Andrew Sullivan, whom I normally like, has a comment on Ashcroft and the gun controversy that I find too silly to ignore:
Byron York has another important piece this morning on National Review Online. Yes, it’s true the law itself bars FBI checks on gun-owners who might be terrorists, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out yesterday. So why not change the law? If this administration believes that everyone needs to sacrifice something except the NRA, they’re going to commit political suicide. The closer you look at Ashcroft’s performance yesterday, the worse it seems.
Is Andrew Sullivan really suggesting that the Attorney General has the ability to change the law to suit the ends he wishes to pursue? I think the rest of us would prefer to leave that power to Congress, thank you very much.
The Post (New York, that is) seems to be saying yes, and so do I, although I'm normally against the death penalty. My normal objection stems from two things: first, that there is obviously some possibility, no matter how slight, of making a mistake. No possibility here -- he was in Afghanistan with an AK47. Second, I'm against it because I think that it lessens human dignity -- no man should have to know the hour of his own death. In this case, however, we're not executing a criminal, we're shooting an enemy soldier. He wanted to go to war and get shot at by Americans. Let's give him that opportunity.
Outstanding article on the Koran linked to in today's National Review by Jonah Goldberg. Check it out for a fascinating -- but too brief -- insight into the origins of the Koran, a study which the articles implies is, for muslims, the theological equivalent of a scholarly investigation seeking Jesus' biological father.
Or so says Steve Dunleavy in today's New York Post By STEVE DUNLEAVY. I have no editorial comment except that this seems to strengthen the argument against the death penalty -- a high profile case, presumably one with a lot of prosecutorial resources directed to it, and at least in one instance, they got it wrong.
The business and financial discussion which customarily appears on this page in Monday morning's issue of The Wall Street Journal was written Saturday evening and given to the compositors yesterday. As the galley proof reached the editorial room, press association wires carried the flash that the Japanese had attacked Hawaii. In that moment, the events of last week seemed suddenly to have been removed to some remote era of antiquity. The things that business and finance discussed last week seem now to have no relation to tomorrow nor to the many days to come after tomorrow. There is a stark, horrible reality that American territory has been attacked. Japan has declared a state of war exists between her and the United States Every citizen has and knows his duty. It will be heavy for all. The sacrifices will be particularly heavy for the business and financial community of America. We say that the sacrifices will be made. The duty will be performed.
Curiously enough, on Pearl Harbor day I have been asked to find a flag for a letterhead. I found an amazing site that has all sorts of wonderful graphics commemorating September 11th.
What I also found is that these things still have the power to make me choke up. I've been working on the site for three months, and the grief I thought had attenuated had merely retreated. When I saw all those pictures with one common theme -- we will not forget -- that grief reappeared as fresh as the in the days immediately following the attack.
This is a measure of how sheltered we are -- or at least I am, as the product of New York's Upper West Side, private schools, and an Ivy League education. I have disliked for years the kind of affected anti-patriot who is far too sophisticated to ever do something as simple as love their country -- at least not without so many disclaimers attached that you wonder if they aren't sticking around in this dump just to annoy the rest of us. Nonetheless, I believed in patriotism in the nice, detached way that I believe in peace on earth and goodwill towards men. I did not know that I could be moved to tears by the sight of a flag or by really listening to the words of "God Bless America" for the first time during the first memorial service they held down here, when I realized, in a rush, just how much I do love this place. To judge from the weeping crowd around me, a lot of people have had that revelation. I confess that before the Day, I thought that people who claimed to be brought to tears by events long past or far away, were engaging in some mildly hysterical emotional grandstanding. Now I not only understand them, but am one of them -- and I sense that there are others out there like that, and that we will be a better nation for it. I am unbearably sad right now, looking at those pictures -- but I am also unbearably glad to know that the change is enduring.
We have a 24 foot Christmas tree! It was paid for entirely by the Tully construction workers, and there are plans to weld it atop one of the work shanties to make a fine display. We'll need it, since the current word is that we'll be working full crews Christmas Eve and day. No one in America should forget that right along with the cops and firemen, the construction workers here are having a tough time, working 12 hour shifts six or seven days a week, spending holidays away from their families, and seeing more bodies than anyone should ever have to. When winter comes and there are no buildings down here to act as a break for the icy winds, they're going to freeze. So when people say that they don't count because they're paid, remember that when it's ten below and they're pulling bodies out of the ground, they earn every penny.
I have on my wall right now a printout of the famous WWII poster -- the tattered flag still flying over a background of smoke and fire, with the words ". . . we here are highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain", and "Remember December 7th" as its legend. Now that we have our own tragedy to remember, I thought I'd post FDR's original speech to congress.
