Blog of the Week: Captain Capitalism

An excellent blog, with many useful insights into the contemporary political scene. Yesterday he pondered why some idiots want socialism:

While we listen to talk radio, and we have empirical proof capitalism works, and we have history on our side and know, NOT "feel", but KNOW we are right, we have to understand that too high a percentage of Americans do not think this way. A critical mass (arguably the majority) of Americans no longer believe in freedom, self-reliance, capitalism, profit, manliness, competition, "nuclear" families, and everything else that is quintessentially American.

.

.

I like it no more than you. And I'm not saying that you still don't fight the good fight. But we have to realize that we can apply all the logic and empirical evidence we want to help support our case, but it will fall on deaf ears as socialism is not founded in reality. That's the only way socialism can work. That you convince enough sheeple they don't have to work to eat. They're poor not because they produce nothing, but because they are from disadvantaged group "x." Or some preppy Amercrombie and Fitch Harvard elitist fools people that he will bring them "hope and change" and everything will be chocolates and kittens thereafter.

I would like to add that the racist "affirmative action" programs do much to perpetuate the myth that hard work is not important. Like I have said previously, it would be interesting to know Barack and Michelle O'Bama's GPAs and LSAT scores.

Still No Recession

The Democrats are trying their damndest to make sure that the USA has a recession. O'Bama is proposing all kinds of new taxes. The Democrat-controlled congress refuses to allow drilling for oil and gas in many parts of the USA. They don't want energy prices to go down because it helps reduce 'carbon emissions' to help exorcise their 'global warming' bogeyman.

In spite of all these efforts. GDP rose by an annualized 1.9% in the second quarter of this year (April - June).

What Is Up With Real Interest Rates?

Look at the yields on the following TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) as of yesterday, as compared with the end of June:

Maturity: 2010 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
-0.454 %
7/29/08 yield
0.297 %

Maturity: 2011 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
-0.011 %
7/29/08 yield
0.692 %

Maturity: 2012 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
0.396 %
7/29/08 yield
0.977

Maturity: 2014 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
0.844 %
7/29/08 yield
1.326 %

Why were the yields so low in June? Did investors pile into the TIPS, fearing that skyrocketing energy prices signaled a massive increase in future inflation? And then did they jump out of them later in July when energy prices began to subside?

If there were a big changes in expected inflation, you would think that the yields on nominal treasuries would have increased and then decreased. Here are the yields for the corresponding nominal securities with maturities closest to the above TIPS:

Maturity: 2010 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
2.34 %
7/29/08 yield
2.33 %

Maturity: 2011 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
2.69 %
7/29/08 yield
2.69 %

Maturity: 2012 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
3.08 %
7/29/08 yield
3.06 %

Maturity: 2014 Jan 15
6/30/08 yield
3.38 %
7/29/08
3.42 %


Almost no change in the nominal yields! What has happened here? If anyone has an idea, please send me an email.

Source: wsj.com Markets Data Center

Bolton on O'Bama's Berlin Speech

The Moustachioed One has an excellent analysis of the messiah's recent speech in Berlin. One excerpt:

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

Very true. And I would like to add that during the cold war, many of the left both in the USA and in western europe admired both the ideals and the methods of soviet-style communism. They want the government to control commerce. They want restrictions on freedom of expression. They want to restrict the rights of their political opponents.

Back during the cold war, anyone who criticized communists was derided as being like "McCarthy". The fact that millions of people who directly experienced communism, voted with their feet when given the opportunity, was irrelevant to the left.

The left favored rapprochement with the soviets because they had the same goals as the bolsheviks.

What Warming?

Andrew Bolt shows some interesting information about the climate.

Well Boo Hoo

According to the New York Times, Bill Clintons former supporters in Harlem feel disrespected by the former president:

THE streets were bright with promise on the sunny July day in 2001 when former President Bill Clinton arrived in Harlem, the historic capital of black America, to celebrate the opening of his office on 125th Street. A chant of “We love Bill!” rose from the adoring crowd of 2,000 well-wishers, some of whom wore buttons and waved fans decorated with Mr. Clinton’s face.

