CRA not the cause of Subprime meltdown.

"As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt."
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641

The CRA, Community Reorganization Act, helped create the less-so but still-profitable subprime lending market to minorities in 1977. It remained stable for nearly 20 years. In 1995, Clinton altered the act to allow for slightly riskier loans – Bear Sterns (note, not covered by CRA regulations anyway) lead the way in using this law change to aggressively enter this market. From 1997 to 2002, the subprime rate rose to and stabilized at about 10% of the overall market. In 2000 Phil Gramm, one of the John McCain’s chief economic advisers wrote the Securities Modernization Act, which introduced Default Credit Swaps – insurance on loans that wasn’t called insurance so that it wouldn’t be regulated, and responsible for trillions of dollars of the current problem. In 2002, Clinton’s changes were up for review, but Bush did not review them. From what I can find, he didn’t act on the review period at all.

In 2003, Bush noted that Fannie and Freddie’s subprime loans were getting to be too large of their overall holdings, and tried to get oversight of the two entities moved from congress to the Treasury Department. This action failed, no doubt because handing over more power to the Executive branch in 2003 was not likely to happen. This action did not do anything about the public mortgage marketplace, just the FM’s.

In 2005 the Bush administration, via the Office of Comptroller of Currency enforced for the first time, a 1860’s law which allows federal oversight of banks to supersede state-level regulation. All 50 state AG’s and all 50 state Banking Commissioners objected to this action, which prevented state-level regulations from being enforced. Also, the CRA was amended to only apply as it had previously to banks with assets >$1B, instead of all banks with assets greater than $250M as it had previously, and allowed mortgage banks to leverage themselves beyond the 10% threshold that had previously been in place (Lehman Bros was at 33/1 when it fell over). At this point, subprime lending increased from ~10% of the mortgage market to ~25% as of the beginning of this year.

More than half of subprime mortgages were made by institutions either not covered by the CRA (independent mortgage brokers) or only partially covered (bank subsidiaries), and 40% of all home purchases in 2006 were not primary residences – a record number.

Large Majority of Economists Support Obama's Economic Plan

In a follow-up to the previous post, The Economist reports significant favor for Obama's plan among respondents to a poll of economists nationwide.

This graph says it all:

From The Economist:
"Examining America's Presidential Candidates
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127

Economists Favor Obama

Right-leaning Libertarian cartoonist Scott Adams, creator of the tech-office strip Dilbert, has commissioned a survey of economists to determine which candidate the classic super-geeks favored with regard to long-term economic benefits and other social issues.

Obama came out on top in nearly every category, and even though the sample was heavily democratic, that's only because apparently, most economists are democrats, nationwide.

That last bit's news to me, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html

BPA (chemical in many plastics) Slows Brain

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/bpa-makes-you-stupid.php

"It dramatically impairs the formation of synapses in the regions of the brain important to learning," biomedical science professor Neil MacLusky [of the University of Guelph] said.

Nalgene, maker of super-tough water bottles for recreational use, recently began selling BPA-free bottles, I recommend them.
http://www.nalgenechoice.com/

Obama to make VP part of the Government again

Obama has promised to make his VP part of the executive branch of the government - not an undefined fourth branch, as created by VP Cheney in avoiding punishment for his questionable if not outright illegal activities. A VP that's part of the Executive branch - as the office had previously been since the 1700's.

It's sad that I'm excited by the idea of a president that actually wants to follow the constitution, but that's where we stand.

*sigh*


http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=826159

The state of cheap laptops

The idea was this: provide for poor schools all the books they didn't have. Math, History, Language.

But it was not an easy task. How do you get hundreds of text books, weighing thousands of pounds, to the far reaches of the world? And what did you do when the information in them became outdated?

The concept was to give, instead of 5 pound books, one 3 pound laptop - low powered (with hand-crank and solar options so that it would even work in areas with no electric grid), rugged (water resistant and sand resistant), with a connection to the internet (and it's thousands, no, thanks to Google, millions of books) - and sell it for $100.

The idea from one Nicholas Negroponte from MIT was ground breaking. And with a cadre of volunteers, he delivered. Using a low-powered AMD Geode processor, a free Linux-based Operating System, and a fantastic screen that worked out in the sunlight, the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) XO laptop was born.