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."
I'd also like to post another great FDR quote -- he had so darn many of them! -- we have hanging in the office, from his Third Inaugural Address:
". . . The state of this nation is good. the heart of this nation is sound the spirit of this nation is strong the faith of this nation is eternal."
The WSJ.com front page (subscription required) is chock-a-block with articles that forebode ill for the economy (and the job prospects of freshly minted MBA's, I might add). For those of you not foresighted enough to subscribe online, I will recap the headlines, and even throw in valuable editorial comments for free. As follows:
THE HOUSE APPROVED by a single vote fast-track authority for Bush to negotiate trade deals
This would be good news, except for that "single vote" nonsense. How does so much protectionist claptrap linger in a body of allegedly educated legislators?
OPEC delayed making a cut in its oil production, saying it wants to be sure Russia and other large producers are really going to reduce their exports
Translation: OPEC isn't smart enough to avoid pushing us deeper into recession, nor to foresee the political firestorm that will ensue should they do so.
Japan's economy may be entering its worst downturn since the end of World War II
Their GDP shrank by half a point between July and September. This doesn't hurt us as much as it might, since the Japanese buy assets rather than goods and services with their trade surplus, but it certainly can't help.
Retail sales slumped at the end of November after a fast Thanksgiving-weekend start.
Fast seems to me to be a slight exaggeration -- the articles I read indicated that the holiday sales increase was anemic compared to normal years. An informal and highly unrepresentative survey of coworkers and friends indicates that no one is planning to spend as much this year as they did last year. This may be local to New York City and the uncertain job prospects of new MBA's -- but it's pretty depressing when you consider that half my friends were grad students last holiday season.
Electronics retailers reported weak third-quarter sales but added that an improvement in November and strong holiday spending would help them meet or beat current earnings expectations
Translation: Sales are bad. We hope they'll get better. But we aren't betting on it.
RTL warned it expects full-year profit to plummet amid a decline in advertising revenue
Don't look for Europe to help us out of this either. But then, you already knew that.
Intel and AMD boosted their fourth-quarter sales estimates, citing strong holiday demand for personal computers
This is the first really good news on the page. Personally, I'm surprised -- I would have bet that the market for PC's was at or near saturation. Unless of course, this reflects deep discounting -- which, like October's boost in car sales, is both unsustainable and unprofitable -- in this case for PC manufacturers, about whom the front page is silent.
Boeing appears to have been persuaded to keep its 717 jet program operating because of pressure from existing and potential airline customers
Headline: Business does things to keep customers happy.
Stand by for WSJ stories on people who go to work every day in order to collect a paycheck, and potential criminals who don't steal because they're afraid of the police.
Sun Microsystems said its business appears to be improving slightly in the current quarter, but the computer maker reiterated that it may not return to profitability until the second quarter of 2002.
See Electronics Retailers.
Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems and other competitors could benefit from a proposed remedy in the Microsoft antitrust case.
The point of anti-trust regulators is to protect the consumers, not unfit competitors. I find it disturbing that Sun et al. no longer even bother to pretend that they're interested in anyone but themselves.
California's state government made its first payment to the state's nonprofit electricity-grid operator after months of wrangling and an order to do so from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
I must be permitted one gleeful chortle at the mess California has gotten itself into. The whole state is filled with NIMBY environmentalists who want to regulate every industry out of existance except the one they happen to work for, and think that if they can just find the right herbal supplement they'll live forever. (Whew! I feel much better now.) The sight of the Invisible Hand taking them out behind the barn and giving them a good talking-to with a peach switch restores my hope for our political economy.
States Square Off Against Drug Firms In Crusade on Prices
Well, the US has the last functioning pharmaceutical market in the world. But don't worry, the states are going to take care of what the federal government wouldn't -- forcing the firms to sell their product at the cost of manufacturing it, rather than the much higher cost of developing drugs in the first place. We may be witnessing the end of pharmaceutical innovation.
U.S. BUSINESSES slashed 331,000 jobs in November, far more than expected, sending the unemployment rate to a six-year high of 5.7% and damping hopes for a quick economic recovery
There won't be any quick and easy recovery a la 1993. You read it here first! Er, at least I hope you read it here.
Stocks are set to open lower Friday, as continued signs of weakness in the labor market damped investor optimism
This is priceless. Fifteen minutes ago, the front page said stocks were going to open steady. Maybe the editors finally read their own front page.