After a violin rendition of “We Shall Overcome,” Mr. Clinton and the crowd sang along to a vibrant saxophone version of the soul song “Stand by Me.” “You were always there for me,” the ebullient former president declared before descending into the crowd for handshakes and hugs. “And I will try to be there for you.”

But the relationship between Mr. Clinton and Harlem’s African-American community has gone through a distinctly rocky patch this year. Many black residents say they were hurt and angered by what they perceived as racially disrespectful comments made by Mr. Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary fight between Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya.

Cry me a river, Harlemites. During the eight years that Clinton spent in the white house, you had ample opportunity to observe the fact that his top priority, no... his ONLY priority.... is Bill Clinton.

Scottish National Party Has Huge Victory over Labour Party in Glasgow

The Scottish National Party, who favor full independence for Scotland from the UK, have won an historic victory over the British Labour Party:

GORDON Brown was hit by a political earthquake early this morning when the SNP narrowly snatched a sensational victory in the Glasgow East by-election.

John Mason won by 365 votes over Labour's Margaret Curran after recording a 22 per cent swing to the SNP. The declaration had been held up after Labour demanded a recount at 1:30am, with only 355 votes separating the two main parties.

Mr Mason, who had arrived at the count to a hero's welcome from party activists, told The Scotsman: "This is going to have a huge impact. Somebody said it's No 10 on the Richter scale. It just feels tremendous. It was a huge challenge, a huge majority to overcome.

"It is going to send a message all around the country."

This is quite ironic, since Gordon Brown, the Labour Prime Minister is himself a Scot. He will find it difficult to maintain Labour's majority in the next general elections.

The Scots are voting for the Scottish National Party candidates. The Ulstermen are voting for the DUP and Sinn Fein. The Welsh are voting for their Plaid Cymru party. And the English will probably vote heavily for Tories. There won't be very many Labour seats in the next Parliament.

Chicago Freedom-Haters Go to the Mattresses to Protect Criminals from Law-Abiding Citizens

We all know how much the stupid whiny leftists hate to lose. Thats why they are still in a state of denial in the state of Illinois:

Chicago Police will continue to enforce the city's handgun ban and firearm registration laws while lawyers fight the pro-gun lobby in federal court.
The National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed federal lawsuits to shoot down Chicago's gun laws after the U.S. Supreme Court voided the District of Columbia's handgun ban last

City Corporation Counsel Mara Georges told a City Council committee Thursday that she's prepared to fight those lawsuits all the way to the Supreme Court.
"Chicago's gun ordinance was not invalidated by the . . . decision. Three prior Supreme Court decisions have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities," Georges said. "The decision did not change that case law."
Georges said she's confident that the U.S. District Court will dismiss the gun lobby lawsuit challenging Chicago's existing laws.
"What would happen for it to apply to Chicago is that the district court would have to fail to follow well-established Supreme Court precedent . . . and say that we should be treated like a federal jurisdiction," she said. "That's the difference here. D.C. was considered a federal jurisdiction. . . . We are not."

Blah blah blah......

Hey Mara, read what Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court had to say:

...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

Do you got that Mara?

It is so ordered.

Blog of the Week: The Bleat

James Lileks, a journalist in Minneapolis, has a way with words that I can only envy. From today's blog post about His Holiness' speech about world citizenship in Deutschland:

As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I would love to live in an age when the globe was united in peace and prosperity, but I am unwilling to endure the paradigm-wrecking nation-shattering nuclear war and eugenic-master-race tyranny required to get to that point. Absent those factors, the idea that post-national / trans-national ideas represent a glimmering ideal within our grasp seems naïve at best and alarming at worst, a gilded facade erected by those who wish to pursue self-interest behind a new arrangement that defines traditional concepts of culture and national identity as regressive impediments.

I rather like my first and second amendment rights. There are many countries where they don't have these and there are many people here in the USA who would like to take those rights away from me. Most of the freedom-haters are also Obama fans.

That's why I don't want to merge with other countries nor do I want the USA to submerge our sovereignty in any way to some international organization like the UN. Any world government instituted at the present time would be a totalitarian nightmare, as Lileks says.

