Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Injustice in Japan.

In its March 15, 2008 print issue, the Economist wrote about Japan's criminal justice system. For those not in the know, Japan works very differently than the west in the criminal justice arena. Criminal defendants are generally expected to confess, and most do so. The conviction rate is "over 99%." "Investigations" often take years.

Recently, there was a case of alleged vote-buying which collapsed where it became "plain that the police had fabricated the evidence -- though not before one defendant had died and another been subjected to over 700 hours of interrogation and 400 days in detention."

700 hours of interrogation. Stop and think about that. That's 24 full days of interrogation. Or, assuming 10 hours for sleep and other activities per day, 50 full calendar days of interrogation. That's completely insane.

Heaven knows the US has enormous injustices in our criminal prosecutions. But sometimes you read something from an allegedly civilized country that just jumps off the page at you. This is a screaming injustice of the very first order. In fact, I wonder if a case could be made (literally and figuratively) that at some point this interrogation crossed over into torture. 50 days of interrogation (with 8 hours of sleep and 2 miscellaneous hours per day). 50 days. I just can't get past that. Japan should be ashamed of itself, and fix, root to branch, a system which allows this awful result. And the individuals involved in the ultra-marathon of interrogation should at the very least be fired.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Fed will cut rates 75 or 100 basis points today. Full fledged, all out panic has set in at the Federal Reserve. The Fed's coordination of Bear Stearns' rescue over the weekend typifies the fear at the Fed that the problems in the credit markets will worsen, and that financial institutions may fail. This would be disastrous for a variety of reasons which I don't have time to go into right now.

The Fed has chosen to follow a course of action I have advocated, which is to cut rates to the floor, fast, flood the financial markets with money/loans as needed, and generally err heavily on the side of aggressive measures to limit the duration and magnitude of the recession we are now in, and protect the financial system from a disaster. I will go into much more detail in a post I've been meaning to put up for days explaining why an analogy to Japan's severe problems of the 1990s is badly inapt in discussing the United States' current problems. For now, I'll leave you all with this: the fed will cut rates at least 3/4 of a point today, which will leave the federal funds rate (assuming a 3/4 point cut) at 2.25%. Given that inflation is higher than that at the moment (by a fair bit), this means that in the jargon, real (inflation adjusted) short term interest rates will be sharply negative. This means that in terms of the economy the fed has the gas pedal to the floor and is pushing almost as hard as it possibly can to try and get the economy moving. This is, imo, exactly what the fed should be doing to mitigate the spread of the mortgage based credit crisis, inflation be damned, and the dollar be damned. This is an incredibly bold course of action, kudos to Bernanke. I think I'm in love!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Spitzer will go. He both should resign and will resign. Fundamentally, no one loves a hypocrite. Both as Attorney General and as Governor he aggressively marketed himself as a totally upright (holier than thou!) fine man who would protect us from society's degenerate elements, such as prostitution rings (he zealously prosecuted these), gambling and Wall Street shenanigans. He has now been revealed as a full blown hypocrite. Everyone from the Village idiot to me to William F. Buckley, Albert Einstein et al, can can smell a hypocrite a mile away. And no one loves a hypocrite.

This however has almost nothing to do with why he WILL resign or why he should.

He will resign because he was already deeply unpopular among his fellow democrats in New York for his ham-handed imperious style and his my-way or the highway attitude. Unlike Republicans (see Congressional, Republicans), democrats really don't like when an autocrat tells them what to do. His natural friends aren't being real friendly right now. There are myriad other reasons. Here is one article detailing just how lousy a fellow Spitzer is.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112008/news/columnists/bully_gets_his_comeuppance_101383.htm

To give you a flavor of his standing in New York these days, democratic House Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Spitzer ally (if he had any) said, "The allegations against the governor are before the public. I have nothing to add at this time."

When your friends pull out the long knives and ask you to turn around, you know things aren't going real well....