Excellent article in the National Review on gun control. Some of his points are a little suspicious -- the fact that 16th c. Japan abolished guns and then became an oppressive feudal regime does not mean that the one caused the other, nor that such a result would necessarily follow elsewhere. His examination of the various forms a black-market could take, however, are sterling, as is his point that even without gunpowder, projectile weapons would still reign supreme as airguns became the norm -- the only reason we use gunpowder now is that it's cheaper and easier to work with. The fact is that absent strong countervailing force, the advantage of firearms to criminals is such that almost no price is too great to obtain one.
The New York Times has this article on the new "Cat Cap" coverage, a sort of institutionalized MSA plan, that's going to be offered by some insurance plans next year. Typical Times, the headline is "A New Health Plan May Raise Expenses for Sickest Workers". Equally true: "A New Health Plan May Lower Expenses for Young, Uninsured Workers and Finally Allow them to Get Coverage". Don't look for that headline any time soon.
The basic premise of Cat Cap insurance is that you have an MSA -- a medical savings account, contributions to which are tax free (just like health insurance benefits) -- coupled with high-deductible insurance that ensures that if you are in an auto accident or have some other catastrophic illness, you are still covered. Anything minor or routine, you pay for either from your MSA, or after that is deducted, your pocket.
The coverage in the Times is unsurprisingly hysterical, and larded with spurious examples of the disaster waiting to befall unsuspecting families. One example with which I am extremely familiar is Serevent, the steroid inhaler for asthma. The Times points out that a family which now has a contribution of ca. $130/year for the drug would pay as much as $800/year under the new system. What they of course do NOT mention is that in order for the family asthmatic to get asthma medication probably worth between $900-$1200 a year, plus a couple of doctor's visits which we may value (since I've paid for them out of pocket) at $300 a year, they will pay $3500 a year for insurance. You have to be the kind of asthmatic who shows up at the emergency room 6-10 times a year (believe me, I've done the math) for the health insurance bill to even start working out in your favor. The vast majority of asthmatics do not fall into this category; I who have 40% loss of lung function (and 80% loss in my bronchiae), have been to the emergency room for asthma twice in my life, both of them the result of a hysterical insurance company nurse afraid of being sued, rather than my own judgement about what was medically required. (Do not forget your inhaler when you go skiing. Never.) The Times leaves the cost of insurance out of the equation because employer's pay it. But employers do not do this out of the goodness of their heart -- surely Pravda-on-the-Hudson does not believe that employers do anything out of the goodness of their heart. They buy you health insurance in lieu of paying you wages that you could use to buy your own health insurance -- or anything else your heart desired -- if tax incentives had not essentially destroyed the private market for insurance. The Times also conveniently factors this out when they are discussing the deductible, leaving the impression that employers and insurance companies are atttempting to pull a fast one in order to line their own pockets, rather than offer a new type of insurance that consumers might want.
As it happens, high deductible insurance is exactly what this consumer wants -- and what I am not allowed to get due to New York State's byzantine health insurance regulations. Instead, I must pay $350/month for a horrible HMO that I don't want and which will come nowhere near to paying for itself. While the New York Times no doubt politely applauds the state for protecting the sick, I have to live at home because half my take home must go to insurance and student loans -- insurance, by the way, that won't cover my pulmonologist or any of the services I actually want, like decent physical therapy.
The other thing left out of the equation is service. For years, my HMO doctor made me wait from 1/2 to 1 1/2 hours to see her, perched on the examining table in a gown, then whizzed in and out within ten minutes when I finally did see her, shoving some inhalers my way whenever she got tired of hearing me complain. My asthma got steadily worse. The pulmonologist I paid for out of pocket, on the other hand, spent over an hour having a technician run me through tests -- then sat down and spent an hour talking with me about my lifestyle, reasonable limitations, how I felt, and explaining his diagnosis. He prescribed an intervention that halted the progression of my asthma and got me back into the gym within a month, after I'd spent several months lying down every chance I got because of the wheezing.
The Times complains about the deeply sick, wanting the rest of us to pay for it. In some categories I agree -- children stricken with leukemia shouldn't be denied care because they had the misfortune to be born to restaurant workers instead of lawyers. But what about the guy who's been overeating for the last thirty years, and is now a diabetic heart patient (EXTREMELY expensive diseases to treat). Suddenly, the injustice argument seems a little thin, especially when you think that maybe if this guy had to pay for his treatment along the way, he would have been a little more careful with his weight. Which group is a larger percentage of those suffering high medical bills I have no idea. But I bet the Times reporter doesn't either.
Use this easy-to-use Interest Rate Calculator to calculate the effects of changing the payment schedule on all that debt you amassed in the go-go 1990's -- especially if, like me, you have to deal with Student Loans.
