Stumped

Obama and McCain weigh in on Afgahnistan in the latest issue of Time. Both sound confident, and uninspired.

After Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s op-ed pieces in the July 28 issue of Time, I’m struck by how utterly uncreative each candidate’s proposed ideas are.

McCain wants do a surge, a la Iraq. Obama wants to shower the common folk with money, and use extra troops to go after Taliban/al-Qaeda types hiding out in the border areas along Pakistan. Even the Time author, Rory Stewart, offers little in the way of truly surprising thinking: he wants to develop at a local level and build from the ground up. In my opinion, none of this will work.

If it were up to me, I’d stop worrying about the ENTIRE country, and just focus on a Kabul. I would secure it, make sure the water is clean and the electricity runs, impose secular thinking (Islam can hang around but it would not be the only game in town), and generally transform the city into a beacon of modern culture. If Afghans still want to live in caves in the mountains and grow opium, let them. But for those who want to partake in a more evolved culture, a culture that values individual and personal freedoms (including religious freedoms), a culture that generates wealth and continually raises its standard of living, well, they would be embraced by Kabul. Would the Taliban try to terrorize it? Indeed. Would the cavemen still grubbing for worms and water in Afghanistan’s mountain villages envy it? Yes. Would it be Islamic, in that the law of the land would be from the Koran? NO. Would it be Western? Yes. Think of Wet Berlin, broadcasting to the dark, backward, gloomy East, and think of the effect it had. People could SEE a better life, and they wanted it. That’s what Kabul should be, The West Berlin of Afghanistan.

With such a strategy, we wouldn’t need 100,000 soldiers, although I suppose lots of firepower would be nice for the first year or so. Instead, we would create a ring of protection around Kabul, preventing people from coming and going freely -- unless they were headed to the States or Europe directly from Kabul. Drones would fly continuously over a 50 mile-wide ring around the city; drones would coordinate with satellites and other observational machinery to detect unrest. There would be official routes into the city, starting from 50 miles out. If you were not on these routes, you would be suspect, pure and simple. Anyway, you get the picture, Kabul would be a free zone, and the focus of all of our energy. Get it working, and make sure Afghan’s play a key role and feel real ownership, and you would truly have something. Let the Taliban rot in their caves, for all I care.

Now that Fannie and Freddie have been nationalized, we can all breath easier, right?

Not so fast. Uncle Sam's decision to nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be the beginning of something much worse than what has happened so far. When the Feds take over a business, that business ceases to be efficient. And while some folks might think that inefficiency is okay, it's not. Ever. I challenge my billions of loyal readers to submit a single of example of a business that works better because it is inefficient. And because we're talking mortgages here, I'm going to say that the time frame for determining whether a business has been inefficient but better for it is 30 years.

So, what we're facing now is a future in which two, bloated mildly efficient companies will become more bloated and less efficient. Great.

What the hell is wrong with letting banks make home mortgages without being able to pawn off those mortgages onto Fannie and Freddie? I mean, really, why is that so bad? At the very worst, it would mean that buying a house becomes more expensive, so fewer people would own homes. And what's wrong with the that? Unless you buy the argument that home ownership creates a more productive society -- which I don't -- there is no real reason to make sure every idiot can buy a home.

One last rant: Pardon me, but over the last several years, a LOT of people have made ungodly sums on real estate. Going forward, there is no way to sustain real estate's growth rates; they will slow, or even reverse. More important, the last decade of real estate appreciation was unprecedented. Never before in our history had housing gone up so rapidly and broadly. It was a bubble folks. It popped. Stop being so damn greedy. Let's say goodbye and move on.

Why is anyone surprised about the Fannie/Freddie fiasco?

As politicians of all ilks -- liberal and conservative alike -- fall all over themselves to assign blame for the credit mess, I wonder anew at the shear magnitude of their willingness to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

Let's get this straight folks: the government is to blame for our current credit predicament, no one else.

First, in setting up Fannie and Freddie, the government distorted the risk of home mortgages and in doing so, changed the way these mortgages were valued. How? Two ways: one, I don't care what anyone says, the notion that Uncle Sam backs Fannie and Freddie is clearly true, so investors buying debt from these companies assumed a lower level risk than really existed; and two, Fannie and Freddie are not required to keep as much cash on their books as banks, so their risk cushion is thin and hard.

Really, that's about it. Not hard.