An incredibly sharp friend in the PR biz told me yesterday he would resign by the end of the week. My friend is right. My guess is that he resigns Thursday. He COULD try and stay, but the democrats might well impeach his sorry ass. Goodbye Elliot. You won't be missed.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Israel & Gaza-- Take 5,381

The New York Times recently opined about Israel and the ongoing Gaza situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08sat1.html

Continuing its perfect record, the Times is, yet again, almost entirely wrong regarding what Israel should do.

First, the Times reflexively calls for a ceasefire every time Israel defends itself. Now I'm the first to admit that Israel generally manages to be both ham-handed (attacking and often killing people not directly responsible for attacks on it, or engaging in collective punishment, such as checkpoints with dubious security rationales) and ineffective (in general Israel recoils from taking the sort of military actions which would actually make a difference in its security, such as enforcing a large exclusion zone in southern Lebanon during the 2006 war, which would be depopulated and thus could not be used for rocket attacks against Israel. Israel prefers looking tough (partial blockade of Gaza, air strikes, pinprick strikes against militants) to taking decisive actions which would actually be tough. Israel's current actions in Gaza fit this tragic pattern all too well.

Still, the New York Times advocates:

1) A cease fire;

2) Negotiations between Abbas and Israel; and

3) Outside pressure on Hamas to behave.

I am absolutely opposed to numbers 1 and 2 above, while # 3 is surely destined to fail and fail spectacularly. Thus the New York Times has it almost perfectly wrong. Impressive, but unsurprising, the Times is always wrong about Israel.

I'll address in turn:


A) I am opposed to a cease fire

A nation does not enter into a cease fire with an enemy bent on its destruction and actively doing damage (lobbing rockets) as Hamas is without a really good reason. Now if Hamas put out a statement, "we recognize Israel's right to exist but only on its 1948 borders. As long as it occupies one millimeter beyond that we are at war, but we are willing to talk to it," that would be a sea change, and could and would justify a cease fire. But the Times seems to think a cease fire is a good thing for its own sake. That is where I part company with the vast majority of the unthinking Israeli left (of which the Times, sadly, is a proud member as the above editorial makes painfully clear).

Now violence for violence's sake is even worse than a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire. Accordingly, I sadly agree with this piece from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546390315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Glick is a right wing hawk, opposed to a Palestinian state regardless, and seeing the Ps as always wrong. However, she sees Israel's government as nearly always wrong, incompetent, and bone-headed when it comes to Israel's security. Thus although I vigorously disagree with her on settlements and the benefits of a P state (I am bitterly opposed to any Israeli settlement whatsoever, and am strongly opposed to the ongoing occupation, 40 years and counting), I do very much agree that Israel's security efforts are generally lame and lacking. Specifically, Israel's military actions rarely have clear goals, and when they do those goals rarely result in Israel's security being enhanced.

Andrew has often criticized Caroline Glick for not taking her own ideas to their logical conclusion. She is pretty much an unrelenting hawk on how Israel should respond to P actions, yet rarely spells out just what she does want Israel to do, preferring instead to viciously criticize Israeli actions. Now bitterly criticizing the Olmert government is low hanging fruit indeed. Rarely if ever have I seen an elected government so grossly incompetent, and so obviously disinterested in the welfare of the country and instead solely interested in its self-preservation. These people are enough to make me long for the Bushies....

To circle back, I am bitterly opposed to a cease fire. Hamas has fired any number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, resulting in some casualties. The quality of the rockets has improved, and Iran is almost certainly supplying them. This is intolerable! I support whatever level of force is necessary to eliminate this threat, or at least to very very radically reduce it. If that requires reoccupying Gaza, I support it. If that requires that Israel evict every civilian for several kilometers or more from the border so as to provide a buffer zone, I support it. Needless to say, I do not support reintroducing settlements, which I imagine even the stupid bumbling land-grabbing Israelis won't do.

B) I am opposed to negotiations between Abbas and Israel.