Right out of the gate it sold fast, to schools in South America and Africa. Unfortunately, as orders for the XO computer started pouring in, businesses suddenly realized that Negroponte was right - there was a large untapped worldwide market for low-cost computers. And that was the projects undoing.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4472654.ece

Today, there are a number of entrants into the low-end laptop market. While Intel's post-OLPC project, the Classmate PC, was gobbling up marketshare around the world thanks to the slightly stronger hardware and the great power of Intel's marketing arm, Asus's Eee PC came out of the gates like a bull - their small, standard component laptop sold for $300 to anyone who wanted it (OLPC and Intel were selling only to schools), and the public ate them up.
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Search.htm?term=asus%20eee&DefSort=Y&searchFilter=ALL

Acer has also entered the low-cost laptop recently, relying on Intel's Atom low-powered processor.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/atom-nano-review.ars

The result is a good competitor to the EeePC, with a bit more power for just a bit more money:
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=8708409

OLPC is most likely dead, though the technology may live in in other projects; Mr Negroponte's idea certainly changed the landscape of low-cost computing. Sadly for the school children of the world, the lowest-cost computing system - also the one built with harsher environments in mind - will not be a part.

The Year of Living Biblically

What happens when an agnostic follows all the rules of the Bible for one year? He finds that belief isn't a requirement for sacredness to be useful.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html

Lifestyle may effect genes, too

No, we're not talking about a return to the Lamarkian theory of evolution. By exercising, reducing stress, and changing diet, a number of men with prostate cancer have seen drastic changes in gene activation - most notably in genes that are involved in cancerous growth.

A larger study needs to be undertaken to eliminate the effects of chance on the results, but it is a very promising result! Eat your carrots, kids!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25201082

Laffer Curves and Tax cuts

McCain’s idea that reducing the tax rate increases overall government revenue due to increased business growth is based largely on the idea of the high-income Laffer curve - if you tax everyone 100%, then no one will work to make money since they don’t get to keep it. Therefore, reducing taxes will increase business, and therefore will increase tax revenue. Makes sense!

However, the same argument can be made for 0% taxation – business might be huge, but the government gets nothing unless you raise taxes.

The end result here is that just like everything else, there is at least one optimal solution somewhere in the middle of the extreme cases – most likely somewhere tending toward the lower quarter mark (~25%), where people grumble, but still go to work everyday.

Austan Goolsbee - Obama's chief economic adviser agrees (or agreed, as this paper is from 1999):

“This paper has used evidence from seven different tax changes since 1922 to examine the evidence in support of the high-income Laffer curve and the New Tax Responsiveness Literature. While that work emphasizes the potential importance of behavioral responses to marginal tax rates, the results in this paper suggest that the evidence on which those conclusions are based—evidence from the 1980s—is atypical in the historical experience. Using the same methods that NTR authors have used for the 1980s, the elasticities of taxable income calculated for other tax changes seem to be much more modest with several indistinguishable from zero. This is true in the aggregate cross-sectional tax return data as well as in panel data on executive compensation. The largest estimates of the taxable income elasticity from all of the previous historical periods is lower than the smallest estimates of the elasticity in the literature based on the 1980s. Given the importance of the behavioral response to taxation, it is my hope that this will stimulate further research on the topic using data outside of conventional tax returns in the 1980s and 1990s.

The notion that governments could raise more money by cutting rates is, indeed, a glorious idea. It would permit a Pareto improvement of the most enjoyable kind. Unfortunately for all of us, the data from the historical record suggest that it is unlikely to be true at anything like today’s marginal tax rates. It seems that, for now at least, we will have to keep paying for our tax cuts the old fashioned way. “


You can read the full paper here: http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/laf.pdf

At Least Children Remember

more info here: http://www.sfsf.com.au/econews/econews_story_severin_suziki.htm

Good Idea, Bad Idea

Suppose there's a person in your office that you don't get along with. You have to work with them, however - you're not the boss in this situation, and you end up on a bunch of the same projects.

Do you
a) Avoid talking to the person no matter what.
b) Insult the person and hope they go away.
c) Tell them that they need to do everything your way, and if they don't like it, they can take a long jump off a short pier.
d) Discuss the problems you're having in an attempt to resolve the conflict or at least come to a professional understanding so that you can both get your work done.