Of course, whenever the government is involved, you can always dig a little deeper into a mess and find more dirt. In my opinion, two other factors drove the credit market to the brink:

1) Federal oversight of Fannie/Freddie and banks in general was clearly lacking. I mean, it's not like regulations weren't in place, it's just that the government was too lazy to enforce them;

2) Tax laws around home mortgages are ridiculously generous, a fact that inflated the real estate bubble. How generous? VERY. Not only does Uncle Sam let you deduct interest and property taxes, he also lets you keep ALL of your gains up to $500,000 if you're married, or up to $250,000 if you're single. Uh, THAT'S INSANE. In the stock market if you invest like this, first you pay MORE interest becasue you are buying more than you can afford and need to pony up for the risk you're taking on, and if you succeed, you pay full boat on capital gains. No wonder every one pulled out of the stock market in the early 2000s and jumped into housing. Now we're simply paying the price.

What. The. F*&K? A professional, unbiased look at Bush's supposed intention to use the CIA to disable Iran's nuke program and a few alternative ideas for how to deal with the problem.

Seymour Hersh, a big shot journalist, has written that the Bush Administration is upping covert operations in Iran with one ultimate goal: to gain enough intelligence to allow for a successful bombing of Iran's nuclear capability.

I, for one, have zero faith that the operation will be successful. The CIA is a bunch of arrogant, overpaid, inexperienced thugs who think they are smarter than anyone else, but who base their beliefs on nothing at all. According to the book "Legacy of Ashes", which I'm reading right now, the CIA has never had a single success. And even the ones it counts are questionable. Take Iran I, for example, when we overthrew the elected government and reinstated the Shah. First off, given what I've read, it's pretty hard to say for sure that the CIA was ever in control of events; things just worked out. More important, the Shah was a weak-willed person, who just wanted to live large and die large and happy. Now, weak-willed people love to rule by fear, because they don't ever want a fight. The Shah was no exception, and with his secret police he fomented enough hatred of the US and of himself, that Iranian students ultimately took Americans hostage and created the Iran we know today, a theocracy of thuggery, run by hypocrites and psychos, just like every other country in the Middle East (sorry, it's true).

Aside from incompetence, another reason I think the CIA/US will fail, is that Iran, from what I've read, has learned from its past mistake, when it built its nuke facilities in one spot. Nowadays, things are spread out among multiple underground installations, some real, some fake. Without top notch intelligence capable of delivering up-to-the-minute wheres and whens of Iran's nuke activities, there is no way to either plan our bombing campaign or measure its success. No, given the fact that Iran has spread out its facilities, the only way to go about this is just to bomb them all, and even then, without a way to measure, we still might not be sure we got much of anything. Or am I missing something? Would there be trace radioactivity from destroyed stockpiles? I suppose.

So let's say that's our plan: gather the locations of all of Iran's nuke installations -- real and fake -- bomb the utter crap out of them, and then measure radioactivity to determine our success. Is that really the best we can do? What's more, given that our forces are already stretched thin, are we ready for the Iranian hordes? Are we ready for radically stepped up Iranian efforts to run terror operations in Iraq? I seriously doubt it.

You know, what this all comes down to for me is failure of "imagination", which is how the 9/11 report ultimately judged why the Twin Towers fell, the Pentagon got hit and flight 92 went down for reasons we will never truly know. Once again, we are showing very little imagination in dealing with our enemies. Make no mistake, Iran is a threat and a nuclear Iran is a grave threat. I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket, Iran's mental president and ayatollah puppet, appears to be the real deal: a Göring-like soul willing to reach the very depths of depravity and vileness to carry out his masters' orders. He's got to go, there's no question. But I just don't believe that bombing Iran is the most creative and best idea possible.

For what it's worth, here are my ideas:

1) Bombard Tehran with iPod minis, all loaded with cool music, some western, some Arab, all good. Think of the dissent this could sow!

2) Partner with Al-Jazeera to do a Radio Free Middle East type thing, that promotes, if nothing else, representative governement, and not the tired monarchis and theocracies of old.

3) Figure out a way to give out copies of the the book Infidel.

4) Create photo books showing how mixed US culture is, how packed it is with people wearing turbines, with dark skin, light, etc. Distribute the book in Iran to show them that we are not all old whilte guys.

