fake consultant's Blog

On The Costs Of Care, Or, You Don't Want Every Item On This Menu

2009-06-16T03:49:13Z

On Torture And War Crimes, Part Two, Or, Dr. Addicott And I Find Common Ground

2009-05-30T06:06:47Z

When last we met, Gentle Reader, it was to work through a series of legal precedents and statute law; the goal of the exercise being to determine if we could or could not define waterboarding as torture.

We have the kind assistance of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, who has provided us with his written testimony from his recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a personal interview, where he walked me through some of his thinking on the matter.

Today we're going to take a look at the precedent that he has used to reach the conclusion that waterboarding is not torture.

It's also possible that the analysis may result in the discovery of a bit of common ground...but as I noted in Part One, it's common ground that neither one of us might have seen coming.

]]> yesterday:

Dr. Addicott wants you to know that waterboarding is not torture.

He relies on the argument that since the "Five Techniques" ("Wall-standing", "Hooding", the application of excessive noise, sleep deprivation, and the withholding of food and water) used on Irish prisoners by the United Kingdom were found not to be torture by the European Court of Human Rights, and waterboarding is not worse than the five techniques, it logically follows that waterboarding is not torture.

Although waterboarding might be cruel, inhuman, and degrading, Dr. Addicott would remind you that legally, torture requires severe physical pain over an extended, but unspecified, period of time.

He also notes a lack of lack of legal precedent specifically defining waterboarding as torture in either US or international courts.

I asked Dr. Addicott why 18 USC § 2340 (which defines torture, in part, as "...an act...specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and defines "severe mental pain", in part, as "the threat of imminent death...") wouldn't be the definition of torture that should apply.

His basic responses were that the alleged acts took place overseas to non-US citizens, therefore there is a jurisdictional issue; and that a lack of specificity in the statute males it unclear whether waterboarding would be torture.

Here's how he expressed it to me:

"Those are words, those are descriptive words...that only find meaning when we have a court define what that means; that's the whole problem with our Anglo-Saxon tradition, is that you have words that are put out in statute but what, you know, what does "severe" mean, what does "prolonged" mean, is it five minutes, is it 10 minutes...is it four drops to the head, is it three drops of water on your head, what does it mean?"

He also wants you to know that we do the same thing to our own military personnel who undergo "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" (SERE) training, which indicates the procedure isn't torture.

He also tells us in his written testimony that the "shock the conscience" standard should apply to define torture.

Additionally, he cites Blefare v United States (362 F.2d 870) and Leon v. Wainwright (734 F.2d 770) to suggest that coercive interrogation is already permitted under US law.

With the catch-up complete, let's have a look at Dr. Addicott's assertions.

Right off the bat, Dr Addicott does correctly assert that...

"...the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood.

168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3 (art. 3)".

...in the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights.

However, there is precedent that declares waterboarding is torture, as another international tribunal saw things a bit differently.

You undoubtedly are aware of the Nuremberg Trials, which addressed the conduct of officials of Nazi Germany at the end of World War II. A similar process took place to bring Japanese officials to account, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Here's what they had to say about waterboarding:

"Torture and Other Inhumane Treatment

The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment [euphemism for waterboarding], burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, [page number removed] suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

The Japanese Military Police, the Kempetai, was most active in inflicting these tortures. Other Army and Navy units, however, used the same methods as the Kempetai. Camp guards also employed similar methods. Local police forces organized by the Kempetai in the occupied territories also applied the same methods of torture."

Dr. Addicott feels that 18 USC § 2340 doesn't apply because the acts took place outside the US to non-US citizens...but the statute tells us jurisdiction applies if "the alleged offender is a national of the United States".

Conspiracy to torture is also a crime, meaning that those who ordered this behavior would also face potential legal liability, even if the person doing the torturing is not a US citizen.

So what about the argument that SERE trainees are subjected to the same treatment?

The difference, I suggest, is that there is no threat of imminent death when a trainee is waterboarded, which is what 18 USC § 2340 requires.

Can waterboarding actually carry the threat of imminent death?

I know someone who can tell us.

Dr. Allen Keller, MD is an Associate Professor at New York University and the founder and Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, which has provided care for more than 2000 torture survivors. He's also a member of the Advisory Council of Physicians for Human Rights.

He offered this assessment in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

"Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse."

Dr. Addicott also relies on court rulings to demonstrate that coercive methods of obtaining evidence are permissible under US law.

He points two cases for guidance. In the first, Blefare v United States (362 F.2d 870), he tells us (in written testimony) that:

"the appellants were suspected of swallowing narcotics which were lodged in their rectums or stomachs...Then, without Blefare's consent the doctor forcefully passed a soft tube into the "nose, down the throat and into the stomach," through which fluid flowed in order to induce vomiting. This resulted in the discovery of packets of heroin and the subsequent conviction of Blefare.

Unlike Rochin [Rochin v. California, (342 U. S. 165)], the Ninth Circuit refused to hold that the involuntary intrusion into Blefare's stomach shocked the conscience.

While all that is true, it's also irrelevant to the facts of the case as it appears in the record.

First, the Ninth Circuit had no reason to reach a conclusion about whether evidence was obtained from Blefare in a manner that "shocked the conscience" because the evidence that the appeal was trying to suppress did not belong to Blefare, but to his co-defendant, Donald Michel (who had voluntarily consented to the intubation that led to the recovery of the challenged evidence).

The second reason the challenged evidence was not suppressed had to do with the fact that the searches of Blefare and Michel were held to be "border searches".

This, from Blefare:

"No question of whether there is probable cause for a search exists when the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone. That the customs authorities do not search every person crossing the border does not mean they have waived their right to do so, when they see fit...Mere suspicion has been held enough cause for a search at the border."

Dr. Addicott also misstates the effect of Leon v. Wainwright (734 F.2d 770).

From his written testimony:

"For instance, in Leon v. Wainwright the Eleventh Circuit brushed aside the fact that police officers had used "force and threats" on kidnap suspect Jean Leon in order to get the suspect to reveal the location of his victim. When apprehended by a group of police officers in a Florida parking lot, Leon refused to reveal the location of his kidnap victim (the victim, Louis Gachelin, had been taken by gunpoint to an apartment where he was undressed and bound). In order to get the suspect to talk, police officers then physically abused Leon by twisting his arm and choking him until he revealed where the kidnap victim was being held. In speaking to the use of brutal force to get the information needed to protect the victim, the Court deemed that the action of the officers was reasonable given the immediate concern to find the victim and save his life."

It is inaccurate to say the Court "brushed aside" the use of force and threats.

What actually happened was that the defendant confessed twice--and it was that second confession that was being challenged.

The first confession...the one taken by force...was not admitted into evidence; therefore its admissibility--and by extension, the means by which it was obtained--was not an issue to be considered by the appeals court.

This, from the ruling in Leon v Wainwright:

"Meanwhile, Leon was taken to the police station. He was questioned there by detectives who had neither been involved in the threats and use of force at the scene of his arrest nor witnessed it. After being thoroughly informed of his rights and signing a Miranda waiver form, he gave full oral and written confessions of the crime. This entire process was concluded about five hours after his arrest...

...The totality of the circumstances in this case clearly confirms the finding that the second statement was voluntary.[4] The police, motivated by the immediate necessity of finding the victim and saving his life, used force and threats on Leon in the parking lot.[5] Hours later, Leon was questioned at the police station by a completely different group of police officers. These officers were not even participants in the surveillance team at the parking lot. Prior to questioning him the officers meticulously explained to him his constitutional rights. He specifically waived his right to have counsel present. The necessity of saving the victim's life, the different physical setting, the different group of questioning officers, and the meticulous explanation to appellant of his constitutional rights constituted a sufficient break in the stream of events to dissipate the effects of the first coercion. The challenged confession was properly admitted into evidence."

There is a question of what to do if it is suspected that torture has been committed. Here is a portion of Dr. Addicott's comment on the matter, from his written testimony.

"...those who order, approve, or engage in torture must be criminally charged. If the United States determines that waterboarding as practiced by the CIA is torture, there is no option. Under the Torture Convention violators must be prosecuted. Similarly, lawyers at the Department of Justice who approved the practice must also be prosecuted... In short, in my legal opinion, the subject waterboarding technique used on the al-Qa'eda operatives did not constitute torture and requires no binding obligation to prosecute."

With all respect to the Professor, this looks like circular logic. To "determine" that torture occurred requires a trial, as Dr. Addicott has previously noted, yet he says here there's no need for a trial because, by his determination, no torture occurred.

It also appears that his analysis on this point is factually inaccurate, in that there is no obligation to prosecute under either the Geneva Conventions or the Torture Convention. Here are the pertinent texts:

"Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee [sic] in any territory under its jurisdiction."

--UN Convention Against Torture

"Article 129

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case."

--Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

The phrase "bring such persons...before its own courts" will be a subject of controversy, so let me clear it up now. In Europe, the "court" process involves the use of "investigating magistrates" who would decide if this sort of case should or should not be brought to trial; a function that, in the US, would be handled by a Special Prosecutor or the FBI and the appropriate US Attorney, possibly through the federal grand jury process.

As you can see, there is an obligation to investigate people suspected of torture...but no mandate to prosecute every suspected offense...which means, just like in a RICO case, you can round up the lower-level "actors", convince them to "flip" on the other co-conspirators up the chain in exchange for immunity...and then you prosecute the ringleaders.

We have spent some considerable time addressing the questions around what is and what is not torture...but now we get to an issue that makes the "torture question" irrelevant.

Remember way back in Part One when I asked you to keep that "cruel and inhuman treatment" phrase in the back of your mind?

And remember the European Court of Human Rights ruling that called the "Five Techniques" cruel and inhuman?

Well, guess what?

If a prosecutor can demonstrate that waterboarding is not torture, but merely "cruel or inhuman" (a standard that only requires "serious" mental or physical pain, not the "severe" standard required for torture)...that's a "war crime", as defined by the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 USC § 2441(d)(1)(B)).

And those who commit a war crime, it turns out:

"...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

And that's where we get to the point that Dr. Addicott and I finally reach some common ground:

Maybe torture prosecutions are bad policy.

Especially when it's easier to prove a war crime than it is to prove torture.

Once again, we have come a long way to get here, but let's review it all before we finish:

Dr. Addicott and I differ on where we should look for a definition of torture.

Despite the language of 18 USC § 2340, he does not feel there's jurisdiction to prosecute under the US Code.

He does not feel waterboarding is torture, but he acknowledges that the "Five Techniques" are "cruel and inhuman".

There is precedent in international law to draw the conclusion that waterboarding is torture which Dr. Addicott did not note in his written testimony.

Because waterboarding does create the threat of imminent death and does cause severe and long-lasting mental problems, I feel it is also torture as defined by US law.

Dr. Addicott proffers legal precedent to support his position that the use of coercive techniques does not violate US law...but when you actually examine the texts of the rulings he cites, it appears that he either misunderstands the rulings or misstates their application to this question.

He also testifies inaccurately when he asserts that all cases "determined" to be torture must be prosecuted...firstly, because of the circular logic of "determined", and secondly, because the two pertinent texts simply don't read the way his testimony reports they read.

But all that said, it turns out that even if waterboarding is somehow not torture...that it does not cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"...it appears highly likely that the technique causes "serious physical or mental pain or suffering"...which, mirabile dictu, is the legal standard for proving a war crime.

Which leads us to the one point upon which we both agree: there should be prosecutions.

Prosecute under 18 USC § 2441 or treat it like any other "organized crime" case: start inviting "parties of interest" to flip on their co-conspirators, immunize the cooperative...and if a judge and jury decides it's the right choice, people are going to have to go to prison.

So there you go: we started out questioning how torture is defined, and we ended up at a place where, because of the War Crimes Act, that definition become less relevant, a bit of common ground might have been found, and in the search for that common ground we've discovered a better way to ensure that justice can be done.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I want to offer a hearty "thank you" to Dr. Addicott for taking the time to talk to me for this story. If we wish to do serious journalism, interviewing the people in the news is critical, and I very much appreciate his willingness to make himself available during the production of this pair of stories.

WARNING--Self-promotion ahead: I am competing for a Netroots Nation scholarship, and I was not selected in the first round of voting. There are two more chances to be selected, and the voting has restarted from scratch...so even if you've done so before, I still have to ask you to stop by the Democracy for America site and click on the "Add your support" link to offer your support for me again. Thanks for your patience, and we now return you to your regular programming.

On A May-December Romance, Part Two, Or, Las Vegas, Integrated

2009-05-13T03:50:30Z

Moulin Rouge.

The mention of that name, in the right circles, brings back a flood of associations.

Among them: a famous cabaret in Gay Paree, a Nicole Kidman movie rich in costume and set design and...well, a movie, anyway; or, if you really know your films, perhaps the association is with the 1952 John Huston "biography" film of the same name.

The one association that might not quickly come to mind, even though it should: ground zero in a battle that led to the desegregation of Las Vegas.

Today's story will fill in the blanks that you might have regarding that association--and by the time we're done, we'll have covered, just as we promised last time, the 55-year history of a place that began in 1955, lasted for not quite six months, and ended just last week...maybe.