When we started bombing Afghanistan and the Saudi's began adopting what P.J. O'Rourke calls the "Dog ate my homework school of diplimatic relations", I thought that we were going to end up in a war in the Middle East, centering around a destabilized Saudi Arabia. The tension passed, but now it looks like I may have been right after all, except that the war will center around a destabilized Palestine. Not that the region was particularly stable to begin with, but it seems clear now that Israel is preparing for war, and that the US is going to back them.
I think this is right, for several reasons. The first is that it is hypocritical to argue that Israel should turn the other cheek to the murder of civilians when we would, and could, not. I think Israel has a lot to answer for -- particularly the treatment of Palestinians as second class citizens. Moreover, I think that history has been unfair to the Palestinians, and that they not only deserve their own nation, but also they deserve generous cash settlements on the disposessed. I do not, however, believe that assassinating known terrorists, firing on state buildings in regions where the government is supporting terrorists, and returning fire in a crowd that is partially armed with guns and thoroughly armed with large rocks, is morally equivalent to blowing up a busload of civilians. I didn't think so when it was my bogtrotting relatives doing it, and I don't think so now.
Second, Arafat clearly can't deliver peace. I'm not sure that any Palestinian leader can -- I think that his people think that if they hold on long enough, the Arab world will be allowed to push Israel back into the sea. They therefore will not accept any agreement which renounces a historical right to occupy all of Israel, no matter how attractively it's packaged. The only way to bring them to the bargaining table, therefore, is to prove that the US will not permit another holocaust -- and if you doubt that this is what the Arab "street" desires, go read what is written in Arabic language newspapers.
Third, the US cannot afford to have anyone believe that the way to get what they want is to attack American civilians. Therefore, the response to anyone attacking us based on US policy in the Middle East, no matter how legitimate their critique of that policy, must get the same response: "You lose. Not only are you not getting what you want, but we're taking away some of the goodies [in this case, support for their position] that you already had." It's the same reason we don't negotiate for hostages. If we follow any other policy, we make the entire civilian population of the United States hostage to the terrorists' whims.
The Wall Street Journal has an article about Phillip Morris's special holiday cigarette brand. I've seen these in the store and thought that they were some sort of promotional box of Marlboros -- but no, they're part of Phillip Morris's frankly admitted strategy to steal business from competitors over the holidays.
I used to smoke, and IMHO their marketing department is about as closely tuned to the wants and needs of their public as the Pepsi Clear execs. Don't get me wrong -- as a smoker, I was certainly willing to try new brands, and I have a sneaking regret that I quit too early to try Camel's Turkish Gold. I was one of the lone holdouts on Camel Wides. But a special brand of cigarettes for Christmas? Are people going to bring them to the church Christmas party? Stocking stuffers for the children? Or perhaps a couple of cartons gift wrapped under the tree. I am second to none in my appreciation of the devastations the last year has wrought on our economy, but I don't think consumer spending has contracted quite that far.
Of course, Phillip Morris isn't just introducing this for Christmas, as the article makes clear. Most analysts seem to think it's going to be a super-premium brand priced higher than Marlboro and in competition with the aforementioned Turkish Gold line. But I think even trying to position it as a special holiday issuance is silly.
That said, the reactions of consumer advocates are amazing in their vitriol. I quote:
"It's selling cancer for Christmas," says Matthew L. Myers, president of the Washington-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
What the hell is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids doing complaining about this? No matter how well Phillip Morris markets this, parents aren't going to hand out loosies to their kids friends as party favors. And most of the rebellious adolescents I know won't embrace the holiday spirit to the extent of smiling at Christmas dinner, much less choosing their brand of smokes. Of course, we all knew that the kids were a smokescreen for the fact that these activists don't like tobacco, period -- but they used to at least try to find some tenuous connection to their cause.
The Wall Street Journal says that consumer spending jumped by a record 2.9%in October. Great news, right? Maybe not -- it turns out that the jump followed a record 1.7% decline in consumer spending in September, leaving us with a less stellar but still solid 1.15% off the base August rate.
Not so bad -- except that something very special happened in October: automakers boosted their sales by offering 0% financing. This was essentially a 5% discount off the price of the car, and cut their profit margins to near-zero. Selling things at cost is not a viable long-term strategy for a firm; moreover, much of that consumer spending will be coming out of other months. Net gain, unclear. Meanwhile, spending in the non-defense, non-auto sector was atrocious, incomes atrophied, and the manufacturing sector shrank for the 17th consecutive month. Not to mention the fact that all my friends are moving in with their parents as they face their first student loan payments without appreciable job prospects. Once again, I am a trendsetter, having moved in with the rents during the summer.
