Monthly Archives: June 2013

Red Lines and Retreat

Posted on by
Reply

Thursday, President Barack Obama finally acknowledged what we’ve known—what our allies have demonstrated to us—for some months: that Bashar al Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people for as long as a year and a half.

Obama’s big, wide, squishy red line, drawn last August during the Presidential Campaign season, has been crossed, he finally admits (coincidentally, the day after former President Bill Clinton said

(You just think how lame you’d be…suppose I had let a million people, two million people be refugees out of Kosovo, a couple hundred thousand people die, and they say, “You could have stopped this by dropping a few bombs.  Why didn’t you do it?” And I say, “Because the House of Representatives voted 75% against it?”  You look like a total wuss, and you would be.
(…
(If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken is, “Oh my god, two years ago there was a poll that said 80% of you were against it.”  You look like a total fool[.])

Crossing such a red line would change Obama’s “calculus,” he said at the time he smeared his red line in the sand.

But what does this mean in terms of actually doing anything?  Recall that Obama also has already said that changing his calculus means

It would cause us to rethink the range of options that are available to us[.]

Only now, having conceded that his line in the shifting sands survived long enough to be crossed irrefutably, will he begin to figure out what to do about it.  Starting next week.  In consultation with the G-8.  Because he doesn’t know what to do.  He didn’t start contingency planning when he painted his red decoration.

While Obama hides his head under the red sand, more Syrians will die.  Because he can’t, or refuses to, plan ahead; he’ll only plan reactively, in real time.  To figure out how to retreat from this commitment.

A Whistleblower

Posted on by
Reply

I offered this first as a comment to a Spiegel Online article.  Here it is with slight modifications to support its stand-alone status here.

Edward Snowden, of Verizon metadata and PRISM outing fame, thinks of himself as a whistleblower, and so do many who agree with him that the US’ PRISM program and its program for collecting metadata from cellphone providers are terribly wrong programs.

I agree that the programs are anathema to individual liberty.  However, the programs are legal under US law.  The only question here is whether the programs’ limits and checks are being honored–and that’s a matter of trust, since the programs and its procedures are secret.  That secrecy and the need for that blind trust in Government (not just the Obama administration, but any Government) form a large part of my dismay over the programs.

However, the programs’ legality mean Snowden cannot be a whistleblower; he’s simply a man who has illegally revealed classified data to the public.

What about civil disobedience, then?  Is he practicing this honorable means of protest of a government behavior to which he objects?

There are many legal avenues of calling legitimate attention to these flawed programs, including, for instance, any of the several formal whistleblower and Inspector General facilities to which he could have taken his case.  Given the damage already done by these programs (stipulating arguendo that damage to individual liberty has been done) any additional damage done through the delays of going through these legitimate programs would have been quite trivial.  Yet Snowden eschewed these programs and went directly public.  From within a foreign country.

Were this an act of civil disobedience, it would have had to satisfy two criteria: he would have had first to exhaust his legal remedies.  As I noted, he chose not to do so.

Secondly, he would have to have been willing to face the consequences of his actions.  It is, after all, those consequences and their absurdity in the face of the disobedience and the thing over which the disobedience is occurring that give force and credibility to the disobedience.  Snowden’s reason for being in Hong Kong, as stated by him, is to avoid facing those consequences.

If Snowden truly believes that what he has done is just, he must return to the US and face the outcomes of his actions in open court.  Let him make his case in front of the American people (where he’ll find no small measure of support) and convince our representatives in that court case–the jury of his peers–that his act was justified.

Of course he risks not being supported by our representatives, that jury, as there also are a large number of Americans who disagree with what he has done.

Snowden’s flight and so far refusal to return indicates he’s unwilling to take that risk, that he does not have the courage of his convictions.  In that case, Snowden did not commit an act of civil disobedience; he is simply a small man who is placing his ego above justice.

Farm Bill Fail

Posted on by
Reply

One of the more controversial provisions the Senate bill [a farm bill that will cost $955 billion if passed] covers is crop insurance.  In the past, farmers have been able to purchase an insurance safety net if their crops fail.  Under the bill, the government would kick in another $5 billion of insurance per year—bringing the total to $12 billion a year—which would cover the deductibles and cushion the blow farmers would have to pay.