5) Elect Brack Obama. Imagine you're some young Arab thug, cleaning his AK and tightening his sister's suicide vest, when suddenly, the TV crackles with info that Barack Obama is the new US president. He looks kinda like you, his name is kind of like yours, he's not a Blue Blood. "Damn," you'd think to yourself, "Those Americans are nuts, but I like 'em".

What the HELL is the matter with John McCain?

MacAttack recently denounced the Supreme Court's ruling that prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to seek release in civilian courts.

What a bastard. And a fool.

His point,of course, is that the guys in Guantanamo are enemy combatants and therefore not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Uh, ever heard of innocent until proven guilty, Mac? Or does MacAttack think that the U.S. military can accurately determine who is and who is not a terrorist? Right, this would be the same military that just let a bunch of Taliban prisoners escape and that routinely commits acts of friendly fire? Look, nothing against the military, but it is NOT perfect.

What's more, why do we accept Guantanamo? It's like a Nazi concentration camp -- not a death camp, mind you, but a concentration camp where enemies are 'concentrated', so they can be 'watched'. Or it's like those camps we shoved Japanese Americans into during WWII. Now, I know what you're thinking, you're thinking that these terrorist thugs are not U.S. citizens, so who gives a shit if we kill a few innocents for every real bad guy we get? I GIVE A SHIT. This is wrong and paints us as hypocrites, taking away any notion that America is good and doesn't torture people like dictators. As a country, we are FOOLS to endorse behaviors that sink us to the depths of our enemies. MacAttack should know better. Actually, he probably does, but he's so determined to be Prez, he'll do anything. How pathetic. Mr. War Hero -- and, no doubt, John McCain is, er, WAS a hero -- is now just another sad sack of spineless gel groveling for votes.

Why is a Barack Obama, a man of seemingly sound judgment, spouting economic B.S.?

Barack Obama proclaimed today that what our economy needs is an immediate injection of $50 billion greenbacks to get back on track. Really? What's the U.S, economy worth, $12 TRILLION? Right, so Obama thinks that all we need is less than one percent more in our aggregate economy and we're all gonna be just fine. What a crock. Further, where do you think that money comes from? Yup, the economy. No wait, it's even worse. It comes from debt. No wait, it's even worse. It comes from foreign debt. No wait, its even worse. It comes from foreign countries that don't even like us much. Oh, man, this aggravates me. Worst of all, Americans are dumb enough to buy what Barack is selling. Allow me to break it down: let's say you got a raise of less of less than one percent, would you be stoked, would it change your outlook? Yeah, didn't think so. Now lest you think I'm agitating for a restrictive monetary policy and for the government to clamp down on spending during a down economy, I'm not. But what we need from politicians is an idea -- or even better, ideas -- that will lead to long-term economic growth. The stimulus package should be something that encourages new business ventures and risk taking, you know, the stuff that underpins our $12 trillion dollar economy in the first place. But trust me, if Obama were to get all pro-business, the Dems would pine for Hillary. How sad. How truly tragic that the party offering the best shot for helping the U.S. get back on a path of social progress -- free speech, women's rights, racial harmony -- should be so against the very thing that brings such change: economic opportunity and, yes, wealth. And to think Barack went to Hahvahd. Ah crap, that's his problem. He is a product of academia, not economia. No wonder he thinks that ideas that sound good on paper -- sort of -- could work.

Why do Dems want an Obama/Clinton ticket? WHY?

I was staggered today --  STAGGERED -- to see this article on CNN about how Democrats want an Obama/Clinton ticket. Sure, I get it, the Dems think they can get Obama's supporters AND Hillary's, but I doubt it. Further, MUCH FURTHER, with Hillary you get Bill -- like it or lump it -- and now, if you're Obama, you've got a very tough situation to manage. Bill will insert his nose everywhere, and because he's a former Prez, you just can't ignore the guy if you're Obama. So now, instead of just managing a relationship with one running mate, Obama would have a manage a relationship with two. To make matters even worse, the Clintons have a much bigger machine than Obama, so who would really be on top? And last, but most certainly not least, Hillary ran a disorganized campaign fraught with angst, anger, animosity and mistrust, while Obama's operation stayed on point and ran smoothly. Should Obama and Clinton seek to combine operations, it would be like Mercedes and Chrysler, and we all know how that worked out. No, Obama needs to tell Hillary it's over and he needs to run his own candidacy.

Can Iraq be "won"?

