Saturday, April 23, 2011

Comment on Lynn Chu, Facebook:
Bear Stearns,...were operating by one measure at 40 to 1 capital ratios...

Bear Stearns,...

Here is one Google Book Settlement related example of meretricious garbage taking the guise of Google consulting work posing as "scholarship": Greg Sidak and Jerry Hausman, Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books, 5 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 411 (2009, available as a download at, a paper which was distributed widely which tended to give the media and other economists and lawyers the impression that "sophisticated" "experts" thought the Google Book Settlement was a work of beauty and "innovation." I suspect that it was written in such gruesomely unreadable wooden academicized prose precisely and intentionally to deflect attention to its actual content, its utter and total lying meretricious charlatanism, rigged up to give a paying client what it wanted to hear. For consultants to do such "work" is a species of fraud imho. They know no one can definitively prove they spewed it out intentionally, just to cop some fees
They gambled big. They must lose big.
When we take back the government after 2012 we must extirpate root and branch every vestige of the corrupt Marxist/authoritarian/corporatist/totalitarian/elitist intrusion.

To be clear I believe that unlike Goldman, Merrill and other insiders Lehman was played and betrayed like a mark or willing victim.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Comment on Hot Air:
Jan Brewer vetoes Arizona’s “Birther bill”

Jan Brewer vetoes Arizona’s “Birther bill” « Hot Air

Agreed that the full faith and credit clause means that a state has to accept the validity of a document but does that mean that each state gets to decide what documents to share? If Hawaii has a "long form" then Arizona must respect it, on that we all agree. If Hawaii refuses to share the document that it has or declines to share the records available then why should Arizona have to accept an inferior substitute? If this was a murder trial and Arizona requested that a suspect be delivered by extradition for trial would it be sufficient for Hawaii to deliver a letter stating that they had examined the subject and determined the innocence of the party?

I am not a Birther and think that there are more likely grounds to challenge Obama's status as a natural born citizen based on his possibly having traveled on a foreign passport after his 18th birthday or having claimed foreign nationality on his school applications or financial aid forms.

We have now identified a serious hole in our constitutional system that will be exploited in the future even if Obama had not done anything wrong. My suggestion is that 120 days prior to the meeting of the Electoral College each state submit a list of 5 names for each office, President and Vice President, with supporting documentation as they deem sufficient, to the Supreme Court. If there are any questions the Chief Justice may request additional documentation. The Chief Justice should no later than 60 days before the Electoral College assembles send a certification to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (the current VP) listing all qualified candidates and noting those who had been disqualified and the grounds for such action. The Congress should then promulgate that list, and may restore names to it if they so choose, in time for the State Legislatures to consult with the will of the people and then select the Electors.

Remember that the popular vote is only an opinion poll and all that is needed is to ensure that certified candidates names appear. The vote for the Electors happens within the State Legislatures.

Monday, April 11, 2011

The Long Goodbye

Continuing meltdown. I never expected Obama to get below 20%. In the past he has had a Strong Disapproval of 48%. That means that we can expect his Total Index to reach -28%. I now expect the Democrats to jettison him and announce his departure for "health" reasons by September.

Obama: Strongly Approve: 19% (new low) Strongly Disapprove 39%... Approval Index: -20.. Total Approval: 44%...

Monday, April 04, 2011

Comment on Theo Spark:
Signs of a Bad Fitness Report

Theo Spark

Entertaining in Wardroom = Obscene jokes

Calm under pressure = Clueless drunk

Informal demeanor = Slob

Trusted by troops off duty = They bailed him out

Finishing with the ever popular, "You will be lucky if you ever can get this man to work for you."

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Comment on Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - NRO: He Didn’t Start the Fire

He Didn’t Start the Fire - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

Really a follow-up to yesterday's comment on Mark Steyn.

It crossed my mind that Rev Jones in Florida transgressed against a powerful legal interest group when he burned the Koran, he emitted carbon and by spreading the Koran into the atmosphere maybe inflicted other forms of pollution on Providence's Nature. It is possible to destroy the Koran in a much more sensitive manner. Just go to or some similar place where the Ummah have helpfully made their screed available online and download it, then erase the file. There is no doubt that in doing so you will have destroyed a copy of the Koran. Some enterprising software engineer (hint hint) might want to design a bot that can automate this task and destroy thousands of Korans an hour. With a little bit of luck and everyone working together we might get this idea to go viral. It could even be announced that Islamic outrages will result in increased destruction of virtual Korans. Since it is their belief that the virtual is real, really the inversion of the core Islamic belief that the real is only a projection of Allah's virtual dream. they may be motivated to alter their conduct to limit the destruction of the Korans. With such a lever we might begin to move mountains.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Comment on Mark Steyn, The Corner - NRO:
A Difference of Degree

A Difference of Degree - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

It is the hypocrisy that stands out. Those who scream that their right not to be offended is being offended are the most offensive people around. The UN workers that got decapitated had a right not to be offended also. Maybe they found getting killed rather offensive. Terry Jones has a right not to be offended also. Maybe Mr Jones finds people screaming "Death to America" somewhat offensive.

We must deal with the Muslims with a standard of perfect reciprocity. Once they have internalized the costs of being offensive then they will begin to treat others with respect. That is essential before, not after, they can be trusted to learn and change and become part of society. Perhaps when the idea that Muslims have a special right to bully and threaten and lie and kill is extracted from Islam it will reform and become a useful part of the human experience. Perhaps once those things that are offensive are stopped there will be nothing left and it will disappear.

Personally I find anyone over the age of 12 on any day other than Halloween who covers their face offensive and threatening. Personally I am deeply offended by people who believe that they have a right to kill any American citizen or ally of America.

