close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100109073047/http://www.samefacts.com:80/

January 8th, 2010

It wasn’t surprising when the victorious North Vietnamese decided to celebrate their conquest of the south by renaming Saigon “Ho Chi Minh City.”

Nor was it surprising that the city, far more wealthy, cosmopolitan, and populous than Hanoi, should become the financial capital and the home of the stock exchange as Vietnam went capitalist.

And it was only natural that the stock exchange in Ho Chi Minh City should be the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange.

Still, I couldn’t help feeling a moment of vertigo when I read in the Financial Times that “the Ho Chi Minh stock index rebounded 125 per cent from its lows last year.”

Somehow

Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!

Long on copper, short on tin!

just sounds wrong.  Does anyone know whether Uncle Ho had a sense of humor?

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

I know even lobbyists and flacks for polluters have to make a living,  but sometimes you have to wonder how they can stand to look at themselves in the mirror.

In March 0f 2008 the Bush Administration issued new rules establishing a standard of 0.075 parts per million for ground-level ozone, the main precursor of smog.  (Not to be confused with the stratospheric ozone that protects us from ultraviolet radiation.) In doing so, the Bushies over-ruled their own scientific advisory panel, which had recommended a standard of between .06 and .07.  Reportedly, the Beloved Leader intervened personally on behalf of his friends in the ahl bidness.

Now the Obama Administration has re-opened the rulemaking, and will accept comments on a proposed range of between .06 and .07, just as the Bush Administration’s scientific advisers had suggested.   The American Petroleum Institute promptly issued a statement denouncing what it called “an obvious politicization of the air-quality standard-setting process.”

I haven’t looked at the benefit-cost analysis.  I suppose it’s possible that the tighter regulation will turn out not to be cost-justified, though I’d be surprised, given the rules under which regulatory benefit-cost analysis is done.  But to call a decision that respects scientific advice “a politicization of the process” is just gibberish, and I wish that the conventions of American journalism allowed reporters to follow up with appropriately withering questions, or just to say to the flacks, “I’m not printing that crap. Say something that isn’t a flat-out lie or I’ll just report that API is against the proposed new rule.”

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

Wingnuts never change.

wantedfortreason

Now can we hear some more from Halperin, Broder & Co. about how the hatred of Obama is actually Obama’s fault?   This is just how Birchers behave.  All that’s new is the takeover of  the GOP by the John Birch wing.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

Andrew Sullivan runs down a list of torture techniques that, he charges, various people at National Review Online (and others on the right) have endorsed.  The list includes, Sullivan claims, stress positions. forced hooding and stripping, mock executions, forced nudity, multiple beatings, use of dogs to terrify, freezing prisoners to near death with icewater and naked exposure to very low temperatures, repeated near-drowning, sleep deprivation up to 960 hours,  repeatedly slamming a prisoner with a neck collar against a  wall, confinement in upright coffins, and use of phobias such as the rats in Orwell’s Room 101.

I assume that Sullivan can provide chapter and verse for his claims.  But of course not every member of the Red team (I can’t call them “conservatives” in t his context without straining the language)  writes for NRO, nor did everyone at NRO endorse every one of thosetechniques.   What I’m not clear on is how many or which Red bloggers and pundits, or how many or which Republican politicians, endorse them.

We know that the entire Red team is, virtually unanimously, against holding any official responsible for doing such things, or ordering them done, or facilitating them with purported legal opinions.  We know that they are, virtually unanimously, against giving the people subjected to such techniques civilian trials at which they can the use as evidence against them of statements they made after undergoing them.  And of course against moving prisoners from Guantanamo to mainland prisons where their treatment might be subject to closer scrutiny.  But many on the right. starting with George W. Bush, claim to be against “torture.”

What we don’t know is many of them, or which of them, other than Charles Krauthammer and Donald Rumsfeld, are shameless enough to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m for waterboarding,” or “Yes, I’m for hypothermia,” or “Yes, I’m for sleep deprivation,” or “Yes, I’m for stress positions.”

Every one of those techniques is, in my view, clearly torture.  And of course if any of them were done to an American by a foreign government or by a terrorist group, all of us would regard them as torture.

So I offer a challenge to the inhabitants of Red Blogistan.  Go through Sullivan’s list, and state clearly which of those techniques you would be prepared to have used against captives of the United States Government, and which you regard as clearly over the line.

And I hate to say this, but some of the signals coming out of Washington make me want to ask the same question of some spokesman for the current Administration.  I’d really like to hear that all those things are not now being done in my name, under my flag.  I’d also like to believe that most of my fellow-citizens would, like the Father of Our Country, recoil in horror from doing any of those things.  But that pretty clearly isn’t the case.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

“His soul has been sold so many times now it’s a wonder it’s not on eBay.”

Ouch!

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

I think that Megan McArdle, like  other critics of the proposed “plain vanilla” rule in consumer finance, mostly misses the point of the exercise.