If you picked D, then you're:
1) Not President Bush, John McCain or Hillary Clinton
2) In agreement with Barack Obama and more than 65% of the American public - including half of all Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

MythBusters on Electric Vehicles

While I've always wanted an electric vehicle - imagine never filling up again! - the range has always been a limiting factor. I can't afford to spend the money on a vehicle that prevents me from leaving right from work to drive to Virginia if suddenly needed.

Mine interests are common, but mostly I hear people complain about the performance of electric vehicles.- that they are slow.

The discovery Channel show MythBusters and Jay Leno would like to address that point:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4264025.html

Tough Enough.

"...we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?em&ex=1210132800&en=86fe7eaa442ab3f2&ei=5087%0A

Obama asks Sec. State Rice for a Rule on Military use

Jan 2005: Senator Obama asks Rice a question:



"Do we have a well-thought-through doctrine that we can present to the world that explains when we feel that military action is justified, and when it is not?"

Her answer is long, and comes down to, no, we do not.

To follow that response up, using Obama's words "...do you think...that the administration should be able to engage in ad-hock judgments?
"I understand that the world is complicated..., but right now, at least, it seems like it's a moving target for both the American people and the international community."

Cheesesteaks and the Lack of a National Language

A good friend of mine sent my this link earlier today:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/speak-english-signs-ok-at-philly-shop/20080320083809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
In short, a famous cheesesteak shop in Philadelphia put up signs saying that customers must order in English. The court ruling on the issue concluded that such a rule was legal.

This is not too surprising, given that Geno’s is a private business, they have the right to limit the customers that they serve, with certain exceptions (race, religion, etc.).

Requiring English is not going to violate discrimination laws in most cases because 1) anyone can learn English, and 2) there are many cultures that don’t speak English, so it is not discriminating against a single, clear minority.

However, it should be recognized that the US does not have a national language, and for a reason – unlike the European nations that our culture and government descended from, we have the freedom to choose our own language. If a group wants to speak Polish, and only talk to other people who speak Polish, and only serve customers who order in Polish, they can do so.

Of course, given the pervasiveness of English as the world language of trade and business, I think it’s a bad idea to *not* learn English. It’s also poor manners to move to another country and not attempt to learn the local culture and adhere to their rules while you are living there.

But law and morals only overlap so far – there should not be a law requiring English, just like there should not be a law require that you happily accept a business owner who refuses to take orders in the language that you happen to speak. In a free society, these are cultural and social issues – they shouldn’t have to become legal ones.

Obama Drops Politics for Fairness

The story - John McCain was not born in the US, and can't be president.

Maybe. Depending on who you ask, the Panama Canal Zone was not US territory when John McCain was born there. He is therefore, by the words of the Constitution, not a natively born citizen, and cannot be president.

In the wake of the announcement, all of his opponents called for him to step down, and allow Mike Huckabee to fill his role as the leading Republican candidate.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen? Instead of being petty, and using a loophole to dismantle his major rival, Obama is currently co-sponsoring a bill to ensure that McCain's debatable status as Presidential candidate is clarified? That he is playing politics on the basis of merits and honor?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/obama_backs_law_to_ensure_mcca.html

The McCain Delta

When matched up against McCain, both Obama and Clinton would win at this time. However, Clinton would hold a small margin, which Obama would win by a solid amount.


http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/03/07/clinton-vs-mccain-obama-vs-mccain/

This is Just Cool

The Briggs-Rauscher reaction is known as an oscillating chemical reaction. According to Wikipedia: “the freshly prepared colorless solution slowly turns an amber color, suddenly changing to a very dark blue. This slowly fades to colorless and the process repeats, about ten times in the most popular formulation, before ending as a dark blue liquid smelling strongly of iodine.” The reason this occurs is that the first reaction causes certain chemicals to be released in to the liquid, which then, in turn, spark a second reaction, and the process repeats itself until exhausted.
http://listverse.com/science/top-10-amazing-chemical-reactions/

Imbalance of Powers

US Attorney General Mike Mukasey has, not surprisingly, refused to enforce two congressional subpoenas, or the contempt citations that followed (due to the failure by two Bush administration member's to comply).

The problem here is this: you may have done nothing wrong, but you still have to show up for court. You can plead the 5^th or shout "Executive Privilege" all you want once you are there, but you’re not allowed to simply refuse to show up. To claim that executive privilege means the President or his staff don't need to even bother to appear before the congress is to suggest that the legislative branch has no power over the executive.