It's another one of those American history stories you never heard before, and it's well worth the telling...so let's get right to it.

]]> "Last year people won more than one billion dollars playing poker. And casinos made twenty-seven billion just by being around those people." --Samantha Bee, "The Daily Show", March 10, 2005

For those of you who missed Part One, we better take a moment to catch up:

Las Vegas, as World War II came to an end, was very much a segregated city, with blacks, who by that time were roughly 3000 of the city's total population of 20,000, literally forced to live on the Wrong Side of The Tracks (a problem that continues to create headlines even as recently as 2008).

(Irony number one: "The Tracks", or at least 60 acres of the land upon which they used to sit, are now the site of an upscale redevelopment effort ("Union Park") that Westside residents note has the potential to leave them even more geographically isolated than they were when The Tracks occupied the site. To further the irony, far more redevelopment money is being spent on the Union Park project then is being spent in the severely economically disadvantaged Westside.)

As the casinos began to become the major driver of the local economy, blacks were allowed to work on the properties, but they could not patronize the segregated casinos in which they worked.

This extended to the highest levels of worker, as even the entertainers who were brought in to work the showrooms were forced to seek accommodations in the Westside neighborhood...which is why the neighborhood's rented cottages and hotels, such as the famous Harrison Boarding House, could count among their many famous guests Nat King Cole, Lena Horne, Sammy Davis, Jr. and Jack Benny's "valet" and sidekick Eddie "Rochester" Anderson.

By the middle of the 1950s there had been unsuccessful efforts in Nevada to pass laws mandating an end to segregation in the casinos and elsewhere (oddly enough, there had never been a law requiring segregation); and it has been suggested that casinos were resistant because their customer base at the time was mainly Californians who had settled there from the Southern states, and who presumably brought their racial animus with them.

And it wasn't as if blacks were not allowed in bars or casinos: there were several on the Westside that catered to a black clientele.

(Irony number two: it's reported that among those were Jewish-owned properties, including the Brown Derby, the Cotton Club, and the Ebony Club.)

Want to see a product of Strip segregation history with your very own eyes? The New Town Tavern, who once hosted Redd Foxx and B.B. King on its now-closed showroom stage, has remained open on the Westside from 1955 to the present day at the corner of F Street and Jackson Avenue.

Which brings us to Frank Sinatra.

By 1953 Sammy Davis, Jr., and the other members of the Will Maston Trio, of which he was the featured player, were splitting $5,000 a week for their services...but they could not stay at the place they played. By 1954, Sinatra convinced Sammy to open for him at The Sands; and in November of that year The Will Maston Trio was not only making $7500 a week at the Frontier, the hotel "comped" their room, board, and drinks, and allowed them the run of the casino, making them the first black act to receive that sort of treatment from a Strip casino (although others report that Nat King Cole was actually the first, in 1955).

Later that same month, Sammy lost an eye in an automobile accident, and was offered $25,000 a week to play The Sands, along with what are described as "Sinatra-like accommodations".

In May of 1955, in an effort to "change the rules of the game", Alexander Bisno and Lou Rubin opened the Moulin Rouge Hotel and Casino on a site in between the Strip and the Westside.

Bisno and Rubin opened the property as a completely integrated facility, bringing blacks and whites in as guests and staff...and even as management and owners. Boxing great Joe Louis was both the official greeter and a partner in the venture. The great Benny Carter was brought in as musical director.

(Fun Fact: the distinctive neon signage for the Moulin Rouge was designed by one of the few women in the business at the time, Betty Willis, who also designed one of the most recognizable signs in advertising history, the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign.)

The hotel was an immediate and massive hit with visitors, who were treated to the best entertainment available anywhere: Sammy, naturally, played the room, along with The Platters, Harry Belafonte, Louis Armstrong, Nat King Cole, and Eartha Kitt, to name but a few.

But here's the thing: a major reason the place was so popular was because Sinatra, Dean Martin, and the rest of the Rat Pack would head over to the Moulin Rouge, either to put on impromptu performances or to just hang out in this newly swinging atmosphere--and suddenly, the Moulin Rouge, after the other shows on the Strip had ended for the evening, became possibly the hottest joint in the world; with everybody, and I mean everybody, heading over to see and be seen with Sammy, Sinatra, Dino, and the rest of the Pack...and of course, the "Tropi-Can Can" girls.

Things got so crazy that the Moulin Rouge added a 2:30 AM "Third Show"--but within six months, the Moulin Rouge had closed its doors; possibly the victim of mismanagement, possibly the victim of an oversaturated market, possibly the victim of policies designed to make blue-collar black patrons feel less welcome...and possibly the victim of "The Mob", who had a hand in several of the Strip hotels that were suddenly losing significant amounts of gambling business to the new hotel.

"We don't think that we, or any other hotel, should give away a $30,000 show for a Coke and two straws." --Former Riviera Hotel Chairman Morrie Mason, in "Time" Magazine, September 19, 1955

And with that, you'd think the history of the Moulin Rouge had come to an end.

In fact, there was quite a bit more history yet to come.

Throughout the '50s, Sinatra had been busy working to eliminate what he called the "national disease" of bigotry. He wrote this in a July 1958 "Jet" Magazine article, "The Way I Look At Race":

"A friend to me has no race, no class, and belongs to no minority. My friendships were formed out of affection, mutual respect, and a feeling of having something strong in common. These are eternal values that cannot be racially classified. This is the way I look at race."

By 1959, the Rat Pack was in town filming "Ocean's Eleven" and going after segregation in their own unique way. They would show up at a casino, and if the casino would not admit Sammy Davis, Jr. to the gaming floor, then they would move on to the next one. Since no one wanted the bad publicity...Sammy usually got in. (That same year, blacks and whites in Nevada were legally allowed to marry.)

Because so many people were pushing for integration, segregation was beginning to be bad for business, and something had to be done.

Even Nevada's Governor, Grant Sawyer, was trying to change the culture of segregation...and as 1960 rolled around, the NAACP was applying its own pressure.

Dr. James McMillan, leader of the local NAACP chapter, announced that he would organize a series of "sit-down strikes" in the restaurants of the Strip casinos. The day before the strikes were to begin, Oscar Crozier, representing the hotel interests, met and negotiated with NAACP representatives, Hank Greenspun, the publisher of the "Las Vegas Sun", and some assorted politicians at...wait for it...the abandoned Moulin Rouge, where the Moulin Rouge Agreement was struck, which immediately desegregated the patronage of casinos on the Strip.

"When these fellows realized that they weren't going to lose any money, that they might even make more, they were suddenly colorblind." --Dr. James McMillan

(The new colorblindness, oddly enough, did not extend to the Downtown casinos, and Binion's Horseshoe was among of the last of those casinos to desegregate.)

Over the next few years, employment on the gaming floors was also desegregated, and in 1971 the State Legislature passed a law barring racial discrimination in the housing market.

Even after all that, the Moulin Rouge wasn't through making history. The property and buildings and...casino license...passed from one owner to another, and eventually one of those owners, Sarann Knight-Preddy, became the first black woman to hold a Nevada gaming license.

The property did operate as a sort of "apartment-motel" for a number of years, and even reopened as a casino during the 1990s, but a 2003 arson fire destroyed the casino/showroom building and removed it from Preserve Nevada's list of 11 most endangered historical sites in the State.

Even then the remaining "hotel" buildings became low-income housing...until they became too dilapidated for that purpose.

And even then plans continued to float around, including an effort that seemed to be gaining momentum in 2008 to build an entirely new project on the old site...until a bad economy and bankruptcy brought that momentum to a crashing halt.

In an ending reminiscent of something that might have happened in the movie "Casino", on May 5th of this year, Olympic Coast Investments of Seattle took ownership of the Moulin Rouge through foreclosure...and on May 6th, another fire took out the remaining buildings on the site. Olympic Coast reports they intend to sell. (Luckily, the neon sign had been removed in the weeks before the fire to the Neon Boneyard.)

We have come a long way with this story, but here we are at last.

Las Vegas, we've learned, has had to deal with a history of racial segregation, and was able to break the back of that segregation through the efforts of people as diverse as local neighborhood organizers, Jewish financiers...and the Rat Pack.

That history was forever changed because one casino, for not quite six months, showed what Las Vegas could be--but as we said at the beginning of Part One, even though the casino was only open for those few months, the history it represents continues to unfold, more than 50 years later.

What happens next, no one knows...but in Las Vegas, with a piece of land and an available gambling license to work with...I wouldn't be too quick to bet that the history of the Moulin Rouge is over just yet.

Warning--commercial message ahead: I'm competing for a Netroots Nation scholarship, and I could use your support. Just head on over to the Democracy for America website, click on the "Add your support" link under "Grassroots Supporters", and offer a word or two...and with that, thanks very much, and we return you to your regular programming.

On Grasping At Straws, Or, We've Got Biden Right Where We Want Him

2008-10-21T22:12:24Z

John McCain is all excited today, because, in his mind, Joe Biden has really Screwed It Up This Time by claiming that Obama will be tested by a foreign policy challenge, that Obama will act in a way we might not immediately trust, and that we should stand by him if it happens.

Oh My God You Have To Vote For Me, is the McCain response, because we can't afford someone who will be tested in office.

As it turns out, Joe Biden is the smarter guy in this argument, a few calm words are in order...and I'm here today to offer a response that will set McCain's foolishness right back on its heels.

So let's get to it.

]]> Let's begin with the basics: what, exactly, did Biden say?

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Biden goes on to suggest Obama's "steel spine" will come through, to America's advantage, as the challenge plays out.

These words, as we mentioned above, have set the Palin-McCain ticket into a momentary frenzy...

"Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America's new president," reads a memo from the McCain campaign. "We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars. ...

"Senator Obama wont have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. ... We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction, and we have to fight for it," the statement said.

The background having been set, let's offer a bit of recent history.

In the run up to the end of the Democratic primaries and just around the time of the Republican convention there was a great clamor, in Democratic circles, for Obama to become more confrontational...to toss a lot more "red meat" to the electorate

Many may recall that Pat Buchanan was an especially aggressive proponent of this point of view--and with all due respect to Buchanan, Hillary is not the nominee...and McCain is playing from well behind.

Many will also recall that the pages of "Daily Kos" were full of the same advice...and many will recall that Democrats were among the toughest on Obama in this regard.

I would suggest Obama did not choose the red meat approach, on the one hand, because he sees that the voting public is looking for a different, less "Rovian" form of politics...and on the other hand, because he is positioning himself not just to win the election--but to govern afterwards.

As it turns out, Obama is, at the moment, ahead...and it is starting to look as though his decision to be less aggressive was the right one--even though many of his own supporters did not think it was at the time.

And that's what Biden is trying to tell us: Obama will make decisions that will seem unusual compared to what we have been used to these past several years, those who are still used to doing things as they have been recently will think the new approach is strange...and maybe even dangerous...we need to take the lessons of the Presidential elections and apply them to how Obama would govern...and we need to actively support smart thinking, even if it is unexpected, coming from a President.

Obama seems to rely upon Lincoln's model of winning elections (the "out of nowhere" choice competing against far more likely choices, lots of organization, lots of "intelligence", a restrained personal approach, and assertive surrogates); and I would encourage observers to read Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" for insight on how Obama might actually solve problems, should he take office.

Should Obama face such a test, by the way, he has Joe Biden right there, who personally knows the leaders of Pakistan, and Russia...and Palestine and Iran, to boot.

And who thinks McCain won't also be tested early in his Administration?

Should McCain face such a test, Sarah Palin will have to move to India...because that way, she can see Pakistan from her house.

So let's wrap all this up for today: Biden has uttered Truth, the McCain folks are again acting tactically by creating the "Outrage Du Jour", an Obama Administration will act in ways that are unusual--especially compared to Mr. Bush's--we should look to the primaries and this Presidential campaign for an example of how unusual thinking makes good sense...and we may have to actively remind voters of all these facts.

And of course, if McCain wins, we have to ask ourselves: in a time where we need to control Government spending, can we really afford a Vice Presidential residence in Kashmir?

AUTHOR'S NOTE: As always, the fully linked version of this story can be found at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-grasping-at-straws-or-weve-got-biden.html

On Giant Loads Of Hooey, Or, You Should See My Inbox

2008-10-17T23:12:38Z

The McCain campaign is beyond desperate, at this point, and as you might expect, the emails are full of things McCain supporters would like us to know.

I had one of those emails cross my inbox yesterday morning...and I thought to myself:
"Self...since the author of this email asked me to look up her facts, maybe I should."

So I did.

Next thing I knew, I realized I was looking at a giant load of hooey.
Follow along, and I'll show you what I mean. ]]> There's a lot of talk about Obama and Tony Rezko in this email.
That Rezko made some sort of special deal when Obama purchased his home.