Byron York makes a compelling argument that Clinton was, because he sacrificed foreign policy to his domestic agenda. In the words of one pundit -- every time something happened abroad, Clinton's response was to take a poll.
Byron York ignores something important, however -- that ultimately, Clinton was doing what we wanted him to. The most legitimate criticism of Clinton, from both left and right, is that he usually did what the public wanted, rather than what was in the best interests of the nation. The greatest argument about direct democracy is that in a nation the size of ours, it is impossible for the average citizen to be sufficiently adequately informed about issues to make a good decision -- that's why we pay our politicians. More and more, they let us down -- polling and TV have moved the Republic closer to a democracy, which is not, IMHO, a good thing for reasons I may discuss another day.
Anyway, the point is the Clinton did screw the pooch, and some of his lapses were, in my judgement, criminal -- the bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory being the most prominent. But while one can argue that he should have made hard decisions on foreign policy, and that his failure to do so made Osama & others believe that they could get away with such barbarity, one cannot argue that this is because he betrayed the voters. We betrayed ourselves.
Once again, I am urging friends & readers (of which, as far as I can tell, I have none) to boycott Barnes & Nobles to protest their giving Bill Ayers a book signing. Phooey to those who cry censorship -- I am not proposing that we make such things illegal; merely that when Barnes & Nobles excercises their constitutional right to fete an avowed terrorist, we excercise ours to cost them money by taking our custom elsewhere.
For those who are not aware, Bill Ayers is the former member of the Weather Underground, currently married to almost-convicted (but for a technicality) terrorist Bernadine Doehrn. Both were proud of their bomb-making habits in the sixties; Bill Ayers took it one step further by writing a memoir glorifying his violent past. He also had an interview published in the New York Review of Books (written before the Day, but printed afterwards) in which he explicitly says that he doesn't regret the bombs he planted, and would do it again if he wanted to.
Barnes and Nobles had already alienated me by giving me wrong information about the return deadline for a textbook I purchased from them, and then refusing to make good their mistake, leaving me to eat over $100. This is typical treatment for the captive audience of students at schools which have turned over their bookstore operations to B&N's monopolistic ministrations. I had previously been a fan of B&N's stores, finding them comfortable and accomodating -- but it turns out that even stores with good customer service rapidly turn into surly bureaucratic hells when competition is removed (Adam Smith wins again!).
Personal problems aside, this is something special. Barnes and Nobles has rebuffed letters of protest with an insulting disregard for the native intelligence of their customers, refusing to even consider that it might not be appropriate to sponsor events for a man who believes incendiaries are a legitimate alternative to democracy -- especially less than two months after The Day. Luckily, I don't have to sacrifice -- I've switched my business to Amazon and Borders with little inconvenience, and the added bonus of supporting Amazon's quixotic quest for a stable balance sheet.
The American Express building at the World Financial Center is on fire! No one knows yet what caused it, but it is a construction site due to the large hunk the collapsing towers took out of the side, and of course that means torches and other flammables to repair the steel. No word either on any victims, but here's devoutly hoping that everyone got out safe.
It is extremely cold in the trailer. Or at least at my desk, which is cunningly located right underneath the air outtake vents. There is approximately a five foot zone of cold around my desk, outside of which we have turned the heat up to tropical levels in an effort to have some of it penetrate my area.
So what we are doing is using hotpots. Mine is the Rival Hotpot Express, which is not only capable of holding up to 32 ounces of boiling water, but is currently doing so in order to provide primitive steam heat facilities to its desperate owner. At least my fingers are now warm enough to type, although my hair may frizz into an afro soon.
I am making some extremely odd typos, which couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I was out late drinking with a friend who has recently joined me in the New New Economy -- the one where instead of Starbucks workers suddenly becoming internet millionaires, computer programmers can't get jobs at Starbucks.
This editorial is typical of the pointless maundering that has become Maureen Dowd's style. My favorite line:
"If the president uses the reverse playbook now, and continues to coddle the conservatives his father neglected, he has to go topple the wacky Iraqi, completing Poppy's unfinished business.
But if he does that, he turns his attention away from the recession, repeating Poppy's mistake after his war, when he never used his celestial approval ratings to fix the economy."
I'm intrigued. How exactly do high approval ratings fix the economy? Given that highly reputable economists can't seem to agree on how to accomplish this -- or even if it is within the ability of current knowlege to achieve -- did it really not occur to her that she might be expecting to much for the President to swoop in with his superpowers and proclaim "Thou Art Healed!"
Or is this a valuable insight into the mentality of the chattering classes -- they really, actually believe that Bill Clinton's charisma somehow made the economy work better. Let's elect Paul Newman and vote ourselves rich.