The obvious logic problem there is that Mukasey is refusing to investigate whether a crime occurred, and refusing to help the congress investigate whether a crime occurred, because Bush told him that everything that happened was lawful. Using an only slightly modified Nixonian logic, Mukasey is claiming: “If the President does it in order to fulfill his obligation to protect the nation, then it’s legal.” Bush has often publicly confused his oath of office in this way numerous times now - forgetting that his oath is to uphold the constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01contempt.html?_r=2&sq=attorney%20general&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=7&adxnnlx=1204518210-qAPkoVmjWyMnlVuTb5Gvpg&oref=slogin

re-posted for those who don't have NYTimes accounts. Sorry for the copyright violation, full attribution provided:

No Investigation of 2 Bush Aides

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 1, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Friday rejected referring the House’s contempt citations against President Bush’s chief of staff and former counsel to a federal grand jury. Mr. Mukasey said they had committed no crime.

Mr. Mukasey said the chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and the former counsel, Harriet E. Miers, were right in refusing to provide Congress with White House documents or to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

“The department will not bring the Congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers,” Mr. Mukasey wrote to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers for contempt and to seek a grand jury investigation.

Ms. Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers.

Slate Looks at Canidate Psychological Profiles

http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/all/#page_start


"Hillary Clinton is a Guardian, and her specific type is an ESTJ, what Keirsey calls "the Supervisor." Supervisors are, Keirsey says, steadfast, cautious, methodical. They are the reliable, detail-oriented people without whom organizations and society fall apart—which is something ESTJs won't hesitate to point out....

Barack Obama—no one will be surprised to learn—is an Idealist. His specific type is an ENFP, what Keirsey calls "the Champion." ENFPs, says Keirsey, are "filled with conviction that they can easily motivate those around them." Champions work to "kindle, to rouse, to encourage, even to inspire those close to them with their enthusiasm." Idealists "usually have a tongue of silver" and are "gifted in seeing the possibilities" of institutions and people....

John McCain is an Artisan, and his specific type is an ESTP, what Keirsey calls the Promoter. The ESTP is, according to Keirsey, "practical, optimistic, cynical, and focused on the here and now." If the ESTP portrait gives you a feeling of déjà vu, it's because George W. Bush is an ESTP, too. They are a common presidential type: Both Roosevelts, JFK, and LBJ were ESTPs. "Artisans need to be potent, to be felt as a strong presence and they want to affect the course of events," writes Keirsey. They hunger to "have a piece of the action," "to make something happen" whether "on the battlefield" or "in the political arena.""

Obama Substance

This post is just to refer you to three items which discuss the Obama/Clinton "substance" debate:

1)
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

Excerpt:
"There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote:

• "Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work."

"

2)
This second post is even more interesting. A woman known as "Grassroots Mom" actually went in and read the bills sponsored and written by both candidates in order to compare them. "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (Now a Supporter)"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Excerpt:
"Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of health care....

Now let's look more closely at Obama.

I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology."

3) Finally, a graph from the New York Times covering Obama's State record:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Newsweek Fails to Find Salvation

One Robert J. Samuelson explains why he feels that Obama is lacking as a presidential candidate, in an interesting way. He seemingly claims that Obama's ability to impress in person means that his inability to provide policies that are similarly audacious makes him somehow worse than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Some good points are made in the process, and the article is worth reading.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672/page/1

Of particular issue is what he sees as a lack of detail behind Obama's rhetoric, and despite the occasional valid point, I’d pose his own argument against himself. He lists vagaries without providing backing rational – “If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.” What areas of his agenda qualify under these descriptors? I’d very possibly agree if I knew what items he was talking about.

The Obama hype certainly does provide detractors with a target for their criticism. There isn’t enough pressure from the media for Obama to address his plan details more publicly. If you don’t go to Obama’s website and read his Blueprint for Change, most of the details of the plans this author lists would be completely unavailable.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Blueprint_Obama.htm

I did find one particular item in the article odd, however, and somewhat explanatory of the weakness of the overall argument:
"Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees—shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling."