It’s not a terrible idea, necessarily, but if it’s an actual option, I doubt it would accomplish much.  Banks will find ways to steer you into the more lucrative product–unless, of course, you’re the sort of highly informed, financially disciplined consumer who doesn’t need a vanilla option, and is in fact better off in the current system.

Yes, the banks will have an interest in steering people into options that are more lucrative for the banks and worse for the consumers.  But competitive pressure will limit their capacity to do so.

The problem with fancy financial products is that the product from one source isn’t directly comparable to the product from a differetn source.  That makes it hard for consumers to comparison-shop.  But if it’s possible to define a plain-vanilla checking account or 6-month CD or 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, then those products become commodities, varying from institution to institution only on service characteristics such as how long it takes the bank to answer a phone call.

Given commodity financial products, comparison shopping is trivial:  which plain-vanilla 30-year fixed mortgage has the lowest APR, assuming that the law defines “plain vanilla” in terms of a default set of closing costs and penalties for various unforseen events?

Thus the plain-vanilla markets will be highly competitive.  And the  prices of the plain-vanilla products will discipline the rest of the pricing structures, by acting as benchmarks.  A bank that tries to make its vanilla product unattractive, in order to push consumers into fancier products, will lose out to rival institutions in the comparison-shopping process.   And to sell a fancier product will require pricing that makes it at least seem attractive by comparison with the same bank’s vanilla.  Unsophisticated consumers could safely adopt the decision rule, “For each type of product, find the low-cost supplier of the vanilla version, and buy it.”  More sophisticated consumers could compare whatever fancy product they’re offered with that same least-cost vanilla version.

The vigorous opposition of the banks to the requirement to offer “plain-vanilla” makes it clear how much they fear the commodification of their business.  That’s an excellent reason for the rest of us to like the idea.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 8th, 2010

Following my breastfeeding anti-Cathar Virgins, more thoughts on dualism. These really are blue-sky speculations, and I’ve no reputable historian like Duby to give me cover.

It’s hard for us to get any handle on the Manichaean mentality. As with reincarnation, modern Westerners just don’t get the point. This may well be down to the sheer completeness of the thirteenth-century Catholic victory over dualism. It never came back in Western Christendom. The Reformation struggles were on quite different ground; even the thoroughly Augustinian Calvin didn’t suffer the pull his master struggled so hard to free himself from. It was a theological paradigm shift, in Thomas Kuhn’s famous phrase.

I suspect that this was a much bigger deal than we realize. Consider some of the possible effects – in the post-Enlightenment world, now part of the heritage of Jews and secularists.

The control group here is Orthodox Eastern Europe. Orthodoxy didn’t go down the same road, and SFIK for it the world remains essentially a vale of tears that has to be endured, not remedied. The function of the church is to enable souls to escape it into transcendence. Any church involvement in politics is purely defensive, not transformative. (Around 1992, I had the odd experience of witnessing a meeting in Bulgaria between the abbot of the leading Orthodox monastery and the Dominican confessor to the King of Spain.  The Dominican wanted to know what the church’s agenda was in the transition to democracy; the abbot was only interested in getting funding for the liturgy.) And it was in Western, Catholic and post-Catholic Europe that the following happened first.

1. The death of the Devil
The revolution evicted the Devil from any organic role in the creation; he ceased to be the necessary, balancing force of death and destruction that at the same time enables new growth and life, a Tiamat or Kali. He became a purely malignant force of moral evil, as in Dante. Initially this led to an appalled fascination and the paranoid witch craze. But in the long run, he became a spare wheel, doomed eventually to be replaced by a dinky little aerosol puncture kit. You could account for human failings and natural disasters perfectly well without him. Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là, as Laplace said of God. Now he’s vanished.

2. Science
If the world is run by a malignant being, or it’s a struggle between two opposing beings, there’s no reason to think it will be comprehensible. Making the creation wholly God’s means that his plan is rational and may be figured out, as Muslims never doubted. The scientific enterprise, suspended for Christians since the end of antiquity, could and should be restarted. Significantly, Copernicus came from and worked in the Catholic western part of Poland (Thorn and Cracow), not the Orthodox eastern part, which must have been very similar on most other metrics.

3. Democracy
The political implication of dualism is quietism; of monism, engagement. The material here and now matters to God and matters to the Church. Again, the initial results were unpromising: an increase in religious violence, starting with the Crusades and going on to the wars of the Reformation period and the colonial conquests. But the continuous impulse from both Catholic and especially Protestant religion to try to improve things, to identify and carry out God’s presumed plan for creation, did require continuous experiments in social engineering. Some of these, like the Inquisition, were quite horrible; but eventually the Dutch and the English tried tolerance and constitutional government. It really has nothing to do with Athens.

If I’m right here, we owe much of the modern world to the Cathars and their failure. Montségur did not burn in vain.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 7th, 2010

The Shrill One has a typically good column today setting forth many of the crucial issues of the upcoming financial regulation struggle.  As they say, read the whole thing.   Krugman says that the current regulatory structure allows egregious conflicts-of-interest, in which bankers get huge bonuses for taking unreasonable risks that threaten the financial system.