One last thing: Obama said "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand." But of course they must, and will, if national sovereignity has any meaning. If he defines the "wall" as the existence of factual reasons why some countries succeed and others do not, it is unclear how these facts will be overcome. There's not a wall around Zimbabwe that creates a special magical inflation zone. There is, in spots, a wall between the US and Mexico; are we to expect he will make a campaign stop at the border crossing, and ask Mr. Bush to Tear Down This Wall? In a sense that would make him the heir to Reagan - in the same sense Paris Hilton is heir to Conrad.

There is a reason why so many people in Mexico, Central America, the Carribbean, etc., find it necessary to come to the USA to find work. It can be summarized adequately with one word: Socialism.

Unless and until certain other countries adopt free market capitalism and their own equivalents of the first and second amendments, it will be necessary to keep the walls up.

The Obamessiah Refuses to Meet with Servicement in Bagram, Afghanistan

Blackfive received an interesting email from a soldier stationed at Bagram in Afghanistan:

Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ' The War Zone ' . I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT J

Bagram, Afghanistan

And Barack wants to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? I would much prefer to have one of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders in the white house.

The Perverse Nature of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Paul Gigot in the Wall Street Journal has an interesting expose of the politics behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

I recount all this now because it illustrates the perverse nature of Fannie and Freddie that has made them such a relentless and untouchable political force. Their unique clout derives from a combination of liberal ideology and private profit. Fannie has been able to purchase political immunity for decades by disguising its vast profit-making machine in the cloak of "affordable housing." To be more precise, Fan and Fred have been protected by an alliance of Capitol Hill and Wall Street, of Barney Frank and Angelo Mozilo.
I know this because for more than six years I've been one of their antagonists. Any editor worth his expense account makes enemies, and complaints from CEOs, politicians and World Bank presidents are common. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are unique in their thuggery, and their response to critics may help readers appreciate why taxpayers are now explicitly on the hook to rescue companies that some of us have spent years warning about.

The thuggery that Gigot refers to is the same leftist thuggery that Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick learned from their time in the Clinton administration. The sheer savagery and contempt for law that many in the Clinton administration displayed was appalling. Remember the attacks on Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp? Remember all the people who were audited by the IRS? Remember the people who were thrown in jail for yelling "you suck" to Clinton? Remember Billy Dale who was falsely prosecuted because Hillary wanted an excuse to clean house in the white house travel office?

Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership.
Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie's left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing.
So here we are this week, with the House and Senate preparing to commit taxpayer money to save Fannie and Freddie. The implicit taxpayer guarantee that Messrs. Gray and Raines and so many others said didn't exist has become explicit. Taxpayers may end up having to inject capital into the companies, in addition to guaranteeing their debt.
The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested.

While we're paying the increased taxes for years to come on this ridiculous bailout, remember Franklin Raines earning $90 million and Jamie Gorelick earning $26 million. I can just picture those jackasses chuckling to themselves while they are thinking "those poor taxpayers are suckers!"

How Much To Bail Out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

After having created the twin monsters known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and having given them a blank check from the US taxpayers, the losers in Washington are trying to figure out how much it will cost to bail them out.

The Bush administration's plan to rescue ailing mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is likely to cost about $25 billion during the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts.
In a letter to lawmakers released this morning, the Congressional Budget Office said there is "a significant chance -- probably better than 50 percent -- that the proposed new Treasury authority" to lend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money or buy their stock would not need to be used before the authority expired at the end of 2009.
However, "that scenario is far from the only possible result," the letter says, and the cost estimate takes into account "the probability of various possible outcomes." That means rescuing the mortgage firms could cost significantly more than $25 billion if the authority is exercised, the letter says.

Isn't this great? Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick get to keep their millions that they made at Fannie Mae. The federal government will bail out the two quasi-private companies and allow them to continue dominating the mortgage industry with their backing from the taxpayers. The people who foolishly bought more house than they can afford get bailed out.

And what about those of us who have diligently made our monthly mortgage payments? We did not buy more house than we could afford. And what of those people who live in areas where housing prices went sky-high but knew better than to pay $600,000 for a little 3-2 tract house? They toughed it out in tiny apartments rather than take out a mortgage with unaffordable payments. We will have to pay the bill, while Goldman Sachs clowns like Henry Paulson and Keynesian economists like Ben Bernanke made stupid decisions.