Here's Obama's side of the story:

Barack Obama bought his home the same way everyone buys a home, by making the best offer the sellers had. The details are that of a normal, boring real estate transaction by a young family buying the house they expect to raise children in. A couple named the Wondisford's had two properties on the market, a house and an adjacent lot. Barack and Michelle Obama made the best offer on the house, which had been on the market for 8 months. Before the purchase, Obama asked Rezko, a local real estate developer, and for some advice on the purchase. While there, Rezko noticed the adjacent lot and decided to buy it. Neither got a break on the price, as confirmed by the Wondisford's. The Wondisford's requested to close on the same day to minimize their hassle. You can download the PDF where the Wondisford's confirm all of this here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-03/36768343.pdf

Later, Obama purchased a strip of the Rezko's property to give his kids more room to play, and he paid more than double the assessed value to avoid any claims of impropriety. The Rezko's later sold the lot to another couple who are building a house on it. And that's it. The whole thing is remarkable only for its utter lack of any drama or scandal...

This is what the "Chicago Tribune" was reporting, back in January of 2008:

JAN. -- Between Jan. 15 and Jan. 23, Obama submits three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23. He told the Tribune that he does not recall when he learned that Rezko was interested in buying the side lot, or how Rezko learned of the sale. But Obama raised the possibility that he was the first to bring the lot to Rezko's attention. The senator's campaign provided a copy of a previously released e-mail from the sellers. In response to questions from the Obama campaign, the sellers agreed that they "did not offer or give the Obamas a 'discount' on the house price" because Rezko paid their asking price for the yard.

"[Quoting Obama:] Tony asked me during the course of one of these conversations why I might not be interested in buying the lot and keep the property intact. And I said that, you know, it wasn't worth it to us to spend an extra $600,000 or so on a lot next door when Michelle and I were really interested in the house. So, he said, 'Well, I might be interested in purchasing the lot.' And my response was, 'That would be fine.'

"And my thinking at the time, and this is just to sort of flag this, this is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment. Where I could have said, 'You know, I'm not sure that's a great idea.' But my view at the time when he expressed an interest was that he was a developer in this area that owned lots, that he thought it was going to be a good investment. And my interest, or my motivation was here's somebody that I knew who, if this lot was being developed, it'd be better to have somebody who knew, who I knew, who you know would give me schedules, keep me apprised of what was taking place and so forth. So I didn't object."

The email then goes on to make implications that because Valerie Jarrett, who might be Obama's number one advisor (after Michelle) was born in Iraq, she is somehow a threat to National Security, and, presumably, that Obama is either a terrorist for knowing her...or, somehow, under terrorist control...

"Vogue" Magazine disagrees:

Jarrett's unlikely, unusual, unsumupable childhood began in Iran, where she was born in 1956. Not unlike Obama's being "from" Hawaii or "from" Indonesia, that fact in and of itself is more misleading than it is illuminating. Her parents, both of whom are in their 80s and still working and writing and who live a block away from Michelle and Barack, are academics. Her father, James Bowman, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago and an internationally recognized geneticist and pathologist, is from Washington, D.C.; her mother, Barbara, an expert on early childhood development, has deep roots and a big extended family in Chicago's Hyde Park. In 1955, the couple moved to Shiraz, Iran, where they stayed for six years as part of a program that sent American doctors to developing nations. When Valerie, their only child, was five, they moved to London for a year and then resettled back in Hyde Park, a neighborhood that has historically been a bit hoity-toity and one to which the Obamas have now brought a whole new level of cachet and bragging rights.

More about Jarret's "terrorist" past:

She comes from a long line of "firsts": Her maternal great-grandfather Robert Robinson Taylor was the first black person to graduate from M.I.T.; he became an architect and the vice principal of the Tuskegee Institute. Her mother's father, Robert Rochon Taylor, was a pioneer in public housing who was the first black man to head the Chicago Housing Authority, in the forties. Her father not only was the first black person to be given a residency at St. Luke's Hospital but also was the first to be tenured in his department at the University of Chicago. "Every summer my father did research in population genetics, which required him to study diversities of genetic-based diseases across the world, and so we would spend summer vacations traipsing across Africa," she says, as one of her two BlackBerrys vibrates on the granite-topped table we are sitting at with a delivered deli lunch. "One summer we went from Ghana to Nigeria to Ethiopia to Uganda to Egypt and then back to Iran. We would be out in the countryside visiting different tribes, and my father would draw blood and I would help get the syringes together. We spent a lot of time in Mexico, and then we'd go back to England. So it required me to be able to straddle a bunch of different cultures and worlds. It made me comfortable talking to anybody at a very young age, and because I was an only child I spent a lot of time with adults."

The email goes on to claim that "The Times" reported Obama advisor Robert Malley was "fired" because of his contacts with Hamas.

That story seems to be entirely wrong.
The actual facts?

Here's what "The Washington Post" had to say back in May of 2008:

An informal Middle East adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign resigned Friday after a newspaper reported on his regular meetings with members of the Hamas militant group.

Rob Malley said he wanted to stop being a distraction for the campaign after facing attacks from the blogosphere for months for allegedly being anti-Israel, a charge he denies. Malley is a former National Security Council aide to President Bill Clinton who is now with the International Crisis Group, a nonpartisan conflict-resolution think tank.

Malley's departure comes at a sensitive time for Obama, who appears to be nearing the Democratic nomination but has struggled to win the support of Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Hamas, which won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, refuses to recognize Israel and is dedicated to its destruction.

In reporting analytic reports he wrote for ICG, Malley would interview Hamas officials, as well as Israeli, American, European and other Palestinian officials. The reports, which made clear he had met with Hamas, feature recommendations for key players in the peace process. Malley said he informed the State Department before he met with Hamas and then briefed State afterwards on what he had learned.

"To do my job, I have to meet with savory and unsavory people," he said.

But Malley said that after he fielded a call this morning from the Times of London, which asked about the Hamas meetings, he decided he had had enough. "This was a distraction for me; this was a distraction for them," he said Friday night. "It is absurd, but that is what this campaign is about." (The links were added to the story.)

Yes, folks, you heard that correctly.

In order to learn about Hamas, so that he could inform the State Department about how to develop smart policy to deal with Hamas, which was his job, Malley actually took the time and trouble to talk to people involved with Hamas...and then Obama actually asked him to tell him what he knows, from time to time, so that Obama would, you know, know what he's talking about; and all of that is, apparently, frightening to the McCain campaign.

And yet what did McCain tell David Letterman just last evening? That part of what he would do to catch Osama Bin-Laden would be to improve our human intelligence capabilities in Middle Eastern countries.

My friends, I could go on and on about this for another 2000 words; but instead, I'll offer you an allegorical story that makes the point for me.

Imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer.

Would you prefer an oncologist who is so offended at any scientist who looks into a microscope at cancer cells that he refuses to even associate with such an individual...or would you prefer an oncologist who calls up a researcher over at the National Cancer Institute to ask that world-renowned expert, who has offered advice to this oncologist before, what to do about your case?

I know who I would pick...and I bet a lot of you would make the same choice.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: As always, there are embedded links I could not display here, so a fully-linked version is available at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-giant-loads-of-hooey-or-you-should.html

On Economic Recovery, Or, They Got The Bailout, So Why Aren't Things Better?

2008-10-14T02:41:48Z

Every morning lately, we have turned anxiously to the news to see if financial markets are in freefall...and some days, they actually are.

Governments across the world have responded over the past two weeks--including a massive commitment by the United States Treasury that is, to say the least, highly controversial to the American voter.

As this is being written markets are opening in Asia. At the moment things are somewhat stable, and except for Shanghai and Taiwan, they're heading upward. During the writing process, Europe has opened, and there are gains there today as well.

The US credit markets did not open today (although the stock markets did) because of the Columbus Day holiday--but anyone who recalls Mr. Dow's Wild Ride last Friday is quite nervous ahead of the Tuesday opening.

Despite all that bailout stuff we're hearing about, confidence doesn't seem to be returning to the markets. Why?

Excellent question, Gentle Reader, and I have a few helpful answers.

]]>
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

--Groucho Marx

"Counterparty Risk" is a phrase you may be hearing bandied about lately...and it's a fancy way of saying: "I don't want to do business with you because I'm afraid you'll go broke and leave me hanging".

The idea behind Treasury purchasing assets is to remove "risky" securities from the system, so that banks and other investors, who will no longer be holding the riskiest assets, can trust each other again ("counterparty risk is reduced" would be the fancy way to say it), and, hopefully, commercial lending can begin returning to a more "normal" state.

The thing is, this does not happen overnight. The US Treasury must first hire asset managers and a "custodial banker".

Asset managers might advise Treasury on how to value individual assets they seek to purchase, they might advise on the purchase process itself, and in situations where case-by-case decisions need to be made, they'll likely be the one working those problems. Treasury's role here is likely to be a policy-setting and supervisory one, leaving the asset manager to...well, manage the assets.

Custodial bankers provide the "clearing" and "custodial" tasks associated with these types of purchases. They physically hold the securities certificates in a vault somewhere, they provide the services associated with receiving new assets and transferring sold assets to new buyers, and they provide information about the assets and their income streams.

How soon will all this happen? The Treasury wants us to know that...

Due to the paramount need for expeditious implementation of the Secretary's authorities under the Act, Treasury anticipates that a number of contracts will be awarded through other than full and open competition...

In other words, this is moving ahead at high speed...and the estimates I hear suggest the first asset purchases might occur as soon as November 1st.

This could be done in a couple of ways: buying the assets directly from the asset holders, or "reverse auctions" where Treasury buys assets at the lowest price offered, then keeps paying more until they reach the limit of what is to be spent in that auction.

Repeat the process over and over (buy $100 billion today, the same next week, and on and on) and pretty soon taxpayers own the assets, and, hopefully, things get better.

Another way to reduce counterparty risk: guarantee interbank lending. If JP Morgan lends $500,000,000 to Bank of America overnight, and either goes broke, Treasury would pay the other party. This is not likely to cost the taxpayer much--in fact, I can't recall a situation ever where payment on these guarantees would have been required.

The goal of these guarantees is not to have to cover losses...instead, the goal is to make both parties more confident in each other, which would, hopefully, lower the all-important LIBOR rate that controls not just lending between banks, but also the rates you pay for your credit cards, adjustable rate mortgages, and personal and commercial lines of credit (which are all based on "LIBOR plus something").

The Treasury is also authorized to buy stock in banks, and it looks as if they are preparing to do that as well. The reason they would do this is to provide immediate cash to banks that are today, essentially, broke. The US version of this program, for the moment, appears to be voluntary, and would presumably involve purchases of preferred stock, which may give Treasury a better position to get our money back if the banks fails--or it might not, particularly if a bank fails because they had a "run" on deposits (a "run" means everyone wants their money back all at once. Think "Miracle on 34th Street").

This offer would come with some sort of restrictions on "executive compensation" and some degree of political risk--for example, how will Congress and the American public (of whom most are taxpayers, and a few are actually voters) feel about Treasury directly owning companies?

Greek philosophy seems to have met with something with which a good tragedy is not supposed to meet, namely, a dull ending.

--Karl Marx

The enormous unknown in all of this is what prices will be paid for these various assets. This could be a series of prudent investments that generate taxpayers a decent return over time...or it could become a giant process of rewarding friends and punishing enemies that does the taxpayer more harm than good.

Public vigilance is going to be mandatory going forward...and the willingness of Treasury, in the next Administration, to be open and transparent about this process will be crucial.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is authorized to raise the insurance limits on US bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000...which means those of you with $100,001 to $249,999 in the bank will be sleeping better tonight. (This should actually help small businesses, to be fair, and it should be at very little cost to the taxpayer, as banks--up until today--have rarely failed without someone else taking over the deposit accounts.)

Next, a few words on forced asset sales. If you have a 401-K or other money market asset, you may have chosen to take your money out rather than chance losing it. Lots of others have made the same choice, all at once. These are companies that tend to have less cash and more "assets at work". As a result, many of the companies in this business are being forced to sell some of those assets to pay you back your money.

Here's a rule of markets: when you're selling into a falling market, or you must sell today, no matter what the asset, you will get less than you wanted--and probably less than you need. Both have applied to many companies these past few weeks; and as they sell assets at bargain-basement prices, it drags down the Dow and the NASDAQ averages...along with averages all over the world.

Part of the idea of injecting assets onto the books of asset holders is to stop this forced selling (which may stop the Dow from falling 600 points daily)...but keep in mined that "injecting assets" means "buying stuff"; and all the cautions regarding pricing we talked about a few paragraphs ago directly apply to this conversation as well.

The "Money Market Guarantee Program" is also intended to help resolve this problem by providing temporary Federal insurance on those deposits.

Short selling, which allows you to make money off future declines in stock prices, has been blamed for exacerbating the problems of rapid price declines (rightly or wrongly, we don't yet know), and is currently under restrictions in the US. Those restrictions, at some point, will end...and the effect on future prices is, today, unknown.

"Mark to market" rules require companies that are trading assets to mark them at some "fair value"--and in a time of frozen markets, those asset values might turn to zero. This has caused great pain for asset holders, who are trying as hard as they can to end the fair value requirements.

Those with a sense of history will recall that these rules were established because of abuses that led to the last Savings and Loan Scandal...and there will be a great fight over this issue, in this Congress and the next, as well as enormous lobbyist pressure on the next Administration.

So that's where we are: the Dow is moving wildly according to how much risk is perceived to be out there, the credit markets, even more so.

Coordinated efforts over the weekend and over the next few weeks may have stabilized the situation...or at least that's what today's markets are telling us.

There will be asset purchases and direct investments made over the next few weeks--and the prices paid will determine whether this is a "taxpayer positive" deal or a giant taxpayer hustle.

When someone on CNBC or Bloomberg says "Treasury has to overpay for assets for this plan to work"...watch your wallet. If that same someone wants us to pay "hold to maturity" values? Well, that is a virtual guarantee the taxpayer will not make money--and it probably means we won't break even.

There will be efforts to change regulations. My personal opinion: short selling gets more abuse than it deserves, and mark to market the same. Keep 'em both, but since they can both be abused, regulate 'em carefully.

Finally, the most important question of all: will the credit markets begin to thaw?

Credit markets in the US open tomorrow, but today's activity in the European and Asian markets (and the US equity market) suggests good news--and from a LIBOR perspective, things have been worse--but we're a long way from the easy money of 2004...and that's probably a good thing.

UPDATE: A quick thanks to pragprogress over at DailyKos, who reminds me that the short selling ban was lifted last Thursday; which has had a currently unknown effect.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: As always, the fully linked version of this story is available at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-economic-recovery-or-they-got.html

On Political Robots, Again, Or, Let's Visit Uncanny Valley

2008-10-09T04:10:45Z

So the second debate is in the books, my friends, and it seems that McCain is not getting out the message as well as he might wish.

I have no doubt that some of the problem is related to McCain’s policies as he presents them...but to be completely honest, there may be an additional factor.

To put it as bluntly as possible: McCain looks a little...creepy.

And it’s not just me: The Girlfriend was mentioning how creepy he looked in the debate as we talked about it this morning. Ask around, and someone might describe him that way to you.

Why is that so, how is this observation going to affect McCain going forward; and most important of all...how does this connect to the Burger King and the design of video game characters?

To help answer the question, let me introduce you to Dr. Masahiro Mori.

In the 1970s, Dr. Mori, a Japanese roboticist, used psychological research to develop a theory that has become known as the “Uncanny Valley”.

To make a long story short, Dr. Mori compared human emotional reactions to various human and cartoon characters...and corpses...and created charts to display the various intensities of reactions to the movement and appearance of the characters and the corpses.

As it turns out, Mori’s research suggests humans react in a similar emotional manner to near-realistic human representations and corpses. In both cases, the emotional response seems to be revulsion.

This research has practical applications: it is reported that ASIMO, the humanoid robot developed by Honda, is intentionally designed with a blank face in order to avoid the Uncanny Valley problem. The design of artificial limbs is also impacted by this phenomenon.

(Additional research published in 2007 in MIT’s journal “Presence” seems to confirm Mori’s conclusions.)

There are some who seek to break through the Uncanny Valley barrier, most notably Hanson Robotics, with their Eva, Jules, and Joey Chaos devices.

Sure enough, video game designers use this information in their work...and now that you think about it, hasn’t the Burger King always creeped you out?

Now you know why.

Which bring us to John McCain.

Last night’s debate seemed to demonstrate a challenge McCain faces that transcends the words he says: his physical movement. He does indeed move stiffly, and he had odd gestures that detract from what he says.

But beyond that, he seems to have that weird laugh that he deploys for his own jokes...and having spent time talking to an audience—successfully and unsuccessfully—I can tell you that if you are laughing at your own jokes, you better not be the only one in the room doing the laughing.

He (and Palin) also add an odd “breathiness” to their voices when they are trying to emphasize a point, that, at least in my house, seems to be unnatural and offputting.

There’s also that smile: it appears forced. He never seems to be so much smiling as grimacing...and I don’t know that I’ve ever seen him appear genuinely happy.

And, my friends, when he gets nervous, my friends, he seems to say "my freinds" way too much--to the point where it's kind of...well, creepy.

So for today, a short story: McCain seems to be suffering from the same problem as the Burger King, and it’s not all his fault—but that having been said, it does seem to affect his ability to connect to a larger audience...and it may explain why Sarah Palin gets much better reactions—and larger crowds—when she goes out and delivers the same message to the same audiences.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: You can find a fully linked version of this story at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-political-robots-again-or-lets-visit.html

On The View From Egypt, Part One, Or, How Professionals Rig Elections

2008-10-03T15:07:57Z

It is been but a few hours since Sarah Palin took the stage to have a conversation with Joe Biden, and of course the Nation has a ton of questions. What will happen now? How will we view all this in a few days? How will it affect McCain and Obama? I don’t know...and I’m not even going to try to figure it out right this minute. Instead, we’re going to take a trip halfway across the world to a country that has been essential to understanding the Middle Eastern story, has been at the center of international conflicts time and time again...and has lessons to teach us that, if we learn them well, could make us a much smarter “Foreign Policy Nation” than we are today. The country? Egypt. So grab your virtual passport...and after we arrive, there are a few people I want you to meet. This is part one of a bigger story, and over the next few days I’m going to try to give you some recent history (well, recent for a country with a history that goes back 7,000 years...), along with an explanation of how political factions are aligned today...how some political factions aren’t even allowed to align...and a few words about the hazards of having an opinion in Egypt—even if it’s online. Included will be a critical lesson: Democracy and Freedom, which we say we support, can lead to the election of people we don’t like...and that the true measure of a democracy is accepting—and sometimes even encouraging--those outcomes, even if we don’t like them. So before we can talk about Egyptian politics, we have to talk about...Egyptian Politics. The Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt has provisions that pretty much guarantee that there will be no meaningful political opposition. We’ll go right to the Constitution itself for an explanation of how it’s done (where it appears, emphasis was added by me): PART ONE THE STATE Article 5 The political system of the Arab Republic of Egypt is a multiparty one, within the framework of the basic elements and principles of the Egyptian society as stipulated in the Constitution (Political parties are regulated by law). PART TWO BASIC CONSTITUENTS OF THE SOCIETY CHAPTER 1 Social and Moral Constituents Article 7 Social solidarity is the basis of the society. PART THREE PUBLIC FREEDOMS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES Article 47 Freedom of opinion is guaranteed. Every individual has the right to express his opinion and to publicise it verbally or in writing or by photography or by other means within the limits of the law. Self-criticism and constructive criticism is the guarantee for the safety of the national structure. Article 48 Freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship on newspapers is forbidden as well as notifying, suspending or cancelling them by administrative methods. In a state of emergency or in time of war a limited censorship may be imposed on the newspapers, publications and mass media in matters related to public safety or purposes of national security in accordance with the law. The “State of Emergency” provision was invoked in 1981 after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat—and it has been faithfully renewed by his successor, President Hosni Mubarak, every two years since, most recently in May of this year. You may have noticed that political parties are regulated by law. Specifically, it’s Law 177/2005. Below is the important language (emphasis will again be added where I think it is needed): Article 4: For a political party to be established or maintained, it shall satisfy the following conditions: ii: The party's principles, goals, platforms, policies or modalities of exercising its activities shall not contradict the Constitution or requirements of maintaining national unity, social peace and the democratic system. iii: The party's platform shall constitute an addition to the political life according to specific methods and goals. iv: In its principles or platforms or in practicing its activities or selecting its leaderships or members the party shall not be based on religious, class, sectarian, categorical, geographical grounds or on manipulating religious feelings or discrimination on account of origin or creed. VI: The party shall not pose as a branch of a foreign party or political organization. Article 7: A notice in writing shall be submitted to the chairman of Political Parties Affairs Committee stipulated in Article 8 hereof as regards the establishment of the party signed by at least 1000 constituent members whose signatures shall be officially authenticated. The members shall be drawn from at least ten governorates with no less than fifty members from each.... Article 8: The Political Parties Affairs Committee shall be composed as follows: 1- the Speaker of the Shura Council, as chairman; 2- Minister of Interior; 3- Minister for the People's Assembly Affairs; 4- three former heads or deputy heads of the judiciary bodies who are not affiliated to any political party; and 5-three public figures who are not affiliated to any political party, as members. The selection of the members stipulated in Items 4&5 shall be made by a Presidential decree for three years renewable. The Committee shall have the competence to examine and consider notices of the establishments of the parties according to the provisions of this law, let alone the other competencies stipulated therein... We will continue with the text of Article 8 in a moment, but before we do, some explanations are in order. The Shura Council is one of the two halves of Egypt’s Legislative Branch; and it serves a function somewhat similar to that of the United States Senate. Because Egypt’s National Democratic Party (NDP) controls Parliament and the Presidency, the Political Parties Affairs Committee (PPAC), who grants the license you need to form a political party (and can revoke it as well...) consists of the Speaker of the Shura Council, (obviously, an NDP member), two members of the President’s Cabinet, and six people appointed by the President. The obvious conflicts between this arrangement and what we would think of as a true multiparty system will be the focus of part two of this story...but for now, we return you to Article 8, already in progress: ...To exercise its competencies, the Committee may demand much documents, papers, data and clarifications at it deems as necessary, from the concerned parties as much time as it determines. It may also demand any documents, papers, data or information from any official or public body and it may conduct on its own or through a sub-committee of its own such research as it may deem appropriate. It may also commision [sic] any such official bodies as it may deem appropriate to conduct or study necessary to reach the truth about matters submitted thereto... Article 9: The party shall be a private judicial person... Article 11: The resources of the party shall consist in subscriptions of its members, financial support received from the State and the donations by Egyptian natural persons... The party may not accept any contribution, privilege or benefit from any foreigner, any foreign or international body or from any judicial person type even if it enjoys Egyptian citizenship. These clauses tell us that the Government’s PPAC can start it’s own investigations of any party—and that Parties are not allowed, by law, to align themselves together in coalitions. I am often guilty of going too long in these stories...so let’s get to the end of part one. Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and the NDP have created an ongoing quarter-century “emergency situation” that allows them to decide who can be a political party, that allows them to revoke the license of a party that they feel violates the rules they create...and because of the Constitutional mandate to protect “National Unity”, any political party that says the NDP is doing anything wrong is potentially in violation of the law. These rules create conditions that are impossible to satisfy, and as a result politicians, protesters...and even bloggers...are at risk for arrest and imprisonment. But that’s a story for another day—and to make the story better, when we get together next time we’ll be meeting one of those politicians in a very close-up and personal way. AUTHOR'S NOTE: As always, the fully linked version of this story is available at my personal blog, located here: http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-view-from-egypt-part-one-or-how.html

On Crying Wolf, Or, Why I Don’t Want To Give You $700 Billion

2008-09-24T22:45:00Z

As this is being written we are in the midst of the second day of testimony before Congress by Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson in support of the Administration’s proposed financial rescue package.

The basic sales pitch is that the Nation’s financial problems are at this moment so severe that the only solution is to expose to risk $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to buy assets with a currently unknown price…and to give the absolute and total power over what those valuations are, what should and should not be bought, what repayment terms will be sought—and additionally, what happens to any money recovered--to one man, Henry Paulson.

There are those who are not on board. They have critics, who continue to stress the dire consequences of inaction.

With all due respect to those critics…we have been down this road before with this Administration—and last time, they weren’t so big on telling the truth…or getting the job done effectively.

We’ll cover that ground, we’ll talk a bit about “mark to market” issues—and on a positive note, we’ll address the role of “warrants”, the negotiating power of Warren Buffett, and how the taxpayer could actually see substantial recoveries of money down the road.

So let’s start with the biggest elephant standing in the Plan’s way:

Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

This Administration flat-out lied to the American people to justify the current Iraq adventure. “Just trust us” was the basic message at the time, followed by “we absolutely know that Saddam is an imminent threat because of his Weapons Of Mass Destruction”, followed by “this will cost maybe $50, 60 billion…maybe as much as $200 billion”--which turned out to be possibly the worst estimate in the history of budgeting--followed by variations on The “I’m not the Commander-in Chief, General Petraeus is” Theme…followed by flag-draped caskets that the Administration still hides from public view.

All of this to find not one single operable WMD.

Now comes before us Federal Reserve Chairman Henry Paulson and Treasury Secretary Ben Bernanke, who tell us of imminent threat, who tell us to just trust them…who tell us that they are the most qualified people to understand the issues and take the appropriate action…and who, to top it off, must be left to the task unsupervised and uncontrolled, otherwise the plan will fail.

We are also being told that if we were just economically sophisticated enough we would understand why this plan must be put into place, and that our objections must be related to our economic ignorance.

To which I pose a question to the Joe Kernans of the world (well, one of them anyway): what if the public fully understands that the system is at risk…but we don’t trust the leadership?

(Ever watch “Sex And The City”? This would be the part where they would cut to Carrie’s laptop screen and we would see the words appear as she types them...)

…What if we think the Administration is lying?

I have heard so many lies from the President and his advisors that if Jesus Christ was Treasury Secretary and Mohammed (PBUH) was Chairman of the Federal Reserve I would have doubts about this proposal.

Back in March, Paulson (who, it turns out, is not a Deity) was telling us that “the worst is behind us”…meaning he either does not really understand what is going on here—or that somebody is trying to blow smoke up some unpleasant places, using Paulson as a sort of economic “General Petraeus” who is intended to divert attention from the real economic Commander-in-Chief.

So can this Administration be trusted to handle this without outside supervision?

