, as well as some other gangs, a Mexican drug cartel and the Real IRA, by putting together a large and interconnected RICO case (I'm not even gonna get into the pressure put on Juice. Suffice it to say, almost none of the evidence he gives is admissible in court). Using RICO became popular in prosecuting the mob, and thus in pop culture, because racketeering is defined so broadly If you are in an enterprise that is engaged in a pattern of illegal activity, from robbery/murder to neighborhood "protection/loan sharking/neighborhood lotto, you are in violation of the RICO Act. "Pattern" is also broadly defined as two or more acts in violation of the act, at least one after the enactment of RICO and one within 10 years of prosecution. Clearly, SAMCRO would satisfy these two requirements. The Asst US Attorney also nails what they would need for RICO on the show which is, needless to say, pretty impressive for a television show. Further, the broader reasons for pursuing RICO charges on SAMCRO are also valid as both the Galindo drug cartel and the Real IRA would clearly be co-conspirators that could likewise be charged under RICO if evidence of the co-conspiracy was presented. This would be pretty easy in regards to the drug cartel but much more difficult with the Real IRA, which is why the Asst US Attorney is stepping up pressure on Juice for info pertaining to the IRA/SAMCRO meet up.

Basically, Sons of Anarchy did a good job this season of illustrating why the motorcycle club, not to mention their gang/cartel/RIRA cohorts, has something to worry about. I am now through with my over-long geek out. Please don't judge me...

As Per Usual, I Can't Say It Better Than Sully

I'm sure he does not enjoy me calling him Sully, repeatedly (because clearly he reads this blog regularly), as if I was his best friend (I WIISSSHHH) but I have to give him props for his always on point analysis of the American political process. He has been particularly good, lately, at expressing why the POTUS hasn't been getting nearly enough credit, as outlined in this post.

We are very similar in that we have complimentary view points and he is a much, much better blogger than I. So you should probably stop reading this and head over to the Dish now. Seriously, what are you still doing reading this? Ridiculous...

Music Video Mondays

Because this video just plain makes me happy...

And He Pulls Another Brooks!

Ahh, David Brooks... you never cease to amuse me. He went ahead and pulled a Brooks in an opinion piece yesterday by, as he is wont to do, making some very salient and important points but washing it all away with his larger and wrongheaded take-away. CLASSIC Brooks!

Good Point: Inequality between those with and without college degrees in middle America is just as important, if not much more important, than the inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 99% that you see on the coasts. Further, those without college degrees are more likely to live unhealthily, get divorced, have children out of wedlock and not encourage their own children to go to college. This is clearly overlooked in the income inequality debates and is important to recognize and reinforce.

Wrongheaded Take-Away: Just when you think he might be killing it with important and pertinent points, he goes all Brooks on yo ass with this gem:

But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.

If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.

Good point David! 'Cept when, y'know, you make it an either/or decision. The point that is making so many people angry is that the GOP holds it to be self-evident that there should be no tax increases and that any attempts to balance the budget must come from cutting spending alone. Including, especially, exactly the type of spending that would help with things like those looking for a college education or those who might need some sort of social safety net behind them as they try to raise their kid as a single parent in the middle of the country. How about, instead of this false equivalence, we agree that we need some degree of SMART spending cuts while also increasing taxes on the most fortunate amongst us? Would that not both tackle the red and blue inequality? Some times things make way too much sense to ever be enacted...

When Is Just Showing Up Enough?

In an opinion article comparing India's anti-corruption hunger striker, Anna Hazare, with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, there was the following quote:

“Occupy has been, to my mind, an engaging movement, and it’s driving home the message, to the banks, to the Wall Street circles,” Bedi said. “That’s exactly the way Anna did it. But we had a destination. I’m not aware these people — what is their destination? It’s occupy for what?”

I’m prepared to celebrate when the Occupiers — like the lone hunger artist of India — accomplish something more than organizing their own campsite cleanup, demonstrating their tolerance for tear gas, and distracting the conversation a little from the Tea Party. So far, the main achievement of Occupy Wall Street is showing up.