I believe in diplomacy and peace generally, so it very much goes against my beliefs to oppose negotiations. Yet I have been opposed for several years and remain so. The reason is simple. Abbas speaks for almost no one. He sure as heck doesn't speak for Hamas, and really barely speaks for Fatah. As I understand it, he has very little sway with the average P. In short, even if Israel and Abbas came to an "agreement," it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, because no one on the P side would take it seriously. In particular, Hamas, the most virulent P enemy, certainly wouldn't. Indeed they have repeatedly condemned negotiations with the "Zionist entity." So why on earth would Israel negotiate with a man (stipulating to his good will and good faith) who cannot deliver any peace? It defies imagination.

You may ask, Ok, what's YOUR solution? Well here it is. Israel should decide on what it sees as the endgame, and simply impose it. Israel should call on the world to recognize a P state, right now, on 100% of Gaza (less perhaps a piece from which civilians have been excluded, as a buffer zone) and whatever percentage of the West Bank Israel is prepared to leave. It should of course police the borders of the P state indefinitely. (That Israel apparently relied on Egypt and the Ps to police the Gaza/Egypt border is an action of such rank idiocy as to defy imagination, but what can I tell you, Israel didn't ask me). That's it. No negotiations, no discussions, no handshakes, no contact, no trade, no nothing. Israel should then bar any Ps from entering its territory, no exceptions. Israel should not trade at all with the fledgling P state, and should disentangle from any assistance/cooperation. Israel should police the borders of the P state, vigorously. But it should end the occupation, immediately. It should have no role in the lives of the Ps, period. If military action against this state is necessary, as is almost certain, Israel should of course take such action, as it would against Jordan, Syria, etc. But with the occupation over, and a P flag hanging in the UN, Israel would be in a good position to tell the world, "that's it, we're done with the Ps." Now I realize Israel would get zero credit for this in the Muslim world, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to clarify the security situation nicely, and so that there are no more damn negotiations.

Look, if I thought negotiations with Abbas even might yield security benefits, I'd be all for them. But I don't. So why negotiate?

C) Pressure on Hamas. Yeah, right. Egypt and Co. are going to exert REAL pressure on Hamas? And how about Iran? Maybe if Israel and Hamas held hands and sang songs that would help too? What on earth is the Times smoking? I'm not opposed to such pressure per se, but I am highly dubious that it would work, and even if it did it would only prove a temporary expedient at best, with Hamas resuming firing rockets at a time and place and manner of its choosing.

There. Comment away.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Here is how the democratic primary race may end.

First, Hillary absolutely cannot catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. Here is a piece (thanks Bryan!) which outlines a long string of Hillary upsets and landslides from here on out

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

Under this scenario, enormously favorable to Hillary, she ends up 58 delegates behind Obama. If Florida and Michigan re vote, which looks increasingly likely, Hillary will clean Obama's clock in Florida and probably win Michigan, and could cut this lead to almost nothing. But remember, this scenario has Hillary winning EVERY state from here on out, which simply won't happen. In other words, when all the voting is over in June, Obama will have more pledged delegates (and more popular votes) in all likelihood.

Under a more plausible scenario, Obama will be up more than a token number of delegates, but still short of the 2,025 needed for nomination without a lot of superdelegate support. Fill in your own scenarios using slate's delegate calculator,

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/, if you're really motivated.

Here's what I'm beginning to think may happen.

First, this race is very likely not to be decided until all the votes are cast. Even if Obama wins in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Hillary's position will be strong enough that she's unlikely to be persuaded to drop out.

Second, there will likely be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. The current situation, with neither state getting any delegates or superdelegates at the democratic convention stinks on ice and everyone knows it. The "problem," is that those states are very favorable for Clinton, especially Florida, which she won in a landslide in January, even though no one campaigned. Seniors are her best demographic bloc, and Florida has a few.

So sometime in June all will be said and done and most likely Obama will have more pledged delegates and more votes overall than Hillary. At that point, the combined total of the pledged delegates he has earned in the primaries and caucuses plus the number of superdelegates who have said they will vote for him will be somewhat close to the 2,025 needed to be nominated. Let's make up a number and say he's 150 short. That's where Al Gore comes in.

With Bill Clinton an interested party, Gore is the most prominent democrat not directly involved in the race. He is thus in the best position to try and organize the superdelegates. Gore should, starting about today, reach out to the uncommitted superdelegates and say the following: Hey folks. Don't commit to either of them until mid-June. Let all the votes play out. Then, when its over and Obama is a given number short, say 150, Gore should get 175 superdelegates to agree in essence to vote for Obama on the conditions he outlines. Stay with me. Gore would (after disclosing his plans to all the superdelegates before earning their support) go to Obama and say, "Barack, I'm prepared to deliver you these 175 uncommitted superdelegates, which will give you the nomination. All you have to do in return is to give me your word, man to man, that you will pick Hillary as your #2, whether she accepts or not. If you don't agree, the race is in chaos, and you could lose the nomination." I think Obama would readily agree. This would (if the 175 superdelegates were believed), end the race and give Obama the nomination, regardless of Hillary's response.

Next, Gore can go to Hillary with an ultimatum. He'd say, "Hillary: I have 175 superdelegates who have promised me that they will vote for Obama, thus putting him over the 2,025, and giving him the nomination. Its over, he has won. Obama has privately promised me he will make you the Vice Presidential nominee. Agree to drop out now and it all ends, you get the # 2 slot, and we wipe the floor with McCain and live happily ever after. You're still young enough to run again. Disagree and you lose everything. The 175 superdelegates will vote for Obama anyway (think they would change their minds if Obama agreed to Gore's plans and she didn't?) and there will be a ton of general bitterness towards you. You lost the delegate race, you lost the popular vote. Yes, yes, you were very close. Trust me, I know the feeling!!!! Under those conditions, Obama will likely be DISinclined to pick you as the Vice President, and I know I will speak for a lot of people who wouldn't want him to.

Hillary may conceivably not play along, but if the 175 superdelegates stuck together she'd lose any floor fight, and would, I think, be vilified by democrats all the while, spoiling her chances competely for the future. Heads she gets the V.P. slot, tails she gets nothing.

Gore's role is necessary because the 175 people need to be organized, and he's in by far the best position to do it. So I call on Al to get to work!
Got my mojo back.


For my abject failures in predicting the outcome of the March 4 Ohio and Texas races, I have had my hearing before the Accuracy Police Commission of the Blogosphere. The Accuracy police sentenced me to 5 months of remedial future prediction training. I was lucky it wasn't 10 years.... In any event, that's it, my blogging license has been reaffirmed, and I have my mojo back.


First a little back-patting and history. Towards the end of last year, both my friend Andrew and I agreed with the strong consensus of the pundits that McCain was finished. No money, unpopular with the voters due to immigration, and very unpopular with the GOP moneyed interests because he is notoriously hard to buy, I figured that the GOP would settle on someone more malleable, and that McCain was finished. Oops.

On January 15th, when only the Iowa caucuses (won by Huckabee) and the New Hampshire primary (won by McCain) had been completed, I told you all that McCain would be the nominee, and that I was certain of it. Andrew, the inspiration of many of my ideas (but not this one) demanded that a price be paid for such certainty if it proved wrong, and I agreed in a blog post on January 30th to a series of pricey and humiliating things I would do if I were proven wrong. Of course, McCain clinched the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Good to be so right about something I was so sure about. Happens now and then.

So where does the Presidential race go from here? If the dem race were over today as I'd hoped, Obama/Clinton, or Obama/Mark Warner (fmr Gov, Va), or Obama/Barney (the Purple Dinosaur) would beat McCain. Say 55-43. Clinton/Obama would also win, but much much closer. 51-48 or 50-49. (Hillary aint exactly beloved, and McCain's great appeal to indys would really really hurt her). But she'd win. With the dem primaries looking to go on and on and on and on, I'm not sure right now of the general. Karl Rove (today's WSJ) may well be right that the ongoing dem primary HELPS the dems in November. But not if Hill tears Obama to pieces and Obama wins anyway (the slightly most likely scenario).

Which is a long winded way of saying I don't know. The dems are still the clear favorite to win in November, as of now. The situation favors them, the electoral map favors them, and McCain's being probably 4-5 points better than a random ok Republican in a national election because of how compelling he is STILL probably isn't enough to make up for it in 2008. As of now. But who knows what will happen, how badly the dems will damage each other, and even if the party will unify afterwards. If Clinton savages Obama and superdelegates her way to the nomination, Obama may well NOT accept the # 2 slot, and his followers will take their marbles and go home. In that scenario, McCain probably wins. That is nowhere near impossible. Sorry, not clean predictions, because the dem field is still unsettled, and there's always the possibility of a big outside event (Iran tests, Al Queda hits the USA, Pakistan goes to hell in a handbasket) that could seriously favor McCain.

Still, if I had to put money on the winner of the 2008 election, dem or GOP, I'd pick Dem w/o hesitation. Then again, I picked the dems in 2000 and 2004.....

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Oops. I was completely, absolutely and utterly WRONG about Hillary. Please post any and all mocking, laughing comments in this post, not in any others. Kick me. Make fun of me. Ask why you should bother reading my blog. Insert red face here.

Clinton won Texas narrowly and absolutely cleaned Obama's clock in the small, obscure, and utterly unimportant state of, um, Ohio. Oops.

What a stunning comeback for the comeback Queen. What a stunning margin of victory in Ohio. Hey, they stayed on one message, muzzled Bill, and attacked Obama. I think they have stumbled upon a winning formula, and just in the nick of time. Get ready for weeks and weeks of partially negative campaigning. Oh joy!

Even if my prediction was reasonable when I wrote it, and it may well have been, I didn't even begin to see how much the campaign changed in the last week. Hill finally had a really good week, and questions finally began to really hit Obama hard. In Ohio both candidates were insincerely campaigning on reforming or ending NAFTA (which wouldn't save a single job, literally, as I said a few days ago). However, one of Obama's staffers was caught having in essence told a Canadian consular official, don't worry about the silly things Obama is saying, this is just politics, we won't disturb NAFTA. When confronted about it, Obama's people said the meeting didn't happen. Obama himself said the meeting did happen. Well, the Canadian consular official wrote a memo, leaked of course, about the meeting. Then the Obama people lied, then they stopped lying and started spinning. All in all not an optimal situation for the "above politics candidate."

Texas was close, but Hill's huge lead among Hispanics was dispositive, from what I have seen.

So where does the campaign go from here? I'll write more on this, but the short answer is, "how the heck should I know?" It is EASY to see how this could go all the way to the convention, in late August in Colorado. Obama's lead in pledged delegates is slightly under 100 at the moment. The most likely scenario is that at the end of all the primaries and caucuses he has a small lead. There is also the issue of what to do about Michigan (where no one campaigned and where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot) and Florida (where no one campaigned, both names were on the ballot, and Hillary kicked Obama's arse). There is just no way either state's delegates will count as is, but there is a real possibility of a re vote in either or both states. None of which changes the fact that neither of them are likely to be able to come real close to the magic # of delegates needed for nomination without a lot of help from superdelegates. So it seems to me that this campaign is no longer about delegates alone, but is also very much about superdelegates, and public relations.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Tomorrow's the Big Day.

Looks like the polls aren't cooperating with my predictions of a blowout in both Ohio and Texas for Obama. Still, the polls have been way wrong before, as have I. I still think he wins both and she drops out by Friday. But if she wins Ohio, even by 1 or 2 points, she may well soldier bravely on, to the benefit of no one. Here's hoping Ohio lives up to its usual role of voting with the winner (as it almost always does in the general election) and votes for the dem winner (Obama) tomorrow evening.