“Trust, but verify”, Ronald Reagan used to say, and without outside oversight this proposal should be instantly dead on arrival to the Congress.

This might be the most critical issue surrounding this entire plan…and we must demand Congressional oversight. This is far too big a process for any single individual to manage—and too big for any single branch of Government, as well.

Go watch this satirical slap at Bernanke from a wannabe Bernanke.
It’s hilarious—and revealing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJTqCbETog)

That issue resolved, some economic education is in order:

What, you may ask, is “mark to market”?

Holders of assets are required, for accounting purposes, to report the value of those assets based on what they are worth at the current time. Normally you do this by seeing what “the market” thinks your asset is worth—something that is fairly easily done if the asset is, for example, your house.

On a larger, corporate scale, this marking to market each accounting period can cause the state of your company’s balance sheet to lurch around and gyrate from time to time—sometimes violently…which is the source of much complaint from corporate interests, but for the most part, it all works out. Recently, it has not.

The challenge in today’s economic environment is to figure out what an asset is worth when no market exists for that asset.

Banks are holding quibzillions © of dollars worth of paper that represent streams of mortgage payments that will continue for years into the future…but some unknown number of those mortgages will not be repaid.

The concerns about what can be repaid (or not) and who is holding how many of these “nonperforming” loans has caused virtually all the normal buyers of these kinds of assets to run away in fear, which is the simplest way to explain the “credit crunch” we hear so much about.

The Paulson proposal is based on you and I buying some portion of those assets, today, from the current holders and reselling the assets later. This will allow banks and other institutions to begin making loans, and will hopefully create the confidence needed to induce investors to again buy “pools” of those loans from those banks…after which, the lending cycle begins anew.

The hoped-for outcome, from the perspective of ordinary mortals such as you and I, is to minimize any losses to the taxpayer…or maybe, if we get lucky, generate a profit.

The hoped for outcome, for the current holders of these assets, is to minimize their loss.

So how do you decide what price the taxpayer will pay for these assets?

Picture, if you will, a $100 US Savings Bond. If you bought that bond today, it would cost you $50, and in 17 years the US Treasury will pay you $100, representing the interest income to you from that loan to the Treasury.

The “hold until original maturity” value of that bond is $100.
The “mark to market” value, if you’re “marking” it the day you bought it, is $50.

If you became convinced the Treasury might not pay back the loan, or all the interest, you might sell the bond for less than the original $50, just to recover something from the deal.

That process will work as long as someone else is willing to believe the bond will be repaid, and is willing to put up enough money on that bet to get you to sell.

If no buyer can be found, your bond’s value becomes either “unknown” or “zero”, your personal assets decline—and maybe, down the line, your credit score is affected by some small amount.

Picture that on a massive, quibzillion © dollar scale, and you can see what is happening in the mortgage market today—and to the investors, all over the world, that hold the debt from our collective mortgages.

When the Treasury prepares to buy a CDO or some other mortgaged-backed security from an investor in the near future, Paulson will have to decide, with no help from any market mechanism, if that paper is worth the “hold to maturity” value, zero, or somewhere in the middle…and he has no way to know if the pool of mortgages he’s buying with our money will be 100% repaid, 0% repaid, or something in between.

This issue will be one of the most contentious parts of the entire deal (and the most ripe for abuse…as it would be very easy indeed to reward friends and punish enemies in a system with no oversight), so watch carefully to see how it plays out.

Hint: when asked about this today, I heard Bernanke answer that he expected the Treasury to pay prices similar to what are seen “…in a more normal market…”.

Another satirical video: “Damn, it feels good to be a Banka”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKN9-9TQcU&feature=related

What’s a warrant?

It sounds all technical and tricky, but actually it’s not.

Warren Buffet invested $5 billion dollars this morning in Goldman Sachs, and as part of the deal he got the right to purchase up to $5 billion in Goldman Sachs stock, at a time in the future of his choosing, for $115 a share (roughly 43.5 million shares). That right is referred to as a warrant.

At this moment, the stock’s last trade was at $130.48. The difference between $115 and $130 is the current available profit to Buffett if he were to “execute” this warrant right now (which is just over $650 million profit in less than 12 hours)…but it’s not the maximum potential profit executing this warrant might bring.

In November of ’07 Goldman Sachs traded at $250 a share…and if Buffett is able to someday execute the warrant at that “strike price” (fancy technical term) the profit on his 43.5 million available shares would be $5.8 billion.

When we take assets from banks and other investors with depressed stock prices, we as taxpayers need to make the same deal Warren Buffet made—we need to demand warrants, and later, sell that stock back to the market, reducing the cost to the taxpayer over the long term…and maybe even making us actual profit….which could help to repay some national debt, perhaps?

There is precedent here. In the 1980’s the US did a bailout deal with Chrysler that involved issuing warrants…and the profit to the Treasury was substantial.

This is an additional huge part of the deal…and you can bet that there will be investor stockholder groups that will lobby—and lobby hard--to stop us from getting warrants.

We need to demand that we get our cut of the profit our tax dollars create…and to do that we need to get warrants as part of these deals…so bug your Member of Congress loudly and quickly on this one.

So, for the moment, let’s recap:

If the Administration wants to sell this plan they better acknowledge that it isn’t economic ignorance that’s the issue…that, instead, the problem is the basic element of distrust that they previously created by lying about matters of war and peace and Katrina…and if you want any plan at all, this is the issue you need to fix first.

Next, we need confidence that the prices paid for bad assets are not going to be excessive, we need oversight that allows us to be confident this isn’t another typical “reward and punish with taxpayer dollars” operation; and finally, we need to demand warrants, the tool that could make this something that turns the transactions, for a change, to the advantage of the taxpayer.

If we insist on these sorts of protections we have the chance to make this at least a fair deal for the taxpayer—and maybe even a good one. After all, if Warren Buffet can get good terms for a mere $5 billion investment…imagine the negotiating power $700 billion should be able to get us.

Even without the Priceline Negotiator, we should still demand the best deal possible…and if the currently frozen financial services industry doesn’t like that, perhaps they should borrow $700 billion somewhere else.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: the fully linked version of the story can be found at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-crying-wolf-or-why-i

On Bucking A Trend, Or, Yes, Virginia, Sometimes Politicians Deserve Respect

2008-09-19T07:34:36Z

We are all guilty, from time to time, of beating up on our politicians—and why not?

It only takes a moment to think of someone we elected who immediately went “off the rails”...who today can’t even remember the promises they are busy breaking...and who can’t wait to get out of elective office so they can move on to lobbying their former colleagues.

Occasionally, however, we come across officials who are bucking the trend: working hard, dedicated to doing a good job for the voters that put ‘em in office...and doing that good job even when all around them were working feverishly to bring on indictments.

Such a politician is the subject of today’s unusually upbeat story...and with that said, allow me to introduce you to Port of Seattle Commissioner Lloyd Hara.

Who loved the movie “Pulp Fiction”? For me, the thing that made the movie was that the story was not told in “linear” time; instead bouncing around a bit, with the end eventually becoming the beginning.

Today, telling the Lloyd Hara story, we’ll do the same.

The Port of Seattle is a public agency charged with operating the water terminals within its area of jurisdiction as well as Sea-Tac Airport. It has a real estate operation which leases certain assets to tenants, is involved in efforts to improve regional freight mobility, and has relationships with certain contract providers and vendors who, among other things, make available legal and consulting services.

The Port has a CEO, five Commissioners who serve as a Board of Directors (for the princely sum of $6000 a year...), and a staff who perform the daily tasks of running a Port’s operations.

When you think of Seattle politics I suspect you imagine people who look like they could be working at Microsoft mingling with people who are squeaky-clean idealists—and I’m here to tell you that this can occasionally happen.

But it might surprise you to know that Seattle is far from squeaky-clean in its political history. In an effort to write their own chapter in the history of local corruption, former Port CEO Mic Dinsmore and certain members of the Port staff seem to have run the Port as their personal fiefdom.

It appears that lavish personal entertaining on the taxpayer’s dime was considered a personal perk, along with lavish, no-bid contracts for the consulting and legal services (who appear to have been associates of Dinsmore) that were concealed from the Commissioners...the effort to inappropriately influence Port elections is also alleged...and in the case of the contract for the “cruise ship consultant/operator”, a deal was struck that guaranteed the consultant/operator profit no matter how the year’s business turned out—and most of the profit even if things went well—despite the fact that the Port put up virtually all the assets and took on almost all the liability.

Now I’m not saying everyone involved was trying to profit off the Port, but I will say that the Commissioners, for many years, didn’t seem to be noticing what was happening...and it was probably far too easy to conceal what was being hidden, if you get my drift.

We’ll return to this story in a minute...but first, let’s jump back to a moment in Rotary Club history that also features in Lloyd Hara’s history.

Rotary International was a men’s-only operation for many years, but the door was cracking open because of a court case involving a Rotary Club in Duarte, California that eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. In 1984 Hara, as the Rotary “Governor’s Special Representative” led the formation of the Seattle-International District Rotary Club...and the club was to eventually challenge Rotary International by being the first Rotary who sought from the time of its formation to initiate women (only Duarte had women members at the time); a challenge that resulted in Karilyn Van Soest attending the International Convention in 1989 as only the second woman ever to be the President of a Rotary Club.

By 1989 Hara had already served as the youngest Auditor in King County history and was in the middle of his 12-year run as Seattle City Treasurer, earning numerous awards for the effort, including being named to City and State Magazine’s Public Officials of the Year list in 1987 (the class of five includes Dianne Feinstein, who was mayor of San Francisco at the time) and, as he tells us, named the Nation’s Best Treasurer in 1987.

He left the Treasurer job in 1991 to become the Regional Director for FEMA (back when they actually hired for competence), and he had also been teaching at Seattle University...and then in 2005 he was elected Port Commissioner (a legally nonpartisan position) on a reform platform, earning a variety of endorsements, including that of the Sierra Club. In the same election John Creighton became the second half of the “Reformist Bloc” to join the Commission.

At about the same time, the Washington State Auditor’s office was charged by initiative to, for the first time, perform “performance audits” in addition to the financial audits they had always conducted...the Port had released “incomplete” results from an internal audit of their own...the pressure from all the sudden reform caused Dinsmore to leave (leaving a questionable sudden pay raise in his wake)...and in December 2007 the State’s audit report was released—causing lots of things to hit lots of fans.

Among the things: the Commission hired a former US Attorney to conduct an internal investigation, the current US Attorney is conducting a criminal investigation, and the Commission has revoked many of the powers previously enjoyed by Port staff.

The State Auditor’s office presented 51 recommendations, new CEO Tay Yoshitani, previously Executive Director of the Port of Oakland, California joined with the Commission in moving toward adopting the recommendations...and as of August the Commission reports 45 of the 51 recommendations will have been implemented.

A new emphasis on accountability is emerging, something Hara and fellow Commissioner Bill Bryant discussed in a February, 2008 Town Square conversation.

Time for another “non-linear time” moment: in 1972 Hara was named as a respondent to a lawsuit, in his capacity as King County Auditor, in which a Mr. John Singer and a Mr. Paul Barwick sought a marriage license, which Hara, despite his personal support for the request, declined to issue—the second such lawsuit in US history.

To make a long story short, Washington State had recently adopted gender-neutral language in its statutes and regulations, and the Plaintiffs felt that the new language could be interpreted to permit same-sex marriage. This interpretation was not shared by the appellate courts, however, and Hara’s decision to reject the application was upheld.

I really began to appreciate Hara when his “Port Notes” began showing up in my email. I can truthfully say that I have never received more detailed and useful reports from any elected official...this being one example:

“Lora Lake Apartments: This complex in the shadow of the 3rd runway progressed from scheduled demolition, to a bone of contention with low-income housing advocates, to a pending transfer to King County Housing Authority, to a toxic waste site. It’s now unclear how severe the problem is, or whether the complex can ever be preserved as residential property. Needless to say, the transfer is on hold.

Eastside Corridor: After almost 2 years of negotiations, we authorized the purchase of the corridor from the BNSF and gave King County an easement for the trail. Every interested party has begun to weigh in—hikers and bikers, adjacent home owners, rail and transit interests, eastside cities and Snohomish County interests, business people and the public in general. We plan public hearings this summer and expect to broker a dual use facility of transit/rail and trail. It’s important to bring this corridor under public ownership, and the Port is probably the only government with funding capacity to make the $107 million acquisition.

3rd Runway: 20 years into the project, you may spot an FAA Learjet landing as testing continues this summer, looking forward to first commercial traffic in November. As you can see, siting a new airport in the region would be a very major undertaking.

T-30/91: We must complete the cruise terminal at T-91 in time for the 2009 season, and convert T-30 for container use shortly thereafter. Only T-91’s electrical cables are slated for reuse - not the gangway, the terminal building or other assets - so this bears watching for cost overruns.

T-25: On a 3-2 vote, we approved surface improvements for potential use as an extended container facility. John Creighton and I voted against. We originally contemplated a cold storage facility here, and I wanted to make sure the intended use was properly bid.”

—(Note: links are as they appeared in the original email)

As I said, this is far more detailed than the usual “Congressman So-and-so met with residents at the Senior Center” that I often see in my inbox—and as a taxpayer, it’s much appreciated.