But the third-to-last paragraph may be the most important.  Because of these bizarre conflicts-of-interest,

reform really should take on the financial industry’s compensation practices. If Congress can’t legislate away the financial rewards for excessive risk-taking, it can at least try to tax them.

If taxing certain kinds of compensation practices can reduce the risk, then that means that a new package of tax incentives and disincentives can plausibly be included in a budget reconciliation package.  And that means that Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, and Mary Landrieu will not be able to hold the rest of the country hostage.  (The question, as always, will be whether such provisions are only “incidentally related” to the budget, about which more later.).

Of course, it’s hardly optimal to use a tax strategy for financial regulation simply because this will prevent an assured Republican filibuster.  But you regulate with the filibuster rules you have, not the filibuster rules you would like.  At least until January 2011.

PS  In any event, compensation reform should be part of a free-standing bill; I will be happy to see Richard Burr and David Vitter, while campaigning for re-election explain why they are joining a filibuster of it, as well as every GOP candidate explain why they would do the same thing.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 7th, 2010

The President hit what seemed to me the right notes:

He reviewed the bidding:  The information was in hand, but didn’t get sent around and acted on, not because individuals didn’t do their jobs, but because the process was ill-designed.

He announced new countermeasures, both in the intelligence process and in the screening process.

He made specific people responsible for making the requisite changes, and more or less promised that heads would roll if they didn’t get made.

He took personal responsibility for the systemic failures, and, while leaving the door open to the possibility that some heads would yet roll for the Christmas Day screw-ups put the priority on fixing the system rather than finding scapegoats.

He said that terrorist recruiting goes beyond the list of people with known extremist ties, and argued for the importance of convincing Muslims around the world that we offer more hope than al-Qaeda does.

He insisted that tighter security would not extend to giving up our principles, institutions, and way of life.  And, in a clear rebuke to the Cheney-King-Hoekstra faction, he called for “citizenship, not partisanship.”

Full text at the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 7th, 2010

I revisited the Musée Cluny in Paris in November, a compact gem on the Left Bank, home to the gorgeous chivalric fantasy of the Dame à la Licorne tapestries. My eye was struck by an early Gothic statue of the Virgin and child – feeding at her breast.   I think this must be it:

Paris_192
Credit: this anonymous French blogger

What is going on here? We can rule out a public health campaign: thirteenth-century Parisian babies, like the real infant Jesus, like most babies in the world’s history, got breast milk or died. Prurient sexual interest? Forget it. This was a sculpture, not a painting: an expensive public theological statement made by order of the canons of an important city church.

One serious explanation could be that this is a sign of the proto-humanism of the 12th and 13th-century, along with the launch of Christian universities to compete with Muslim ones. The explanation would fit this gentle sculpture of a century later, emphasising the human mother love of the woman Mary.
Cluny virgin2 Credit: Musée Cluny shop (you can buy a reproduction)

But I reckon that for the older one it won’t wash. Early Gothic sculpture – the label dated the early one around 1240 CE – is  actually less human than Romanesque, with its comedy and satire. It discovered human dignity, within religion, and embodied it in huge, elongated, hieratic kings and prophets. The Virgin in the statue is crowned: she’s the Queen of Heaven, the Theotokos, not an ordinary girl.

What else?  the late French historian Georges Duby saw Gothic art as in part a reaction to the Cathar heresy, a civilised counterpart of the bloody Albigensian crusade. The Cathars were dualists; the material world was irredeemabkly corrupt, and salvation came from escaping it. Why this gloomy creed appealed more in sunny Languedoc than rainy Northern France is a mystery; but still, it was widely attractive, both from its mystical escapism and its realistic view of the squalor, violence and disease of daily life.

Combating the heresy required the Catholic Church to rehabilitate matter and ditch the fear of the demonic forces in nature so evident in the Romanesque. St. Francis’ paeans to the sun and birds are part of this current. So are the great windows of the Gothic cathedrals. The architects were constantly pushing the envelope of building technology to make ever bigger openings, taking risks that frequently led to collapses. The purpose was to let in more light: created, immaterial, and good. In the frozen liturgy of the stained glass, the natural light of the sun enabled man to enrich its beauty and offer it back to God. The great cathedrals are anti-Cathar poems in stone and glass. Here is Strasbourg’s rose window:

600px-Rosace_cathedrale_strasbourg

Credit: Wikipedia

An image of a breast-feeding Mary fits in perfectly with this argument. It’s an in-your-dualist-face assertion both of the doctrine of the Incarnation, of God made man, and of the inherent goodness of the natural order. The everyday act of breast-feeding is not only reproductively essential, it gives pleasure to both mother and child: perhaps the most innocent pleasure of which humans are capable. You don’t have to buy into the premises of the mediaeval Parisian clerics to agree with their conclusion and admire the result.

I wish there were more such statues in churches.

Dedicated to Alice Louise Patricia Rousselle, my second grand-daughter, born on 7 January 2010, and her mother Sarah. Waaah!
Update

More speculation here on dualism.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook