Psychopolitik 2.0

Noted in a column on the Bear Stearns bailout:

When large market players - like Bear Stearns of today - find themselves in dire straits, the Federal Reserve can face a bit of a conundrum in the court of public opinion. If the Fed decides to bail out a bank or hedge fund whose failure could mean much wider market crises, the public can grow frustrated that only the largest institutions have the privilege of avoiding failure by tapping government funds.

And yet, if the Fed hews to strict free-market philosophy - allowing Darwin to cull weak institutions from the market’s ranks - the decision to stand pat could create a public back-lash should the markets end up tanking while the Fed kept its hands folded.

My view would be that the strict free-market stance should be followed precisely because of the unfairness of the alternative.   All other things being equal, if it is taken as a given that the State exists, and that they will bail out SOMEBODY, a billionaire bank should get one approximately, oh…when El-P joins the military.  People saying “DO SOMETHING!!” should not be surprised when things get worse, as they’re effectively calling for them to.

That said, the characterization given by the author isn’t quite accurate in the first place.  The average citizen isn’t going to associate further economic drain-circling with a failure to rescue investment bankers.  Unfortunately, neither will most associate current conditions with government interference, thanks to the prevailing common wisdom that we have a free market, thus anything bad happening gets used as proof that free markets don’t work.  If it were up to me, the following question would become inconveniently frequent from our lips:

“How can a financial institution be ‘too big to fail’ without first having been too big to succeed?”

General Petraeus states the obvious:

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that “no one” in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services.

No duh.  Considering how far back the sectarian tension there goes, along with the fact that no government can truly address these kinds of things in the first place, the expectation here is akin to an aerobics trainer expecting Michael Moore to do military-style “clap” pushups.  Anyway, moving on…

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has won passage of some legislation that aids the cause of reconciliation, drawing praise from President Bush and his supporters. But the Iraqi government also has deferred action on some of its most important legislative goals, including laws governing the exploitation of Iraq’s oil resources, that the Bush administration had identified as necessary benchmarks of progress toward reconciliation. (emphasis mine)

As the laws referred to consist of the package mentioned here, which would give foreign oil companies long-term contracts and put their representatives in control of the majority of Iraqi oil fields, a version of which was put in place in Kurdistan that Dennis Kucinich pointed out served to funnel even more money  towards the pockets of a Bush loyalist, that line is way more literal than the author of the Petraeus article intended.  This kind of move being a “benchmark” could be seen as a reverse protection racket — “pass this bill or we won’t leave!” — if not for the bases already being constructed.

While looking at various news stuff online, found the following bit concerning the remote possibility of charges for Spitzer:

Among the possible charges that could be brought against Spitzer: soliciting and paying for sex; violating the Mann Act, the 1910 federal law that makes it a crime to induce someone to cross state lines for immoral purposes; and illegally arranging cash transactions to conceal their purpose. (emphasis mine)

The Mann Act?  That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?

Oh…Goddamn, that law still exists?  Why?  The original point of it was bigoted hysteria that white women were being turned into sex slaves in droves, and it is & always has been ridiculously broad in scope, even if you accept the stated aim of it.  There is already a law against transporting people against their will for any reason — the charge is called “kidnapping” — so on top of being built on an outdated and downright ridiculous foundation it’s redundant.

Seriously, we’re still referring to “immoral purposes” as reason to lock people up?  WTF is this, Iran?

Boy, the Fed sure is getting creative with their goosing of Big Finance.  I’ve never heard of this one, wtf?:

Wall Street cheered news that Federal Reserve will pour $200 billion into the troubled financial system. Stocks surged in the last half hour of trading, sending major indexes up 3.5% to 4%.

Working with the central banks in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, the Fed will offer loans to financial institutions and will accept as collateral various securities, including the mortgage-backed debt that has caused so much trouble since July. […]

The Fed has used the so-called Term Securities Lending Facility, or TSLF, just as an overnight loan, but the new liquidity infusions will last 28 days. “The TSLF is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally,” the Fed said in a statement. (emphasis mine)

Debt as investment was goofy enough.  Now debt as collateral for loans?  And this is considered a credible enough tactic that it actually has an official term?
Well damn, no wonder Spitzer had to pay so much.  A dollar doesn’t get as much poon as it used to…

When an airline pilot works, does he fly the plane & then ride back immediately on the next flight going the opposite direction, as would be considered a “shift” in any other job?  Basically, is the pilot home on a regular schedule or does he work “at will”, where he’d go wherever and potentially stay there between overnight and however long he feels like hanging around in whatever city he happened to have landed in?

Bonus question: I know there are airlines that only give you a pack of those tiny hard pretzels when you ride, and there’s also the ones that give you a meal.  Anyone know one that gives you pretzels, but the big soft buttery kind you might dip in nacho cheese instead of the chintzy little ones?

A short going away piece of amusement. Enjoy:

Restaurant chain IHOP Corp. said Monday it has added four new items to its menu as part of its partnership with Twentieth Century Fox Animation’s “Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!” film.

IHOP restaurants will feature the items, including Who-Cakes and green eggs and ham, from March 3 through April 20. IHOP shares fell sharply in morning trading. (emphasis mine)

Gee, I wonder why…;-)

I’m about to leave for civilized territory for a week.  Barring an alien invasion, between tomorrow and the 11th I will be posting approximately zilch here.  As a temporary substitute, I propose you check the blogroll.

If it makes my absence any easier, take what Glenn Greenwald and Brad Spangler say for that duration & re-imagine them with minor spelling errors, snarky cultural references, and the occasional word you can’t say on TV.

I think it’s safe to say that Monday is already written off when this is the first thing I see:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee hinted Sunday that a battle over an expired eavesdropping law might be moving toward a conclusion that gave phone companies the retroactive legal protections long sought by President Bush.

The chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, said in an interview on CNN that the committee had been talking to the companies “because if we’re going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and understand what it is we’re giving immunity for.”

Mr. Reyes did not specify what provisions a House bill might contain. But his use of the words “blanket immunity” suggested that he might be moving toward a Senate bill, backed by Mr. Bush, that would protect phone companies that assisted in a federal program of wiretapping without warrants after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “I have an open mind about that,” Mr. Reyes said. (emphasis mine)

“Well, I’d like to know whether or not lube will be involved, if we’re going to receive involuntary buttsex. I have an open mind about lube, you can give us involuntary buttsex with it or without it, I’d just like to know that detail. While we’re at it, will it be going in our mouths before or after?”

Somebody tell me this fucker has a primary challenge coming up, please…

Edit: concerning the immunity itself, Kevin Drum & a Washington Monthly commenter “Bmaz” have some background even I wasn’t thinking about: Odds are rather good that the telecoms themselves really don’t care, because we could end up paying any damages anyway.  According to this, the real protection is for the Administration, as the telecoms already got theirs.

Yesterday we were greeted with the news that, thanks to the all-encompassing Daddy-Statism this country has fallen for, 1 out of every 100 US adults is in prison. We actually lock up a higher percentage of our population than China, and they’re an authoritarian regime! Us beating them at locking up people is like if Lebron James lost a dunk contest to Will Ferrell.

Despite the obvious implications behind this, what do I get greeted with on the front page of the Washington Post’s website (screen-capture below, click the thumbnail)?

I figured that had to be a sarcastic remark, intentionally provocative so that people click on it. They’ve had writers do that before, gotta admit it works. Sadly…no:

More Americans than ever are in prison. We incarcerate a higher percentage of the population than any other country. It’s too bad we have such a high rate of criminality–but given that we do, I’m glad we have been putting more people behind bars over the last generation.

It isn’t an ideal solution. It may be that we need to find other ways to deal with nonviolent offenders. We should surely address the appalling problem of prison rape. Hiring more police officers and putting them on the street might help, too.

But increased rates of imprisonment have helped to bring about falling rates of crime. Given the alternative of the way we treated crime in the 1960s and 1970s, when I see a headline about a record incarceration rate, I’m glad. Aren’t you? (emphasis mine)

That’s none other than Ramesh Ponnuru, kicking off a thread in WaPos message board section by praising this development. Closest he comes to criticism is faux concern for “criminality” among his fellow Americans, and a toss at prison rape (as if that’s the only problem with this).

Common sense would tell someone that if you make rules that are so contradictory and/or nit-picky of personal habits that directly harm no one that much of the population is a suspect, then the problem is the rules, not the people. Ramesh is wrong on this issue in more ways than one can even count…