Though I agree that many (most?) of the OWS protesters are not completely sure of what they are trying to accomplish, at least partially because there are so many voices that want different things, why is a unified goal necessary? What if the main achievement of showing up is just what is necessary? Despite not accomplishing much in the eyes of the media, the conversation for the better part of a month has been OWS, what it means, what they are trying to accomplish and how it stems from dissatisfaction with the banks and political system, and the bailout without proper regulation following, etc. The fact that these issues have been forced into the political debate, and into the wider public eye where the general sentiment behind OWS is widely supported, is an accomplishment in and of itself. As anyone in the Northeast knows, the fact that so many people are still camping out in Zucotti Park, despite NYC not allowing generators or heaters, means that even if there are a multitude of beliefs about what their movement means... they believe in them wholeheartedly. Moreover, it also means that the discussion on OWS in the media and political circles is not going away anytime soon. And maybe that is exactly the accomplishment we need.

I Know Obama's Not in a Band, But It's About Time for Him to Toot that Horn

I already apologize for the terrible pun above, but it is what it is. There has been a lot of discussion (primarily by Andrew Sullivan for me) about Barack Obama's perception problem. That is, not enough people seem to realize how much he has actually accomplished despite near historically bad circumstances. I am not going to rattle off them all but just a few of the greatest hits include Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare for those who've been donning your colonial Halloween concert since January), Dodd-Frank (financial reform), ending DADT, ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki (constitutional questions aside... though I think it was JUST on the kosher side of the line), and the flowering of the Arab Spring and ending the Libyan regime (circumstances of Quaddafi's death aside). Ok, I rattled off a lot of them, but a pretty impressive laundry list of accomplishments if you ask me (which I assume you have since you are on my blog).

Despite all of the above, you still see quotes like this: 

But where Mr. Bush successfully cultivated an image as a decisive leader in a way that sharpened the comparison to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dowd said, Mr. Obama could have trouble drawing as sharp a contrast.

“The value that the American public is looking for is a strong and decisive leader at a time of anxiety and challenge,” Mr. Dowd said. “In order to make the contrast, you have to have that value yourself, and Obama doesn’t have it.”

Really Matthew Dowd? Reeaaalllyyy?!? You have the POTUS whipping out some brass ones to take out OBL and Al-Awlaki but he won't be able to contrast against Mitt Romney, who might as well campaign with his finger always to the wind? (I only bring up Romney because if he can't beat Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul then I do not know what to say). (I do not bring up Huntsman because he might as well be a democrat at this point. I like him too much for him to even sniff a Republican primary win). Undoubtedly, the poor economy will be thrown out as where he won't be able to contrast, but what is a man to do? He tries his best.

But I stray from my larger point. The reason why the President's accomplishments can be pooh pooh'd is because he seems almost embarrassed to stress how much good he's done in such a terrible environment. Fox News and far right bloggers/commentators have been able to hijack the conversation and mislead the public. I am far from the first to say this (again props to my boy Sully), but Obama and his people need to get a hold on their own narrative. It is starting to happen now, but it needs to happen quicker and more authoritatively. Come on Prez... I'll shit a brick worse than after a Godfather's pizza pie if Cain gets elected. Hook me up!

Just Because...

Patrick Swayze is awesome. PBR is awesome (don't you DARE call me a hipster. $10 for 24 bottles in college. I developed a taste way before it was co-opted). Put them together and you get this amazingness...

A Martial Attitude Against the Courts

An article in this part Sunday's NY Times highlighted the GOP Presidential hopefuls' view of the judiciary. In short:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”

Additionally, Gingrich went on to suggest that national security officials ignore Supreme Court cases and that federal judges could be subpoenaed to explain their decisions. As the article mentions, demonizing of the courts has been part and parcel of Presidential campaigns for a number or years. These recent suggestions, however, are, legally speaking, f'ing crazy pants (you'll just have to trust me. It's a term of art). Rick Perry's suggestion is clearly unconstitutional, as judges are supposed to "[...] hold their offices during good behavior," but the others are no less dangerous. As I assume (hold your tongue about assumptions... HOLD IT) that all of the candidates have a high school education, they should be familiar with the concept of checks and balances. With said familiarity, one would think that a candidate for chief executive would find such politicization of the judiciary to be frowned upon. Personally, I simply find it unbelievably scary when people use a nod to the Constitution as a method to do things that are absolutely against the letter and/or the spirit of the document (not to mention how infantile, idiotic, puerile, un-presidential I find it). Say what you want about Mitt Romenybot, but at least he has refused to jump in the deep end of the crazy pool where his fellow nominees are playing Marco Polo Marco Polo.