Comment on Robert Costa, The Corner, NRO:
"Paul Rankles Reid on Libya"

Paul Rankles Reid on Libya - By Robert Costa - The Corner - National Review Online

Senator Paul's father concerns me because of the anti-Semitic wing of the Libertarians who support him. Note that I do not claim that their beliefs are shared by the Congressman but he does need to be more forthright about this.

As an Ophthalmologist has Rand commented professionally on the leading Reformist, according to rumors passed on by Hillary, of Syria? The Senator has done well here. Popcorn is in order.

Reid really is out of his depth. FDR did not ignore Congress and LBJ may have talked like he owned the military but he knew better and took pains to get authorization. Both were Democrats working with Democrats in Congress. You have to go back to Woodrow Wilson in Mexico to find a POTUS this arrogant.

Friday, April 01, 2011

War Powers

Ghaddafi of the Multiple Transliterations personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103. That is what is reported as the being the story told by the former Libyan Foreign Minister who is being debriefed by the British.

Given that the reported predicate for the deal struck between The Bush 43 administration and Kakadaffy was that the Libyans give up their WMD programs and rat out on known al-Qaeda in return for extended breathing privileges for the Qadhafi clan.. Despite some recent speechifying by the romantic Colonel he has largely kept his side of that bargain so some are questioning the propriety of our now seeking his ouster. Part of the fine print of the deal, as elaborated by the British after they arranged for the release of the Libyan operative convicted in the Lockerbie bombing in return for a trade deal, was that we accepted at face value two stories put out by the Libyans.
1. The Maximum Leader King of Kings was really a dupe whose intel services went rogue on him. This could be called the Pakistani ISI model or “boys will be boys.”
2. It was really the Iranians who did it and Quackydahfay is now helping us in ways that we really don’t want publicized.

Neither story was very credible but maintaining a veneer of plausibility was considered part of the agreement that protected the Libyan regime. The story attributed to the defecting Cabinet Minister tears that agreement apart. In fairness to the Despot of the Many Fetching Robes he has some reason to feel hard used if the agreement did not fail because of his own incompetence in preventing a rebellion, by being insufficiently ruthless, and the defection of his diplomatic staff but because of actions by the Americans in encouraging Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda backed unrest. Nevertheless we now have the story out and have to respond to it.

My belief is that the Congress of the United States should invite the British Ambassador to answer some questions regarding the evidence offered and their opinion regarding the destruction of an American flagged airliner and the deaths of American citizens. The head of the CIA should then be asked the same questions. The only difference being that while HM Ambassador would be on his word as a gentleman the Director of the CIA would be under oath as a civil servant.

Let us assume that the evidence is clear and damning that Muammar Ghaddafi did with malice of forethought order the murder of those civilian Americans. What should we do then? The proper legal and normal thing for a sovereign nation to do in such a circumstance is issue an ultimatum demanding a confession, apology, compensation, and the delivery of such persons as were responsible for the execution of justice. In this case such persons include Mumbles Gads-here’s-his-affray. When that ultimatum is not met with full satisfaction within a stated time, 12 hours should do, a State of War is declared to be in effect.

The astute reader might notice who I have not mentioned in this scenario, the President of the United States or Barack Obama depending on how you choose to address him. The power to declare war is vested under the US Constitution in the Congress. The President has traditionally gone to Congress and advised them on when such a declaration is needed. There is no requirement for that to originate with the Executive, who exists after all to execute the will of Congress, any more that there is for any Act of Congress to be submitted from outside the legislature. A Declaration of War, unlike a Bill seeking to become a Law, does not even need to be submitted for presidential signature and is not subject to a veto. In that it resemble a constitutional amendment but without the provision for a needed super majority.

There is also no necessity to submit the power to declare war to the United Nations or any other body for approval. It is an expression of the sovereign will of the people as expressed through their legislature. Given that the UN is not a government and does not derive its powers from the consent of the governed, an impossibility given that the majority of its members are despotisms, it cannot replace the role of the Congress. Given that the Congress appoints the US Ambassador to the UN who exercises the veto power on our behalf in the Security Council, the UN must be seen as the subordinate body.

That does not mean that the Congress should ignore the opinion of the President or the opinions of other members of the international community in reaching such a rare and momentous decision. It is the duty of the President to keep the Congress well informed regarding what threats are faced, the opinions of potential allies or enemies as well as their capabilities, and other competing interests that have to be balanced in setting policy. Congress sets the policy and must sometimes accept that some offenses against the United States go insufficiently punished for the greater good.

In this case if the facts are as reported and if the British and the US intelligence services confirm them, as I believe they must although they will do so reluctantly, then it would be appropriate to proceed to a Declaration of War. That would enable the US to eliminate the regime in Tripoli. We would not do so as a servant of some international consensus regarding a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) those who the Libyan government should protect. We would not do so at the behest of the Arab League or the EU oil cartels. We would do so because it was the right thing for the American government to do in response to injuries done to Americans.

We could provide some humanitarian assistance in the future. Ideally that would take the form of missionaries with further military activity only being called in as a response to further outrages against US citizens. If the locals need medicine, schooling and other assistance then I am confident that the Mormons and the Baptists can provide it. If they understand that they can decline the help but that if they do so violently the response will be disproportionate then the level of violence is likely to decrease faster than if we enter into an extended military occupation. It may be that we do have to offer the alternative of a real colonial occupation and transformation of the local society as an alternative that we could resort to if the locals respond to the removal of the current government by supporting a Taliban like replacement that becomes a threat.

What we should not do is half occupy the country and install a sharia regime under US military protection, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we should not do is support and enable Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda elements and undemocratic international governance advocates at the expense of American power, interests, and security. What we should not do is violate the Constitution of the United States and subordinate the US Congress to the opinions of illegitimate outside agents. What we should not do is anything like what Obama has done.