Typical

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference is taking place in New Orleans.

A line-up of leading Republican speakers took note of New Orleans' food, culture, and football team.

But not a single one mentioned Katrina.

At the scene of one of the biggest failures of their previous administration under George Bush and, amid the lingering ruins of the flood waters, they showed their true colors.

Liz Cheney showed her talent for getting it wrong: "Nothing makes people more convinced of the rightness of conservative causes than seeing the alternative in action," said Cheney, referring I suppose to anything Obama has done.

Personally, Liz, I think you might not want to talk like that at the scene of the greatest failure of your party's policies of rewarding your rich friends with plum jobs so they can deny help to the people. Remember "Heck of a Job, Brownie?"

Better not to speak of the past, or the facts, or what the city needs. Just stroke your fat cats, kill anything Obama tries to do, and blame everything on somebody else. What a recipe for success.

Ralph

"Anonymous sources"

A few years ago, journalism adopted a new standard concerning anonymous sources. No longer could information be attributed simply to "anonymous sources." A reporter could agree not to use the source's name, but now a reason would have to be published.

Thus we have, in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, an article about the overthrow of the Kyrgyzstan government:

A senoir U. S. military official says some flights were briefly diverted . . . Scheduled troop movements in and out of Afghanistan were not affected. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because base operations are sensitive.

And the New York Times provides another example in an article about errors in the Federal Reserve's oversight of Citigroup:

They [documents] also suggest that the Fed examiners failed to move swiftly as Citigroup's financial condition deteriorated, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize the commission's inquiry.

Let's get this straight: someone spills the beans but asks not to be identified because base operations are sensitive and so as not to jeopardize the commission's inquiry.

That's disingenuous. These sources are admitting that they are revealing information that, on the face of it, may harm some official operation; they just don't want to get in trouble for telling.

If operations are sensitive, they are still sensitive; and if it will jeopardize the inquiry, it will still jeopardize the inquiry. All it does it keep your name out of the paper.

This is very different from a whistleblower exposing official wrongdoing. Neither example suggests that the source is critical of the official position.

Of course, we also know that the "anonymous" source is often a way for the people in charge to leak information that, for various reasons, they want to avoid being quoted on. And I guess that's ok. But it strikes me as a lot of needless subterfuge and further undermines the sense of integrity in news reporting.

Ralph

Obama signs disarmament

Obama met Russian president Medvedev in Prague to sign a nuclear disarmament agreement that had been carefully, and rather quietly, worked out. It is the most significant pact in a generation between the two countries that together own 90% of the world's nuclear arms.

The agreement must now be ratified by the Russian Parliament and the U.S. Senate.

Anyone taking bets on whether the Republicans can let Obama win on this one or will they continue their "just say no" talking machines? After trying to paint him as incompetent in protecting the nation, will they feel obligated to find fault with this treaty and prevent these important steps toward nuclear disarmament?

It probably depends on which stand they think will play better at the polls in November.

Ralph

Why is it so hard . . . ?

It seems way too easy to second-guess the financial gurus who failed us and got us into this economic disaster. There must be something I'm missing. If only I understood more, I would see how impossible it was to see it coming.

For example, I fail to see the fallacy in the sensible argument made by Michael Burry, quoted in my 04/04/10 blog, about how he knew when the housing bubble was about to burst:

I waited for the lenders to offer the most risky mortgages conceivable to the least qualified buyers. I knew that would mark the beginning of the end of the housing bubble.

My naive kitchen table economics tells me: You can't make something out of nothing and have it keep on giving; you can't spend more than you make and not have it eventually catch up with you.

Ah, the bliss of ignorance. Thank god, most of us did not know that at the time. We might have become alarmed at what was about to happen. If I was as smart as Alan Greenspan, maybe I would have realized how untrue those slogans were. If I didn't have the advantage of hindsight, maybe I could have been a legendary head of the Federal Reserve system, too.

Not only has Greenspan told us repeatedly that "no one could have predicted" the housing bubble and its devastating bursting, now he's telling a Congressional committee that the banking system has been "undercapitalized" for the past 40 or 50 years, and that the financial system is so complex that regulators don't stand a chance. The answer can't be as simple as "we need better regulation," he says. I think he's saying that it's too complex for any outsider to see what's going on inside the banks, so we just have to rely on banks to regulate themselves.

Didn't we already try that? Aren't most serious thinkers now saying that's how we got into this mess? I guess I'm just too naive and under-educated to understand how complex it is and how it is a problem without a solution.

Seems to me that the regulations put into effect following the 1930s crash worked pretty well for about six decades. And then they started dismantling them. It's not that they wouldn't work now, it's that the banks have so much power that we probably can't re-impose similar regulations now. And the banks are determined to keep it that way.

The lesson: don't rely on experts who never listen to anyone else except other insider-experts. But what do I know?

Ralph

Vatican IV: What's wrong with this picture?

Another story about a sexually abusive priest. This time it was a sexual assault on a 14 year old girl, and then a second case of a teenage girl, with criminal charges, against the same priest. He's also accused of stealing church funds.

This time, it happened in Minnesota, and the priest was from India. It was six years ago. The priest was reassigned back in his native India and reportedly has no contact with young people.

The prosecutor of the MN case is trying to get him extradicted to face charges. The Vatican says it has "cooperated" by giving them the current address of the priest.