Tunisia Crashes the Islamist(-ic?) Party

Tunisia held it's first post-Ben Ali election yesterday and, in preliminary tallying of the vote, the islamist (-ic?; they can't seem to decide) party Ennahda won a plurality of the votes. This news will undoubtedly lead to many getting their Opus Dei issue self-flagellating panties in a twist as, naturally, any political party that identifies mainly with Islam will eventually suppress their people (because the Tunisians will probably stand for that...) and, probably, attack America's interests. Try to ignore that hysterical shrieking my faithful readers (I'm confident that there are at least 3...booo ya) because it seems that Ennahda, much like the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey, are fairly moderate. Considering that the influence of the moderate AKP is waxing, and that of more radical islamic parties/governments is waning with the developments of the Arab Spring, the outcome of the Tunisian elections does not appear to be worrisome. Putting on the optimists cap (which doesn't fit at all and is quite uncomfortable), there is the chance that Ennahda will continue to follow in the footsteps of the AKP and create a new paradigm for governance in the Middle East. The process seems to be underway as Ennahda immediately began working on creating a coalition government with two more liberal political parties. According to Ennahda's founder, it "is not a religious party and claims no special authority in interpreting Islam. Instead, he says the party's members merely draw their values from Islam." Despite all the above, I am sure the far right (read: all) of the GOP will be having a fit about this. I mean your religion informing your values and thus politics? Whoever heard of such a thing?

Are the J.-E.-T.-S. Grounded?

Even though the Jets finally got a big win over the Chargers, certain people still think so. Watching the game, however, I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling about how the rest of the Jets' season will go. Shonn Greene finally got the run game going and the secondary, especially my future best friend Darrelle Revis, looked pretty good. That being said, the offensive line still looked way sketchy, despite the return of center Nick Mangold, and Sanchez was rushed a number of times, including on an interception returned for a touchdown on the first drive. The run defense continued to look shoddy giving me the feeling, in a, sadly all too normal for me, ridiculous bout of overconfidence, like I could rush for 5.0 yard per carry against them. Disconcertingly, there were a number of unnecessary penalties indicative of an undisciplined team. It was enough to make me feel like I was back in the bad old goddamn Jets days. A lot will be learned coming off the upcoming bye week. The Jets need to win at least one of the two games following the bye against the Bills and Patriots if they are going to shift from pretenders to actual, official (kinda, sorta, maybe, hopefully) contenders. And, if not, at least the Knicks will starting playing soon. What's that? There is a good chance the NBA season will be canceled? Ehhhhh... at least Brett Favre is gone.

Music Video Mondays

Because Monday's are bad enough without music videos. Enjoy...

Nein, nein, NEIN!

With a nod to Stephen Colbert, I have to object to the new GOP candidate fad of introducing a flat tax. Clearly this stems from the Hermanator's recent surge in the polls due, at least partially, to his 9-9-9 flat tax plan. Though these candidates try to paint these plans as a "fair" tax because everyone would be paying the same rate and loop holes would be removed, the truth of the matter is that just about any flat tax would lead to a massively regressive tax system that would negatively impact the lower and middle classes. On the flip side, as you go up the tax bracket, the benefits of the system get greater and greater. The United States could clearly benefit from a simplified system of taxation but, especially with a mind towards our current economic situation, there should still be an eye towards fairness. A system of taxation that leads to a precipitous drop in revenue while disproportionately effecting the middle and lower classes would seemingly have a devastating effect on an already strained economy. If House Republicans are so worried about class warfare, maybe they should consider buying dinner for the least fortunate in this country  before trying to screw them...

EDITORS NOTE (spoiler... Editor is just me): Rick Perry unveiled his "flat tax plan" which is a completely optional plan that has the added bonus of not simplifying the tax code at all since no one has to choose the flat tax. Basically, the lower classes can continue paying their current taxes, the upper classes get a tax cut by choosing a flat tax, and spending somehow goes down by 10%. Yaaaa, sounds like its going to work like gangbusters to me! Kudos Governor Perry.

UPDATE 2: Perry's all about the 1%, yo.