All is not sunshine and rainbows, however. In 1991, Hara was investigated by Seattle’s Board of Ethics because of his relationship with Stuart C. Johnston. There were concerns that Johnston, Hara’s lead campaign fund-raiser and also a manager of City investment funds, might be inappropriately tied to Hara, who was the official responsible for overseeing the management of those same investment funds. He was later cleared of having committed any ethics violations.

Hara was fined $400 in March of 2008 by the State of Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission because his 2005 campaign failed to make certain filings in a timely manner.

Christopher Cain, who runs “The Port Observer”, was kind enough to offer this assessment of Hara and the Port reform efforts:

“Lloyd Hara runs a good campaign effort under the clever guidance of Sharon Gilpin, a campaign consultant. Effective campaigns are the key to remaining a Seattle Port Commissioner. As a Port Commissioner, and former accountant for the City of Seattle Mr. Hara has exhibited excellent qualities favorable to the public interest.

However, Lloyd has from time to time fallen prey to the old school ways of behaving badly. Numerous junkets to far off places will not make you a better steward of the public purse. Port CEO Tay Yoshitani’s handling of the accounting scandals was typical old boy club style politics and Hara has cozied up only because he wants so badly to be a part of that club. But Lloyd’s loyalty to the public must wreak havoc in attempting to balance the two relationships…

...The last few years have revealed some amazing things that have always lurked beneath the surface, but the path to change has been focused on changing public perception (as usual) and not really on how things are done at the Port. You can take the criminals out of the port but you can’t get corruption out of a system designed to be corrupt...Therefore, without someone willing to take on the establishment who understands this, all actions are futile exercises designed to get you re-elected. Lloyd understands this very well and likes to be a Port Commissioner.”

So that’s the story for today: despite what we often believe, there are politicians out there who are doing a good job for us, who have a history of working for the public good, and who like to keep us aware of where our money goes.

Not all is perfect...and some of his critics wonder if he is up for his current job...but all in all this is a politician I can surely respect, and in these times, that’s pretty good.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: As always, the fully linked version of this story is located at my personal blog.

Just click here to access the story:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-bucking-trend-or-yes-virginia.html

On Closing the Deal, Or, Preaching Beyond The Choir

2008-09-13T05:35:52Z

With roughly 50 days to go, we find ourselves more or less tied in the Presidential election, if the national polls are to be believed.

We have succeeded in motivating our base, and Republicans have, as of today, done the same.

What we are not doing very well is bridging that gap and effectively spreading the discussion to the other side...which is the point of today’s conversation.

Where can our conservative friends be found?
What do we need to know about the culture to be found there?
What should we say when we get there?

Your friendly fake consultant has been on a mission...and I have some answers.

First, about the “mission”: for the past several months I have been posting and commenting at the Pat Buchanan website. This follows up on a similar mission I undertook in 2006 and 2007 to post and comment at RedState.

It has been an educational experience, indeed...but also a hopeful one.

Right off the bat, let’s talk about the culture. As you might expect, the tone and tenor of the discussion is far different than what you see on many progressive sites...although there are Conservatives (and Maryscott O’Connor) who will remind us that we are not always as high-minded as we wish we were.

As an example, the Buchanan supporters, among other things, are particularly distressed about the impact of World Zionism and the International Jewish Conspiracy that has created Neo-Cons who...

Well, the point is that you will have to deal with this stuff.

My advice: for the most part, you are not going to be successful with frontal attacks on the local belief system. If you want to move minds in this environment, look for the areas of agreement...and look to the disconnect between what the candidates say and the reality of what is happening daily—and down the road.

Another piece of advice: show respect, even in the face of provocative language.

I can tell you it works for me...in fact, today, hardly anyone calls me a deluded bleeding-heart liberal—and that’s progress.

In this same vein, try to avoid personal attacks in these conversations. These are citizens who we are trying to speak to as people—and we are trying to show them that the Republican Party is acting against the best interests of all of us.

Which leads to my next point: the primary goal here is to reduce the personal identification of these voters as Republicans—and remind them of their own Conservative associations, which diverge considerably from the Bush/McCain/Rove Republican orthodoxy.

Another thing about Conservative culture that should be understood is that John McCain is not exactly as huge a hero figure as you might imagine. Remember the Neo-Con Jewish Conspiracy stuff? Many Conservatives see McCain as an extension of The Conspiracy...and many are just as upset about the Neo-Con vision and the Iraq foolishness as we are.

Evidence of this is found in the Sarah Palin selection, which was clearly intended to “lock those voters in” with someone who could be sold as “one of your own”.

(For those not aware, Conservatives are upset because they feel underappreciated by Republican “management”, who never seem to appoint “True Conservatives”, Antonin Scalia notwithstanding...and evidence of that is found in the size and enthusiasm of campaign crowds before and after the Palin selection.)

Beyond that, it’s a good idea to bring solutions to the discussion. Obviously, you won’t do that every time you speak, but on balance, you should be promoting workable ideas against unworkable ideas. People I talk to on the site seem to recognize (most of the time) that I’m not there to destroy the Nation, or crush anybody’s hopes or dreams by imposing Godless Communism upon them—instead they are beginning to acknowledge that we and they are both trying to make our country work better...even if we are trying to do it in different ways.

So let’s tie all this together by walking through a conversation from a visit to the No Quarter website. The topic under discussion was Obama’s use of the “lipstick” metaphor...and feelings have been running high. I came in after these this comment...

“Clearly the Obamabots are scared. Hence they’re going on offense and making an all out assault in the blogosphere in a desparate attempt to dig up a few bleating sheep they can bring back into the fold.”

...and this...

“Full panic/meltdown mode, for our late-night amusement.”

To which I offered this rejoinder:

“obama supporters are scared?

i think it’s more that the republican party leadership is scared.

they don’t seem to want you to be talking about your kids’ futures in a world of tax cuts and deficit spending...they don’t seem to want to talk to you about how they will end the waste of lives and money that has accompanied this war...and they most assuredly don’t want to acknowledge that talking about these pigs and madrassas and islam is intended to keep you from talking about issues that affect your wallet.

we went down this road in 2000 and 2004...and to quote ronald reagan: “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

that’s the biggest thing mccain’s managers don’t want you talking about...and that’s the one thing they are really and truly scared of.

the past eight years have cost you and your children more or less $5 trillion dollars in new national debt...which, like it or not, you and i and your children will be paying for–in the form of taxes–for decades to come.

not to mention the change in the value of our homes and all the new tax obligations that will accompany the fannie mae/freddie mac mess.

and yet with all that money spent...is america better off now than it was four years ago?”

What came back was this:

“ ...Four years ago?

You mean when President Obama took the temp job in the U.S. Senate?

So... what’s he done for us?

How has his vaunted leadership helped?

Why didn’t he part the seas of red ink

- instead of voting for virtually every Bushbill that came across his desk?”

Followed by this:

“uh...you do know that Bush is not running for President again don’t you?

uh, you do know that Democrat controlled Congress took impeachment off the table didn’t you?

uh, you do know McCain has a 100% record for not requesting earmarks don’t you?

uh, you do know that Palin has cut spending and championed reform in Alaska don’t you?

Doesn’t sound like more of the same to me.

You Obama supporters never mention that Obama sat in a racist, American hating church for 20 years or is friends with a terrorist. Funny how you leave that part out. He also has no executive experience and neither does Biden. How is that good for our future? You people are the ones who better wake up.”

Now notice, in my reply, how I do not personalize the issue...while still addressing facts:

“we do know democratic members of congress took impeachment off the table, and if you take a quick jaunt to dailykos you’ll quickly discover that it was not appreciated.

you need look no farther than the approval ratings of congress to see that lots of democrats are not at all fond of recent congressional performance.

but that said, take an actual look at the issues.

mccain talks about earmarks as a means to balance the budget...but he also says earmarks equal $20 billion annually.

the deficit is going to crack $450 billion this year, and might hit $500 billion.

all federal spending, except for defense, medicare, social security and interest on the debt is about $300 billion.

so even if all other spending were to be cut to zero...you still have a deficit.

on top of that, mccain proposes tax credits for health insurance, further increasing the deficit.

beyond that, he proposes more tax cuts. it is unlikely that reducing the government’s income will reduce the deficit.

all of that suggests that a mccain administration will follow the exact path of continued deficits followed by increased national debt that we have had for the past 8 years.

you may say to me: “obama will tax everyone under $42,000″.

two comments.

first, no he ain’t. as it turns out, it is possible to return the tax rates on the highest income earners to exactly what they were in 1999...and in the process, to pay for tax cuts for most wage earners making under $250,000.

which is obama’s propposal.

secondly, we are, like it or not, going to have to pay off the $5 trillion in new debt we accumulated these past 8 years.

if we do not raise taxes somewhere, somehow...then that burden will be passed to your children and grandchildren.

it appears mccain is finding problems in his own plan and projections. this, from the international herald tribune via yale university:

“...When McCain spoke about his tax plan in April, he cited the faltering economy in saying that it might take two terms to balance the budget, explaining that “economic conditions” are reversed. Since then, he seems to have refined some of his earlier tax cut plans. While his campaign once spoke then of repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is aimed at the wealthy but has increasingly ensnared middle-class taxpayers, his advisers now speak of “phasing out” the plan. And they now say that his proposal to let corporations write off their equipment expenses more quickly would be temporary...”
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.a...

it seems to me that paying off your debts is the kind of thinking that would seem logical in this conservative community...so if we are not going to pay off the $5 trillion or so in debt we recently have run up with taxes, then how should we pay it off?

that is the kind of question mccain seems unwilling to address; the “outrage of the day” strategy seeming to be more to his preference at the moment.”

Notice how we disconnected the Republican Party Establishment from these voters and Traditional Conservative Values...and you notice how neatly we were able to transition to a discussion of actual issues?

As of this writing there has been no reply, suggesting the weakness of the Republican position is something of a problem for these voters...and that it’s a problem for which they have no response.

This process is far from perfect, however.
Here’s an exchange from the Buchanan site.

First, not me:

“I just watched the national forum on service–did I hear Senator Obama correctly, did he say that it was more difficult for him to get a job as a community organizer than it was for him to get a job on Wall Street? Is that true? is there any evidence he interviewed for banking jobs?”

Followed by me:

“how about another question?

mccain suggests helping out in places like habitat for humanity...which is run by...guess who...community organizers.

palin (and so many others at the republican convention...giuliani being just one example), on the other hand...seems to enjoy taking shots at community organizing and community organizers.

so the question is: which version of the mccain campaign\’s \”worldview\” should we believe...the one he presented tonight, the one they present every day on the campaign trail...or neither?”

Followed by one of those responses we talked about earlier, from a third party:

“I think that what Obama meant was — it is difficult for a mulatto to get a job in the Stock Market. These jobs are mainly reserved for Jews.

Community organizers are often involved in unsavory and manipulative functions. Obama is accused of using extortion threats on many businesses convincing them to contribute money to various Black causes. This is something that Jesse Jackson and other Black leaders are very adept at doing.”

This exchange actually brings me to another point I’ve been meaning to address: we are not writing between two people. Instead, we are writing for ourselves, the people to whom we respond...and also to the people who will read but not comment.

There will be curious voters who are not yet decided who visit Conservative sites who will read this and feel repelled by this kind of thinking...which can only help us. As we talked about earlier, it’s to no one’s advantage to attack the local belief system directly. Instead, I’m going to hang back, see what other responses appear, and try to again return the discussion to who is making the most sense...and who is looking foolish.

Here is an exchange in which I did not participate that demonstrates the doubts that Conservatives have about Palin:

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/...

Pat - even if she supposedly backed you in 96 - she\’s more akin to the Fox News Weekly Standard bunch in terms of her foreign policy.

This woman is JUST as bad as McCain in terms of wanting and pushing for war.

Can we trust her? Or is she Bush-Cheney redux?

...followed by...

“Stop worrying about McCain dying. He is not. He is just getting started.”

...the original poster responds...

“Oh I’m not worried about McCain dying. I’m just concerned about this being the broader foreign policy of his first-term administration.”

...a third person appears...

“Remember Palin will be Parroting McCains policies.”

...the third person adds a comment...

“Wait till she gets going on amnesty. It will make you puke!

Palin is not open borders but McCain is and the V.P. always has to adopt the nominees platform. After a while she will gross you out because she’s McCain’s puppet now. I just hope she doesn’t lose herself in all of the nonsense.”

What we can learn here is that these voters do not trust McCain in the first place, and as Palin begins to lose her “Goddess of All She Surveys” status they become less and less likely to vote for this ticket.

When you hear that Ron Paul and Bob Barr may siphon off McCain voters, it’s these voters you’re hearing about.

This is a superb time to go out and meet a few disenchanted voters of your own...and the more we remind them that the reality does not match the rhetoric, and do it truthfully, the more effective we can be.

So, you might ask, where can these voters be found?

A few suggestions: obviously, there’s the Pat Buchanan site, the aforementioned No Quarter, which seeks to link “anti-anti-Hillary” voters to the Republican movement, RedState, the largest of the Conservative spaces, and Little Green Footballs, which at the moment is quite upset with Charlie Gibson.