I truly believe that before anyone runs off and declares war on someone else, there must be a clear definition of victory. Iraq One had this quality: to push the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Iraq Two does not have an equally clear-cut goal, or at least I didn't think so. The other night, though, I was talking with my Dad about Iraq Two and happily pontificating that the US government could not define victory, but he disagreed. His point was simple: victory will be an elected government that actually runs the country without our help. I had to concede, because that is truly a clearly defined goal. Whether it's achievable or not is another story, but at least it's clear and simple; not as clear and simple as Iraq One, but not bad, either. So now the question becomes, "Can we achieve this?" I guess I think we can if the Iraq's really do want to take responsibility for their country and deal with the chaos inherent in democracy. I think they will at first, but in time, they will revert to a dictatorship, and we will have spent all kinds of time, money and lives for nothing. Maybe, just maybe, though, seeds will have been planted and next time the quest for democracy in Iraq will come from within, the only place it can truly come from, in my opinion.

Why does the CIA exist?

I suppose the answer to that question would go something like this:

The CIA exists to gather information about individuals, groups and countries who seek to harm the US, and to use that information to stop these people from carrying out their plans.

 

Not a bad mission, I guess, but I defy anyone out there to name a SINGLE beneficial achievement of the CIA.

Bay of Pigs? Disaster.

Vietnam? Disaster.

Cold war? Totally ineffectual.

Iraq I? Useless.

Afghanistan? I agree, at the start of the war, the CIA seems to have played a part in helping the US work with local warlords to fight the Taliban, but to what end? We're STILL there. We're losing. And we have no exit-strategy.

Iraq II: Useless

Now, someone might point out the that while the CIA's successes are secret,  their benefits are surely felt. If so, WHAT benefits? We're fighting two wars, both of which are Vietnam redux, we live in fear of attack (or at least some of us do), and drugs (we're fighting a war on them, too, remember) are as popular as ever.

In my opinion, the CIA is fundamentally un-American (secret? off books budgets? engaged in off-shore prison operations? WHAT IS AMERICAN ABOUT ALL THIS?) and ineffective (see above). 

So, why does the CIA exist? Because no one in Washington has the political will to try to kill it. They'd rather let it kill us.

More on this later.

John McCain's healthcare idea is good. Almost.

In today's papers, there are articles outlining MacAttack's healthcare proposal, and while I certainly agree with some of his thinking (national plans, more individual responsibilty), overall his plan lacks a solution the one thing holding back the whole industry: groupthink.

Here's what I mean: right now, our system works if you have a job with a big company that provides a solid healthplan. Smaller companies can't negotiate plans quite as good. And for individuals, supposedly the bedrock of America, our system forces them to take what they can get, assuming they can even get anything, i.e., have no pre-exisitng conditions.

WHY AREN'T PEOPLE MORE UPSET ABOUT THIS?

Seriously, it's discriminatory, right? I mean, right now, if you have a pre-exisiting condition, but work for IBM, you're good. If you have a pre-existing condition but work for yourself, you're SOL. How can this be constitutional? Hmmm, well, I guess it gets back to that sign we've all seen in various gas stations: We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone. Except it doesn't, because in the IBM scenario, the insurer doesn't get to refuse service to the poor bastard with cancer.

I do NOT think that the answer is a nationalized system, but I do think that health insurance has to be mandatory, and that if you want to sell it, the quid pro quo, is that you have to offer it to anyone. Period. Would this be hard to swallow for our current system? Hell yes. Would it adjust? Hell yes. Because even under this scenario, there would be a lot of money to be made.

I gotta think about this more, but somehow the answer lies in the notion of a natural monopoly, a la a power company. For example, here in SF, in exchange for the right to a monopoly over Northern California's power distribution market, PG&E has to except strict limits on its profit margin. Could healthcare insurance work this way? Maybe. In California, I would propose three insurance providers, one for the north, one for the middle, one for the south. They would all be subject to the same profit limits, and because regulators could look at the performance of each business, bloat would be limited, since the businesses would would be measured against one another for efficiency.

Hmmm... and before you go chastising me for the mess that was power in California, remember, that was the result of bad policy, not deregulation. It was painfully simple, as I understand it. The power market was split into distribution and generation. Prices distributors could charge were capped; prices generators could charge were not. As a result, during peak demand periods for power, distributors could not raise prices, but generators could. Gee, guess what happened. Distributors took on huge debt to buy power they HAD to buy, while generators raked in huge profits. It was IDIOCY, pure and simple.

Okay, over and out.