And

The House version spends more money on crop insurance, but less for food stamps and conservation efforts.

No, the farm bill needs to eliminate the crop insurance aspect altogether (I’m ignoring here the food stamp wastage), not increase it or even maintain it.  Government has no business interfering with the private market, or protecting any business—including farmers—from the consequences of their decisions.  If the farmers want a safety net against crop failure—an eminently reasonable desire—they should be free to buy it on the open market from crop insurers competing for their business.

Americans, either as taxpayers or as farm customers, should not be forced to pay for farmers’ decisions except through market effects.

Another Overt Harassment

Posted on by
Reply

This is just starting to come out, even though it occurred in early April.  The Examiner is reporting that Tom Francois got a visit from President Barack Obama’s Secret Service.  Francois had been a cabinet maker of some duration and skill until the Panic of 2008 did his business in.  Since, he’s been an active critic of the Obama administration via various social media.

From his critiques, the Secret Service paid him a visit, followed by a visit to his daughter and to his ex-wife.  They also demanded to see his weapons and threatened to confiscate them if he “stepped over the line.”

Had he crossed that line yet?  No, according to the agents.  Then why are you visiting me?  [mumble]

The agents justified their…visit…on the basis of the Twitter following Francois has accumulated, and “the things I said could be acted upon by some nut case out there.”  Sure.

The agents also pulled out an image of Air Force One and asked Francois whether he had posted that image.  Francois wanted to know where the rest of the image was along with his copyright mark, since he always signs his work and asserts his copyright when he posts it.  The agents had no answer.

Here’s the offending image, below the added post-visit caption:

Keep in mind that this April visit occurred before the IRS and DoJ had been caught harassing large numbers of Americans and American groups who disagree with Obama and his administration.

Hmm….

Continued Government Interference in our Markets

Posted on by
Reply

…most recently in our financial markets.  Now the Feds are expanding their hectoring of our financial institutions over their fees.  The Federal government already has chosen to prevent them from making money the old fashion way—through lending—with its artificially suppressed interest rates.  It’s already inveighed against them over one set of fees which they charge as a means of earning a profit for their owners—our fellow Americans.

Now the government is going after another set of fees, with their objection centered on the fact that these Know Betters just don’t like the fees.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a creature of Dodd-Frank that is responsible and responsive to no one, has begun the process of obstructing the collection of overdraft fees—the fees charged when folks write checks with insufficient funds to cover them, so the bank covers the bad checks or transfers funds from the check-writers’ savings accounts (with the check writers’ prior permission) to cover the bad checks.

Usually, such bad checks result from a moment of carelessness.  More than occasionally, though, those bad checks are written by serial offenders, who rely on those overdraft processes to make their bad checks good.

Of course, the CFPB has said

it has no immediate plans to issue or recommend new overdraft-fee rules.

This is disingenuous, though: the criticism by a government agency has its own intimidative effect.  For instance,

In 2011, Bank of America Corp, the second-largest US bank by assets, quickly abandoned plans for a monthly debit-card charge of $5 after it was denounced by lawmakers….

Nevertheless, the CFPB is bellyaching that

heavy users of overdraft coverage pay about $900 a year more than consumers who don’t incur overdraft fees.

This is bad how, exactly?  Why should responsible customers have to subsidize the careless ones for their carelessness?  After all, the costs of making good on those bad checks have to be covered somehow—if not through fees paid by the bad check writers, then by spreading those costs across all the bank’s customers, responsible and…careless…alike.

The best way to hold down the annual costs of writing bad checks is for government to stay out of the market place and for the writers to stop writing bad checks.

The Jack Daniel Employees’ Credit Union charges $10 when a customer overdraws on an account.  Pam Case, manager of the Lynchburg, TN, credit union, said keeping the fee low helps lure customers.  “They like that we don’t have a lot of fees,” she said.

Which demonstrates how well the competition of a free market regulates fees.