A couple more? Well, there’s Pajamas Media...and the Michelle Malkin site, where it turns out McCain is also a disappointment at the moment.

So that’s the story: the time is exactly right to go out and do this work, and there is a potentially receptive audience, but these voters speak in a language to which we have to adapt; and they believe things we don’t.

That said, by showing some respect and allowing a fair amount of insanity to roll off your back...and offering a few solutions that make sense...you can begin to show these same voters that McCain is not going to be the right choice for them—or their kids.

If you go and comment one day a week, that’s 7 visits between now and Election Day...and it’s seven chances to preach beyond the choir that we wouldn’t have otherwise.

So go out and preach.

AUTHOR"S NOTE: There's a fully linked version of this story available at my personal blog, located here:

http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-closing-deal-or-preaching-beyond.html

On Closing the Deal, Or, Preaching Beyond The Choir

2008-09-13T04:21:26Z

“Clearly the Obamabots are scared. Hence they’re going on offense and making an all out assault in the blogosphere in a desparate attempt to dig up a few bleating sheep they can bring back into the fold.”

...and this...

“Full panic/meltdown mode, for our late-night amusement.”

To which I offered this rejoinder:

“obama supporters are scared?

i think it’s more that the republican party leadership is scared.

they don’t seem to want you to be talking about your kids’ futures in a world of tax cuts and deficit spending...they don’t seem to want to talk to you about how they will end the waste of lives and money that has accompanied this war...and they most assuredly don’t want to acknowledge that talking about these pigs and madrassas and islam is intended to keep you from talking about issues that affect your wallet.

we went down this road in 2000 and 2004...and to quote ronald reagan: “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

that’s the biggest thing mccain’s managers don’t want you talking about...and that’s the one thing they are really and truly scared of.

the past eight years have cost you and your children more or less $5 trillion dollars in new national debt...which, like it or not, you and i and your children will be paying for–in the form of taxes–for decades to come.

not to mention the change in the value of our homes and all the new tax obligations that will accompany the fannie mae/freddie mac mess.

and yet with all that money spent...is america better off now than it was four years ago?”

What came back was this:

“ ...Four years ago?

You mean when President Obama took the temp job in the U.S. Senate?

So... what’s he done for us?

How has his vaunted leadership helped?

Why didn’t he part the seas of red ink

- instead of voting for virtually every Bushbill that came across his desk?”

Followed by this:

“uh...you do know that Bush is not running for President again don’t you?

uh, you do know that Democrat controlled Congress took impeachment off the table didn’t you?

uh, you do know McCain has a 100% record for not requesting earmarks don’t you?

uh, you do know that Palin has cut spending and championed reform in Alaska don’t you?

Doesn’t sound like more of the same to me.

You Obama supporters never mention that Obama sat in a racist, American hating church for 20 years or is friends with a terrorist. Funny how you leave that part out. He also has no executive experience and neither does Biden. How is that good for our future? You people are the ones who better wake up.”

Now notice, in my reply, how I do not personalize the issue...while still addressing facts:

“we do know democratic members of congress took impeachment off the table, and if you take a quick jaunt to dailykos you’ll quickly discover that it was not appreciated.

you need look no farther than the approval ratings of congress to see that lots of democrats are not at all fond of recent congressional performance.

but that said, take an actual look at the issues.

mccain talks about earmarks as a means to balance the budget...but he also says earmarks equal $20 billion annually.

the deficit is going to crack $450 billion this year, and might hit $500 billion.

all federal spending, except for defense, medicare, social security and interest on the debt is about $300 billion.

so even if all other spending were to be cut to zero...you still have a deficit.

on top of that, mccain proposes tax credits for health insurance, further increasing the deficit.

beyond that, he proposes more tax cuts. it is unlikely that reducing the government’s income will reduce the deficit.

all of that suggests that a mccain administration will follow the exact path of continued deficits followed by increased national debt that we have had for the past 8 years.

you may say to me: “obama will tax everyone under $42,000″.

two comments.

first, no he ain’t. as it turns out, it is possible to return the tax rates on the highest income earners to exactly what they were in 1999...and in the process, to pay for tax cuts for most wage earners making under $250,000.

which is obama’s propposal.

secondly, we are, like it or not, going to have to pay off the $5 trillion in new debt we accumulated these past 8 years.

if we do not raise taxes somewhere, somehow...then that burden will be passed to your children and grandchildren.

it appears mccain is finding problems in his own plan and projections. this, from the international herald tribune via yale university:

“...When McCain spoke about his tax plan in April, he cited the faltering economy in saying that it might take two terms to balance the budget, explaining that “economic conditions” are reversed. Since then, he seems to have refined some of his earlier tax cut plans. While his campaign once spoke then of repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is aimed at the wealthy but has increasingly ensnared middle-class taxpayers, his advisers now speak of “phasing out” the plan. And they now say that his proposal to let corporations write off their equipment expenses more quickly would be temporary...”
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.a...

it seems to me that paying off your debts is the kind of thinking that would seem logical in this conservative community...so if we are not going to pay off the $5 trillion or so in debt we recently have run up with taxes, then how should we pay it off?

that is the kind of question mccain seems unwilling to address; the “outrage of the day” strategy seeming to be more to his preference at the moment.”

Notice how we disconnected the Republican Party Establishment from these voters and Traditional Conservative Values...and you notice how neatly we were able to transition to a discussion of actual issues?

As of this writing there has been no reply, suggesting the weakness of the Republican position is something of a problem for these voters...and that it’s a problem for which they have no response.

This process is far from perfect, however.
Here’s an exchange from the Buchanan site.

First, not me:

“I just watched the national forum on service–did I hear Senator Obama correctly, did he say that it was more difficult for him to get a job as a community organizer than it was for him to get a job on Wall Street? Is that true? is there any evidence he interviewed for banking jobs?”

Followed by me:

“how about another question?

mccain suggests helping out in places like habitat for humanity...which is run by...guess who...community organizers.

palin (and so many others at the republican convention...giuliani being just one example), on the other hand...seems to enjoy taking shots at community organizing and community organizers.

so the question is: which version of the mccain campaign\’s \”worldview\” should we believe...the one he presented tonight, the one they present every day on the campaign trail...or neither?”

Followed by one of those responses we talked about earlier, from a third party:

“I think that what Obama meant was — it is difficult for a mulatto to get a job in the Stock Market. These jobs are mainly reserved for Jews.

Community organizers are often involved in unsavory and manipulative functions. Obama is accused of using extortion threats on many businesses convincing them to contribute money to various Black causes. This is something that Jesse Jackson and other Black leaders are very adept at doing.”

This exchange actually brings me to another point I’ve been meaning to address: we are not writing between two people. Instead, we are writing for ourselves, the people to whom we respond...and also to the people who will read but not comment.

There will be curious voters who are not yet decided who visit Conservative sites who will read this and feel repelled by this kind of thinking...which can only help us. As we talked about earlier, it’s to no one’s advantage to attack the local belief system directly. Instead, I’m going to hang back, see what other responses appear, and try to again return the discussion to who is making the most sense...and who is looking foolish.

Here is an exchange in which I did not participate that demonstrates the doubts that Conservatives have about Palin:

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/...

Pat - even if she supposedly backed you in 96 - she\’s more akin to the Fox News Weekly Standard bunch in terms of her foreign policy.

This woman is JUST as bad as McCain in terms of wanting and pushing for war.

Can we trust her? Or is she Bush-Cheney redux?

...followed by...

“Stop worrying about McCain dying. He is not. He is just getting started.”

...the original poster responds...

“Oh I’m not worried about McCain dying. I’m just concerned about this being the broader foreign policy of his first-term administration.”

...a third person appears...

“Remember Palin will be Parroting McCains policies.”

...the third person adds a comment...

“Wait till she gets going on amnesty. It will make you puke!

Palin is not open borders but McCain is and the V.P. always has to adopt the nominees platform. After a while she will gross you out because she’s McCain’s puppet now. I just hope she doesn’t lose herself in all of the nonsense.”

What we can learn here is that these voters do not trust McCain in the first place, and as Palin begins to lose her “Goddess of All She Surveys” status they become less and less likely to vote for this ticket.

When you hear that Ron Paul and Bob Barr may siphon off McCain voters, it’s these voters you’re hearing about.

This is a superb time to go out and meet a few disenchanted voters of your own...and the more we remind them that the reality does not match the rhetoric, and do it truthfully, the more effective we can be.

So, you might ask, where can these voters be found?

A few suggestions: obviously, there’s the Pat Buchanan site, the aforementioned No Quarter, which seeks to link “anti-anti-Hillary” voters to the Republican movement, RedState, the largest of the Conservative spaces, and Little Green Footballs, which at the moment is quite upset with Charlie Gibson.

A couple more? Well, there’s Pajamas Media...and the Michelle Malkin site, where it turns out McCain is also a disappointment at the moment.

So that’s the story: the time is exactly right to go out and do this work, and there is a potentially receptive audience, but these voters speak in a language to which we have to adapt; and they believe things we don’t.

That said, by showing some respect and allowing a fair amount of insanity to roll off your back...and offering a few solutions that make sense...you can begin to show these same voters that McCain is not going to be the right choice for them—or their kids.

If you go and comment one day a week, that’s 7 visits between now and Election Day...and it’s seven chances to preach beyond the choir that we wouldn’t have otherwise.

So go out and preach.
Preach fairly, but preach well...and let’s close this deal.

On Closing the Deal, Or, Preaching Beyond The Choir

2008-09-13T04:19:40Z

“Clearly the Obamabots are scared. Hence they’re going on offense and making an all out assault in the blogosphere in a desparate attempt to dig up a few bleating sheep they can bring back into the fold.”

...and this...

“Full panic/meltdown mode, for our late-night amusement.”

To which I offered this rejoinder:

“obama supporters are scared?

i think it’s more that the republican party leadership is scared.

they don’t seem to want you to be talking about your kids’ futures in a world of tax cuts and deficit spending...they don’t seem to want to talk to you about how they will end the waste of lives and money that has accompanied this war...and they most assuredly don’t want to acknowledge that talking about these pigs and madrassas and islam is intended to keep you from talking about issues that affect your wallet.

we went down this road in 2000 and 2004...and to quote ronald reagan: “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

that’s the biggest thing mccain’s managers don’t want you talking about...and that’s the one thing they are really and truly scared of.

the past eight years have cost you and your children more or less $5 trillion dollars in new national debt...which, like it or not, you and i and your children will be paying for–in the form of taxes–for decades to come.

not to mention the change in the value of our homes and all the new tax obligations that will accompany the fannie mae/freddie mac mess.

and yet with all that money spent...is america better off now than it was four years ago?”

What came back was this:

“ ...Four years ago?

You mean when President Obama took the temp job in the U.S. Senate?

So... what’s he done for us?

How has his vaunted leadership helped?

Why didn’t he part the seas of red ink

- instead of voting for virtually every Bushbill that came across his desk?”

Followed by this:

“uh...you do know that Bush is not running for President again don’t you?

uh, you do know that Democrat controlled Congress took impeachment off the table didn’t you?

uh, you do know McCain has a 100% record for not requesting earmarks don’t you?

uh, you do know that Palin has cut spending and championed reform in Alaska don’t you?

Doesn’t sound like more of the same to me.

You Obama supporters never mention that Obama sat in a racist, American hating church for 20 years or is friends with a terrorist. Funny how you leave that part out. He also has no executive experience and neither does Biden. How is that good for our future? You people are the ones who better wake up.”

Now notice, in my reply, how I do not personalize the issue...while still addressing facts:

“we do know democratic members of congress took impeachment off the table, and if you take a quick jaunt to dailykos you’ll quickly discover that it was not appreciated.

you need look no farther than the approval ratings of congress to see that lots of democrats are not at all fond of recent congressional performance.

but that said, take an actual look at the issues.

mccain talks about earmarks as a means to balance the budget...but he also says earmarks equal $20 billion annually.

the deficit is going to crack $450 billion this year, and might hit $500 billion.

all federal spending, except for defense, medicare, social security and interest on the debt is about $300 billion.

so even if all other spending were to be cut to zero...you still have a deficit.

on top of that, mccain proposes tax credits for health insurance, further increasing the deficit.

beyond that, he proposes more tax cuts. it is unlikely that reducing the government’s income will reduce the deficit.

all of that suggests that a mccain administration will follow the exact path of continued deficits followed by increased national debt that we have had for the past 8 years.

you may say to me: “obama will tax everyone under $42,000″.

two comments.

first, no he ain’t. as it turns out, it is possible to return the tax rates on the highest income earners to exactly what they were in 1999...and in the process, to pay for tax cuts for most wage earners making under $250,000.

which is obama’s propposal.

secondly, we are, like it or not, going to have to pay off the $5 trillion in new debt we accumulated these past 8 years.

if we do not raise taxes somewhere, somehow...then that burden will be passed to your children and grandchildren.

it appears mccain is finding problems in his own plan and projections. this, from the international herald tribune via yale university:

“...When McCain spoke about his tax plan in April, he cited the faltering economy in saying that it might take two terms to balance the budget, explaining that “economic conditions” are reversed. Since then, he seems to have refined some of his earlier tax cut plans. While his campaign once spoke then of repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is aimed at the wealthy but has increasingly ensnared middle-class taxpayers, his advisers now speak of “phasing out” the plan. And they now say that his proposal to let corporations write off their equipment expenses more quickly would be temporary...”
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.a...

it seems to me that paying off your debts is the kind of thinking that would seem logical in this conservative community...so if we are not going to pay off the $5 trillion or so in debt we recently have run up with taxes, then how should we pay it off?

that is the kind of question mccain seems unwilling to address; the “outrage of the day” strategy seeming to be more to his preference at the moment.”