He first claims that Obama’s plan is not change, but pandering; suggesting that there is no possible way for the promise to be met. But then he goes on to detail some of Obama’s plans to actually make the pledge possible, and yet fails to take the opportunity to point out any flaws in them; his argument here does not appear to be that details are lacking, as he claims, but that he disagrees with the details given. He seems to think that cutting benefits and raising the retirement age are the only methods that could work to save SS, and thus any different ideas (the things he claims are missing) are then not true details.

Where is the math to show that raising the SS cap isn’t going to provide enough money to fulfill the listed changes? If he thinks Obama should say that cutting benefits is the only hope, then why not provide a rational for that stance, instead of just making a claim of what the candidate should have said?

Lastly, most of the article is about Obama’s lack of both details and of “independent ideas”, without considering the alternatives. If McCain and Hillary are not held to a higher standard because they lack in the effective rhetoric that seems to have caused this reporter’s initial excitement with Obama, then why are their similarly lacking plans somehow better? Given his stated concerns with these other two candidates, is the author's contention really that when confronted with two similar options, picking the one with a known list of shortcomings is better, simply because we know what they are?

Obama's Experience: Quality vs. Quantity

Since most of the anti-Obama claims I hear are about his lack of national office experience, I think it’s worth taking a critical look at what experience he does have:

“People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements….”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

I’d also point people interested to a page about one bill he co-authored as a senator: to re-direct funding to the NATO destruction of conventional weapons caches actually being used against our military forces while everyone else was frantically screaming about WMDs. Ahh, the fresh scent of reality and sense:

http://fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/2005/LugarObama.htm

Bush's Protection Racket

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=638

Bush spoke first to the House of Representatives, then to the press on why the updated FISA bill should be passed in light of the expiration of the Protect America Act of 2007.

First let me note that Bush likes the Protect America Act - the provisional bill that was passed last summer as a stop-gap measure to allow the continued wiretapping of domestic communications while congress put together a more comprehensive bill, but the Republican house members voted against extending it another 21 days. Instead, they chose telecom immunity (a key part of the current draft of the new FISA bill) over the existing Protect America Act. The democrats chose to allow the Act to expire over the interests of telecom companies seeking liability protection via an Ex-Post Facto (read: blatantly unconstitutional) provision for handing over private customer information without a warrant.

Keep in mind that this simply means that the law in place since the 1970's is now back in effect - spying can occur, with cause and with a warrant from the secret FISA court. The only thing this expiry does is remove the government's right to spy on all domestic telecom traffic without a warrant for periods longer than 72 hours.


In my mind, this speech can be translated to:

"You should pay me what I've asked for. Or else something...you know...*really bad* might happen. I won't have anything to do with it, of course, I'm a good guy. But Johny, you see, over there, sitting in the corner...sometimes he gets violent, you know?

"All I'm trying to do is protect you, and you won't let me."

To head off arguments of the main weakness of this analogy: no, Bush doesn't have direct control over 'terrorists' as a mob head has over his hired muscle, but when any force is constant, control over the valve is control over the source.

A letter to my House Rep

Despite the fact that your votes against extending the Protect America Act suggest that you are in favor of the proposed telecom immunity that failed to come to a vote this week, I want to thank you for your role in rejecting said immunity.

While there is no doubt that passing an Ex-Post Facto law to provide telecom companies with safe harbor for actions regarding the transfer of private citizen information to the federal government without a warrant would increase the volume of data available for intelligence gathering, such myopic thinking ignores a vast majority of the effects this action would have on this nation and its government.

While we currently spend a hundred billion dollars per year in the name of fighting terrorism and protecting the roughly 250 US citizens per year that it kills, We spend a mere five billion on cancer research and helping the 500,000 per year that die from it. That's a $400,000,000 per death to only $10,000 per death.

What is the focus of our current War on Terror? Given the numbers above, it certainly isn't to prevent US deaths; such a goal would require the immediate re-distribution of WoT funds to medical research. What the billions of dollars appear to be doing is to help reduce the chance of death by violent act perpetrated by someone with an extreme ideology. To protect us from a rare method of death at the hands of another human being.

While noble, how much money is that worth?

How much freedom is the tiny fraction of useful information caught up in a telecom dragnet worth for the same noble but marginal goal?

What happened to the concept of a small government? Of Personal Freedom and Privacy as the root of a free democracy?