Wall Street Journal Smears Belgian Vlaams Belang Party

The Journal's editorials are usually excellent. However, their news articles are often written by journalists who have the typical leftwing bias. In Saturday's edition we see how John Miller has smeared Vlaams Belang, the party in Belgium that looks out for the interests of the Flemish people:

BRUSSELS -- A team appointed by Belgium's King Albert II started work Friday to resolve a stalemate between the nation's French and Dutch speakers. At stake is not whether Belgium falls apart, but whether it becomes more like Switzerland.

Ever since elections in June 2007, Belgium has been in trouble. It took nine months to form a government. Belgian newspapers ran alarming headlines warning of the nation's possible breakup. On Monday, the prime minister, Yves Leterme, offered to resign.

But while the glue that holds together this fragile nation of 10.5 million is slowly coming unstuck, it's likely to endure at least another generation, say political leaders and analysts.

So far so good. Now we get to a discussion of the political parties:

None of the mainstream Flemish parties favor independence for Flanders -- a reflection of Belgium's battered but tenacious national identity, along with the costs and complications of divorce, and the gnarly question of who gets Brussels, the wealthy capital city and seat of the European Union.

But what of Vlaams Belang, the party that works for Flemish independence? Does it therefore follow that Mr. Miller does not consider them to be 'mainstream'? Miller proceeds to admit that nearly a majority of the people in Flanders favor independece:

Around half of Belgium's Dutch speakers would like to see a Republic of Flanders, according to some opinion polls.

He doesn't get around to mentioning Vlaams Belang until the last column of the article:

Yet, "no political party except the extremists supports a split," says Vincent Van Quickenborne, Belgium's economy minister and a Flemish conservative. Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), a far-right party that does advocate independence, generally polls a quarter of the vote in Flanders.

Ah yes, Vlaams Belang are 'far-right' and 'extremists'. Typical smear phrases used by the left.

Here is what Miller is saying:

(1) Half of the Flemish want independence.

(2) Vlaams Belang polls a quarter of the vote in Flanders.

(3) Vlaams Belang are not 'mainstream'.

(4) Vlaams Belang are 'far-right' and 'extremists'.

Am I missing something here? Whenever I try to make sense of anything that a lefty has to say, especially when he or she is a journalist, I inevitably fail to find any thought or logic at all.

I just can't get enough of Natalie. She was 100% female.

Another Nail in the Coffin

If there are any leftwing yahoos reading this who still believe that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming, read this essay by Australasian climatologist David Evans:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.

Why so?

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

However, Mr. Evans does show ignorance of one crucial fact:

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Mr. Evans probably understands climatology as well as anyone, but he has very little understanding of American politics and our press corps. Al Gore proceeds with his lies because he knows the leftwing press will give him a pass on it. His eight years of experience in the Clinton administration gives him the confidence to lie with impunity.

World Court Orders USA to Halt Execution of Rapist-Murderer Jose Medellin

Jose Medellin, a citizen of Mexico, raped and murdered Elizabeth Pena (16) and Jennifer Ertman (15) in Houston in 1993. He is scheduled to be executed on August 5.

Now the World Court, in direct affront to the sovereignty of the United States, has ordered the USA to halt the execution on an absurd technicality:

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects' rights.

The row, which has strained relations between the neighbors, centers on the fact that the United States failed to inform 51 of its citizens sentenced to die in U.S. jails of their right to consular assistance.
One of the five Mexicans on death row, Jose Medellin, is due to die on August 5 in Texas.

In 2004, the World Court ruled in favor of Mexico, finding the United States had violated international law, and ordered it to review the 51 cases to see whether the lack of consular assistance had prejudiced the outcome of their trials.

A year later, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered Texas to review Medellin's case but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that Bush had no authority to do so, leading Texas to schedule Medellin's execution for August.

"The court indicates that the United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that five Mexican nationals are not executed pending its final judgment," Judge Rosalyn Higgins said.

This is ridiculous. Had Medellin asked to contact the Mexican embassy in the USA, he would undoubtedly been allowed to do so. This dirtbag confessed to his crimes back in 1993. He has been given a proper trial, attorneys paid for by the taxpayers of Texas, and numerous appeals for 15 years.

The state of Texas should ignore those idiots at the world court and send Medellin to his reward.