“I just watched the national forum on service–did I hear Senator Obama correctly, did he say that it was more difficult for him to get a job as a community organizer than it was for him to get a job on Wall Street? Is that true? is there any evidence he interviewed for banking jobs?”

Followed by me:

“how about another question?

mccain suggests helping out in places like habitat for humanity...which is run by...guess who...community organizers.

palin (and so many others at the republican convention...giuliani being just one example), on the other hand...seems to enjoy taking shots at community organizing and community organizers.

so the question is: which version of the mccain campaign\’s \”worldview\” should we believe...the one he presented tonight, the one they present every day on the campaign trail...or neither?”

Followed by one of those responses we talked about earlier, from a third party:

“I think that what Obama meant was — it is difficult for a mulatto to get a job in the Stock Market. These jobs are mainly reserved for Jews.

Community organizers are often involved in unsavory and manipulative functions. Obama is accused of using extortion threats on many businesses convincing them to contribute money to various Black causes. This is something that Jesse Jackson and other Black leaders are very adept at doing.”

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/...

Pat - even if she supposedly backed you in 96 - she\’s more akin to the Fox News Weekly Standard bunch in terms of her foreign policy.

This woman is JUST as bad as McCain in terms of wanting and pushing for war.

Can we trust her? Or is she Bush-Cheney redux?

...followed by...

“Stop worrying about McCain dying. He is not. He is just getting started.”

...the original poster responds...

“Oh I’m not worried about McCain dying. I’m just concerned about this being the broader foreign policy of his first-term administration.”

...a third person appears...

“Remember Palin will be Parroting McCains policies.”

...the third person adds a comment...

“Wait till she gets going on amnesty. It will make you puke!

Palin is not open borders but McCain is and the V.P. always has to adopt the nominees platform. After a while she will gross you out because she’s McCain’s puppet now. I just hope she doesn’t lose herself in all of the nonsense.”

On Turkish Politics, Or, Are Headscarves A Constitutional Threat?

2008-07-01T15:46:38Z

When you’re that strategically important and your Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could result in your President and Prime Minister—and the Nation’s majority political party—being banned from politics, it’s big news.

For some reason that news is not in the headlines in the United States—and it absolutely should be. Lucky for you, your friendly fake consultant has been on the case, and you will get a story today that touches on the confluence of Islam and secularism, military coups, and the desire of one of our allies to become a member of the European Union…and the European’s fear of what might happen if they do.

We cannot tell this story, however, without understanding the nature of Turkish secularism. I’m going to abbreviate the story here, but I strongly encourage those seeking a deeper history to review Thomas Patrick Carroll’s Middle East Intelligence Bulletin article “Turkey's Justice and Development Party: A Model for Democratic Islam?”.

The continuum of Islamic influence began before the Ottoman Empire, and was supposed to be ended by the founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Sharia Law was replaced by a secular legal Code, and the concept of laiklik (national secularism) was introduced. Carroll describes laiklik this way:

“...This term is often translated into English as 'laicism' or, more commonly, 'secularism,' which implies the separation of religion and state into two distinct and autonomous realms. But laiklik, as practiced in Turkey, is not so much the separation of religion and the state, as it is the subordination of religion to the state. As one prominent expert notes,

“This is a crucial difference in the Turkish context. The state controls the education of religious professionals and their assignment to mosques and approves the content of their sermons. It also controls religious schools and the content of religious education and enforces laws about the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in public spaces and institutions.””

In the 30 years between 1950 and 1980 governments came and went—and when the military establishment determined some of the political parties involved strayed a bit too far from accepted secular norms a coup would follow (there were three coups during that time); along the way political parties were banned and reformed under new guises. The military actually banned all political parties in 1980 and supervised the writing of a new Constitution which includes these provisions:

ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.

ARTICLE 4. The provision of Article 1 of the Constitution establishing the form of the state as a Republic, the provisions in Article 2 on the characteristics of the Republic, and the provision of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.

“ARTICLE 14. (As amended on October 17, 2001) None of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution shall be exercised with the aim of violating the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation, and endangering the existence of the democratic and secular order of the Turkish Republic based upon human rights.

No provision of this Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that enables the State or individuals to destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution or to stage an activity with the aim of restricting them more extensively than stated in the Constitution.

The sanctions to be applied against those who perpetrate these activities in conflict with these provisions shall be determined by law.

ARTICLE 24. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religious belief and conviction.

Acts of worship, religious services, and ceremonies shall be conducted freely, provided that they do not violate the provisions of Article 14.

No one shall be compelled to worship, or to participate in religious ceremonies and rites, to reveal religious beliefs and convictions, or be blamed or accused because of his religious beliefs and convictions.

Education and instruction in religion and ethics shall be conducted under state supervision and control. Instruction in religious culture and moral education shall be compulsory in the curricula of primary and secondary schools. Other religious education and instruction shall be subject to the individual’s own desire, and in the case of minors, to the request of their legal representatives.

No one shall be allowed to exploit or abuse religion or religious feelings, or things held sacred by religion, in any manner whatsoever, for the purpose of personal or political influence, or for even partially basing the fundamental, social, economic, political, and legal order of the state on religious tenets.”

What’s all that mean? It means Turkey shall be secular, that this cannot be changed, that no group may seek to restrict secularism, that the State shall determine the manner of religious instruction (and by extension, control the instructors), and that no one may use religion as a means of creating a change in the secular structure—or for advancing their own personal influence.

And now we get to the part where headscarves have come to be a Constitutional problem. The hijab is worn, Canadian Government officials tell us, by at least 2/3 of Turkish women—but it may not be worn “in public institutions...including schools, universities, and the civil service...”

As you can imagine, those restrictions have profound impacts on Turkish women particularly, and the entire population generally. Add into the mix the efforts on the part of the Turkish “secularist establishment” to encourage the use of Islam as a stabilizing force upon the population and you have the need to resolve some serious societal conflicts. (This is hardly a uniquely Turkish problem, by the way—-several European nations are struggling with this issue.) Ataturk’s old Party, the CHP, has seen its influence wane as a new secularist Islamic political movement has emerged—most recently in the form of the Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials AKP).

Since 2002, the Party has been quite successful in expanding its reach and influence; and today Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Abdullah Gül, and the largest group of representatives in Turkey’s Parliament are all members of the AKP. (That success has been so complete that Mr. Erdoğan is today Prime Minister--despite having been banned from politics for life in 1998.)

The Party also had great electoral success in Turkey’s local elections of 2004, and they today control the entire country’s local political landscape—except for a region of Kurdish influence near the Iraqi and Iranian borders to the southwest, a few spots near Georgia and Armenia to the northeast, a region of the central interior, and, ironically, the regions of Turkey that were the first areas of Greek colonization so long ago, where the CHP still holds sway.

It has been suggested that the AKP’s ability to incorporate Kurdish political aspirations toward a more pro-Turkish orientation, ands away from Kurdish nationalism contributed considerably to that success.

The AKP, upon assuming power, had sought to moderate some of the secularism restrictions (which they perceive as not just secularist, but anti-Islamic, and prohibited by the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom), and to that end they introduced a Constitutional amendment that would allow everyone equal access to government services. The effect of the amendment would have been to permit the wearing of the hijab in universities. The CHP filed suit seeking redress, and the Constitutional Court ruled on June 5th that Article 2 of the Constitution had indeed been violated, relying in part on precedent from a 1989 ruling:

"The basis of the democratic structure is national sovereignty. The democratic order also opposes the supremacy of religious values, the Sharia. A ruling giving particular prevalence to religious values cannot be democratic. A democratic state can only be secular. Regulations contingent upon religion are accompanied by religious zeal and constraints, which cause religious conflicts. This eventually leads to a loss of quality in the freedom, majority control, and tolerance of the democracy."

In March charges were filed against the AKP itself alleging that the Party has a secret agenda to promote Islam to the detriment of secularism, again in violation of Article 2. Today Turkey’s Constitutional Court will hear the arguments of Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, to be followed Thursday by the AKP’s defense presentation.

Should the Prosecution prevail, the court would ban the Party from further activity, and 71 current elected officials—including the President and Prime Minister—would find themselves similarly banished from political life.

And that’s where Europe gets involved. The AKP has been highly successful in leading Turkey into a period of economic liberalization—and prosperity. All this success has given Turkey a shot at being invited to join the European Union...and banning the AKP may “throw a spanner” in those chances.

So that’s the story: a secularist country with a population that is majority Islamic may ban a political party that has sought to resolve some of the tensions inherent in this contradictory situation...and that ban might be important to protect the Turkish nation, or a political ploy designed to return a minority Party to power.

As we said at the top, this is a huge story with profound implications for an important strategic ally...and just as has happened so many times in the past, what happens on the Bosporus has the potential to be felt all the way from Gaul to Persia.

On Investigative Journalism, Or, More Obama Connections Come To Light

2008-04-18T21:54:15Z

Your friendly fake consultant has been digging deep into the world of anonymous sources recently, which is why we were able to recently reveal the truth about Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian sniper story.

Today we take that effort further...which is why we are able to bring to light another exclusive peek into the past of a Presidential candidate...only today it’s Barack Obama.

We will examine his prior associations and as a result we will be able to draw new conclusions regarding his world view...and as we said about Clinton, you might be shocked...but probably not surprised.

How did all this get started?

We decided to investigate these connections following the Reverend Wright incident, because it was clear that America needed to know the entire picture before we made the momentous decision of choosing a President...and as Hillary has reminded us, you are only as good a person as your associates.

So what did we learn?

The first thing we learned was that even as a child Michelle Obama supported the sale of crack.

We were able to determine this because as a child she grew up on the South Side of Chicago...and as we all know, there are people there who go out in the streets and deal that drug.

Since she had to have seen a problem with crack, we have to ask the question: why didn’t she move out of that neighborhood if she did not support the sale of this most pernicious drug. After all, you can’t choose your relatives, but you can choose your pastor...and the place where you live. The fact that she wouldn’t disassociate herself by moving to a wealthier area shows she was unwilling to stand up and say “crack is whack”...and you’re never too young to “just say no”.

But it gets worse.

Through the development of a timeline, we were able to determine that for several years Obama supported the murderous regime of Suharto, the Indonesian President who felt human rights was something that could be worked on later.

How do we know he was actively supporting the Indonesian despot?

He actually moved from the US to Indonesia...and stayed there several years. No one would do such a thing if they weren’t entirely supportive of Suharto’s brutal rule.

He also apparently supports the use of biological weapons, including anthrax.

We know this because, as he describes in “The Audacity of Hope” he once visited a Ukrainian biological laboratory—and yet he never denounced the people working there or what they did.

It also turns out he supports robbery, rape and murder.

I determined this because he used to eat at a White Castle in Chicago which was also the place several robbers, rapists and murderers have eaten over the years—and yet he never once stood up against those people...and never gave up eating, either.

But it gets even worse than that...once, on a trip to Wichita, he ate at a BBQ joint formerly patronized by the BTK Killer. In fact, it appears that for the past 13 months he has been on a road trip visiting cities where crimes were committed—and never once has he disassociated himself from the thousands of crimes committed in those cities on those days.

The candidate was clearly on the Obama Loves Crime Tour—that’s what he must have been trying to tell us...if not in words, certainly through his actions.

Even now he’s planning a substantial effort in North Carolina in advance of that state’s primary—North Carolina...a former slave state. Despite my efforts, I was unable to determine why Obama supports slavery—and he’s not talking, either.

Forget about the connection between that Weather Underground guy and Obama—there’s an even more direct nexus between Obama and terrorism.

As it turns out, many of the 9/11 terrorists passed through Boston’s Logan Airport—and so has Obama. What could be more incriminating than that?

But if all that wasn’t horrible enough, new evidence has come to light that proves Obama “supports through silence” the slaughter of an entire planet’s population.

Not many know this, but the US Government recently identified several recent UFO sightings as coming from the Griznawoks, a race that lives on a planet near Alpha Centauri. For over 2000 years the Griznawoks have carried out a murderous campaign of intimidation, attack, and finally genocide against their planetary neighbors, the Fazznawaka.

Despite the fact that Obama was present on the planet Earth during the time of the Griznawok visits, he has never once stood up and condemned the Griznawok atrocities...but of course, once the last of the Fazznawaka are dead—who will be left to complain?

So this year, as you’re going to the polls, consider the alternatives: you can support Hillary Clinton...or you can support a candidate who embraces crack, crime—and interplanetary genocide.

I’ve reported...now it’s up to you to decide.