A spokesman says that the Vatican had recommended that the priest be laicized (defrocked = kicked out of the priesthood), but that they leave the decision up to the local bishop, who is in a better position to know what is most suitable in the particular case.

This local bishop -- the one in India, not the one in Minnesota -- says that "the priest says he is innocent, so what can I do?"

Here's what's wrong with this picture:

1. We are talking about crimes. Crimes are handled by police and prosecutors and tried before judges and juries -- not treated as sins to be confessed and forgiven. They can do that too, but the criminal investigation is not theirs to do -- and escape from punishment is not theirs to grant.

2. In the above case, the bishop who has been delegated the decision about this priest's fate is the bishop in India, not the one where the crime was committed. The Vatican washes its hands of responsibility -- responsibility it did not have in the first place. It recommended, but it leaves it to "the local bishop to decide." And the local bishop throws up his hands and says, "what can I do?"

WHAT???? The Vatican can tell its billions of adherents worldwide that they can't use any form of birth control and that women have no choice in their own reproductive decisions? They tell men in Africa not to use condoms to prevent spreading the HIV virus? They can send a priest from India to work in Minnesota, and when he causes trouble send him back to India?

But they have no authority to kick a sexual criminal out of the priesthood or to report him to the local police?

Sorry, guys. That is bullshit.

Ralph

No integrity

How did John McCain ever get the reputation for being a straight-arrow, truth-telling hero?

We saw during the 2008 presidential campaign how he would do a complete reversal on positions and claim he didn't, how he could deny what he had said a week earlier and pretend he was being honest.

Even though I differed with his political positions, I though he was a man of integrity, until the campaign. Now I wonder how we ever were fooled. Why I ever thought of him as my favorite Republican, the one I'd rather see president if we had to have a Republican.

Now he's even denying what was once his brand: "Maverick."

In an interview with Newsweek's David Margolick, he said, "I never considered myself a maverick."

What? He and Sarah Palin ran as "a team of mavericks." Campaigning for him in Arizona just last month, Palin referred to him as "McCain the Maverick" four times within a 15 minute speech. And of course I've heard him call himself a maverick many times over the years. That was his identity.

So, apparently he's in need of a new monicker, so let's give him one: "Mr. Expediency." Say whatever you think will work in the moment.

I hope he loses this race for re-election to the Senate. He long ago used up all the political captial he earned as a POW, and he has squandered what once was a good name. No more.

Ralph

"Too big to fail?"

Most of us now agree that no bank or financial institution should become 'too big to fail.' Because that means that the government (aka taxpayers) will have to step in and bail them out to save the system. That removes the ultimate responsibility and therefore encourages excessive risk-taking with other people's money.

But that phrase could apply more broadly, perhaps. Should any human being, or any human institution, ever become too big to fail -- or perhaps more aptly -- too big to be held accountable?

I began thinking about this when reading a New York Times Op-Ed by Michael J. Burry, former head of the Scion Capital hedge fund. He challenges Alan Greenspan's now infamous claim that no one could have predicted the housing bubble. Burry says that he did -- and points out how he took advantage of the bubble up to a point when he knew it would collapse and then got out ahead of the disaster. But he knew.

How did he know?

I waited for the lenders to offer the most risky mortgages conceivable to the least qualified buyers. I knew that would mark the beginning of the end of the housing bubble.

Makes sense to me. And I only have "kitchen table" budget experience. Why didn't Alan Greenspan know? Who would ever think that you can make something out of nothing, and have it keep on giving? That's crazy.

That's the point. Greenspan was too big to fail, and he's now fighting to make stick his claim that he has no responsibility -- despite the fact that the whole financial world hung on his every word during his later years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He surrounded himself with people who thought like he did -- then claimed that "no one could have predicted," because no one he listened to did. But others knew.

And is Benedict XVI too big to fail? Is the pope infallible? The voice of God? Or simply surrounded only by people who think the same way and are defensively deaf to other voices?

We'll see. The biggest challenged to our financial system since the Great Depression and the biggest challenge to the Roman Catholic Church, maybe ever. And both at the same time.

The lesson to be learned: we should never again allow a human leader or an institution (religious, financial, or governmental) to become too big for accountability.

Ralph

Crisis at the Vatican III

The Vatican has chosen it's path: stonewalling by the pope, aggressive defense by his spokesmen, and blaming the investigative journalists -- and, presumably, it's own bishops who wrote directly to him pleading for action in some cases.

In the Easter Mass in St. Peter's Square, attended by the pope, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, defended the pope's "unfailing" leadership and courage in an effort to preserve the pontiff's moral authority. In obvious reference to the abuse scandal, Sodano pledged: "Holy Father, on your side are the people of God, who do not allow themselves to be influenced by the petty gossip of the moment, by the trials which sometimes buffet the community of believers."

Petty gossip? No, in fact, we are talking about actual evidence unearthed by trial lawyers and investigative reporters of the church's failure to take appropriate action in response to established crimes by its own priests.

The pope then gave his message of concern for the "trials and suffering" of Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan and urged hope for the people of Haiti. He did not mention the abused children and the damaged adults they now are.

The Vatican is right about one thing: the Church has been severely damaged. But they are still blind to who is responsible for the damage.

Or maybe, as Richard says, it ultimately comes down to money. "Because the Church is a corporation, too, corporate policy will trump issues of faith."

Ralph