Steve Jobs (RIP), Real Life Seer

An enormous amount of attention has been, quite deservedly, directed at Steve Jobs' life and work since his (way too early) passing earlier this month. One interview that has been making the rounds is his 1985 interview with Playboy. The entire interview is incredibly interesting, inspiring, et al., but I was struck by one exchange in particular...

PLAYBOY: You mentioned investing in education, but isn't the problem finding the funds in a time of soaring deficits?
JOBS: We're making the largest investment of capital that humankind has ever made in weapons over the next five years. We have decided, as a society, that that's where we should put our money, and that raises the deficits and, thus, the cost of our capital. Meanwhile, Japan, our nearest competitor on the next technological frontier—the semiconductor industry—has shaped its tax structure, its entire society, toward raising the capital to invest in that area. You get the feeling that connections aren't made in America between things like building weapons and the fact that we might lose our semiconductor industry. We have to educate ourselves to that danger.

This interview took place in 198-motherfracking-5 mind you. You can replace semiconductors with any number of industries over the past 20 years and see a recurring problem. Presently, if you replace Japan with China and semiconductor with Green Tech, you see an ineffectual US government that never learns anything and thus constantly repeats history. I can already foresee complaints about huge Chinese subsidies and feel the ruptured eardrums from people screaming SOLYNDRAAAA!!! at me, and they certainly have a point. On the flip side, however, those same people are not agitating to try and change the situations. Sure, the Chinese subsidies are overly generous, but the US' are not nearly generous enough. This is an area where we need to compete or we will just continue to cede our hegemonic position (if we already haven't). The US has an issue with debt because of a decade of huge defense spending, driven by two wars, and large tax cuts based upon a failed (repeatedly) economic theory. A problem that has existed (with some relief in between) since  198-stringofcursewordstoovulgartoprintsufficetosayonestartswithaC-5. How about we start looking at a way to change the situation and invest in things like education and green tech? Hmm kay? I mean, c'mon, WWSJD?

On Occupy Wall Street and "Inside Job"; Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Financial WMDs

There is a lot of discussion on all sides of the political debate about what is exactly going on in Zucotti Park with all the tree hugging hippy crap. They are either a potentially unruly, anti-Semitic mob fomenting class warfare or a group of unfocused kids with legitimate issues who need to publicize their demands and specific legislative goals. These guys and gals really cannot catch a break.

Though this is hardly groundbreaking and has been stated by others before, I think what they are protesting is quite clear and I think a main issue was presented quite clearly in the 2010 documentary "Inside Job". The film examined the causes and aftermath (or, rather, the continued consequences) of the Great Recession. Personally, I found it very interesting but thought that it went a little heavy in the demonization of Wall Street. Specifically, the attempts to link risky investing behavior with wide spread cocaine use and fun with high priced hookers after hours, on the banks' dime, were patently ridiculous IMHO (I know many i-bankers and cannot say I've see that once). What "Inside Job" nailed though, and what I think is the main issue for many, many OWS protesters, is the incestuous nature of Wall Street, the government and academia. In theory, Wall Street is supposed to be both a self-regulating body as well as regulated by government agencies with those in academia providing an additional, unbiased, check. In reality, all of these are interrelated with government officials moving back and forth between government and banking and professors at eminent educational institutions such as Harvard and Columbia making large sums of money writing papers financed by interested parties and serving on the boards of many banks and Fortune 500 companies. Everyone has a personal interest in the status quo leading to numerous conflicts of interest that are rarely addressed (don't even get me started on rating agencies... this post is running long enough).

Considering that the Great Recession is a product of a system rife with conflicts of interest that led to failures in both outside and self regulation, it is not surprising that a mass of people (those 99 percenters) would be generally angry that any and all attempts of renewed regulation are being shot down. Dodd-Frank is rife with holes and the GOP is constantly trying to defund agencies integral to reform. The banks scream about how regulation will cut into (record) profits and a return to Glass-Steagall is seen as beyond the pale despite the fact that it prevented such recessions for the better part of 60 years (more on this in the future most likely). It's enough to make anyones blood boil.

Long story short (well, not really), 1. watch "Inside Job" (as long as you take some of the rhetoric with a grain of salt) and 2. everyone should give the OWS protesters a break. They have some legitimate beefs and they are expressing their constitutionally protected right of (peaceful) free speech. Only hostage takers make demands ('Sup Mitch McConnell?).