Friday, May 9, 2008


Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Nearly twenty five percent of Los Angeles County’s welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens, at a cost of $36 million a month. (My emphasis.) Source. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 9, 2008 | perma-link | (17) comments

Tuesday, May 6, 2008


McCain on Hispanics
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- John McCain, setting out to appeal to a certain much-coveted voting bloc, says: "Everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message … I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters.” Vdare's Marcus Epstein takes a look at the actual facts: * Only 34% of Hispanics eligible for US citizenship choose to take the necessary steps to take it -- less than any other immigrant group. Of that group, only a third of Hispanics who are American citizens consider themselves Americans first. * Respect for the Family: Half of Hispanic births in the US are out of wedlock. * Pro Life: Hispanics are 2.7 times more likely to have an abortion than whites. * Small Business: Hispanics make up 15% of the population and only 6.6 percent of all businesses. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 6, 2008 | perma-link | (30) comments

Another Helping of Raw Milk
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Raw milk: telltale issue of our time? (Link thanks to visitor Steve.) Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 6, 2008 | perma-link | (0) comments

Iraq War Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * The embassy that the U.S. is currently constructing in Baghdad covers 104 acres and consists of 21 buildings. It's the largest U.S. embassy in the world. When complete, it will have cost $740 million. It'll cost $1 billion a year to run. Just a hunch, but it sounds to me like we aren't in Iraq for a short visit. (Link thanks to Randall Parker.) * What could you buy for the cost of the Iraq War? Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 6, 2008 | perma-link | (11) comments

Monday, May 5, 2008


Education Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Pres. Bush's Reading First program: a big bust that has had zero impact on kids' reading scores. The cost? A mere billion a year. * Since 1986, the price of public education has been rising faster than the price of gasoline. * Busing may be coming to an end in Milwaukee. It has accomplished little, and at a cost of $57 million a year, according to officials. * Charles Murray and Steve Sailer point out a basic fact that educators seem to have a hard time grasping: Half of all kids are sub-average in academic terms. Me, I think that Americans over-obsess about college, and under-acknowledge the value of vocational training. * MBlowhard Rewind: I argued that writing teachers make too much of the "show, don't tell" command. Best, Michael UPDATE: Mike -- whose wife works in special ed -- comments.... posted by Michael at May 5, 2008 | perma-link | (29) comments

The Personal Is Political?
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Alice Walker: lousy mom? “My mother is very ideologically based, and her ideology is much more important in many ways than her personal relationships,” says daughter Rebecca Walker, who is no longer in touch with Alice. Another nice passage from Rebecca: Her circle were questioning power relationships and whether a mother had any more knowledge than a child. Some friends of hers were living on communes. I know those kids and they’re totally screwed up. Some were sexually abused, all kinds of bad stuff happened, but even those who survived intact don’t want to create communes for their children. They didn’t want to be raised by 10 different parents — again, it was this ideological thing trumping the maternal instinct ... I keep telling people feminism is an experiment. And just like in science, you have to assess the outcome of the experiment and adjust according to your results, but my mother and her friends, they see it as truth; they don’t see it as an experiment. So that creates quite a problem. You’ve got young women saying, ‘That didn’t really work for me’ and the older ones saying, ‘Tough, because that’s how it should be’. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 5, 2008 | perma-link | (22) comments

PC and AIDS
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Is political correctness hobbling the fight against AIDS in Africa? Fact for the day: "In Africa, the incidence of HIV infection is highest in the richest households and the richest countries." More. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 5, 2008 | perma-link | (2) comments

Friday, May 2, 2008


Service Charges
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Daniel Flynn snarls at Ticketmasters' absurd "service charges." Daniel is the author of the new "A Conservative History of the American Left." He's interviewed by FrontPage magazine's Jamie Glazov here. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 2, 2008 | perma-link | (1) comments

Another Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- The top 50 hedge fund managers earned a combined $29 billion in 2007. Source. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 2, 2008 | perma-link | (0) comments

Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Global population is expected to rise 33% in the next 40 years. Source. Semi-related: I marveled at the way that population growth has been forgotten as a political-ecological-sociological-whatever concern: here, here, here. Patrick Burns puts together a couple of population-growth animations that show that the human race isn't in any immediate danger of going extinct. In fact, if I live to be a hundred, I'll have watched world population rise by 350%, and the U.S.'s population go from 150 million to over 400 million. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 2, 2008 | perma-link | (6) comments

Thursday, May 1, 2008


A Couple of Incarceration Links
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Heather Mac Donald looks at the figures and concludes that the reason so many American jail prisoners are black isn't racism, it's that so many crimes are committed by black people. Sad fact: "From 1976 to 2005, blacks [13% of the population] committed more than 52% of all murders in America." * The Washington Post reports that an overwhelming number of prisoners in French jails are Muslim. Molly Moore visits the Lille-Sequedin Detention Center and writes: "This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim ... though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population." Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 1, 2008 | perma-link | (17) comments

Biz and Travel Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Michael Wade compresses a lot of wisdom about the virtues of quick-and-dirty into this short posting. * Did you know that the cubicle-style office was born of utopian theorizing? * Alan Little returns from a business trip to India. * As the Olympics approach, Welmer recalls what Beijing was like when he was there in the late '90s: here and here. * The dollar is taking a serious dive, of course. (A guy I chatted with last night does business with China. He told me that big-box shoppers -- who have been used to bargains on China-made goods for some years now -- are in for some serious price shocks come the end of 2008.) But how secure is the Euro? Best, Michael... posted by Michael at May 1, 2008 | perma-link | (2) comments

Monday, April 28, 2008


Immigration on Video
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Learn some of the basics about our current immigration mess from Vdare's Ed Rubenstein: Part One, Part Two. An arresting fact from Ed's presentation: Immigrants and their children will account for 80% of U.S. population growth through mid-century. Heather Mac Donald spells out some further costs. A standout fact from Heather's talk: Since 1989, over 70% of the growth of the health-care uninsured in the U.S. comes from immigrants and their children. George Borjas goes into the topic in considerable depth here. Fun fact from George's talk: Nearly 15% of the American workforce is now foreign-born. In 1970, that figure was less than 5%. How about California's workforce? It's now over one-third foreign-born. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 28, 2008 | perma-link | (3) comments

Friday, April 25, 2008


Pemex
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- A couple of amazing facts for the day: Despite high oil prices that have most of the world's oil outfits rolling in cash, Pemex, Mexico's state-run oil company, is managing to lose money. Mexico is rapidly running out of oil -- and oil revenues supply one-third of Mexico's federal budget. Finding more reserves will require Xtreme offshore engineering and drilling stunts, and Mexico isn't technologically up to the challenge. Source. We're talkin', apparently, about the possibility that the Mexican government will collapse, and rather soon. Am I the only person who reads this article and thinks, "Oh, dear. As if Mexicans don't already have enough reasons to try to make it across the border into the U.S...."? Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 25, 2008 | perma-link | (7) comments

Thursday, April 24, 2008


Rightie Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Daniel McCarthy doesn't think the neocons are going away anytime soon. * Ultra-rightie Lew Rockwell considers John McCain, and bemoans what has become of the right. * "Environmentalism is the quintessential conservative cause," argues Roger Scruton. * Jim Kalb teases out the difference between the cool cat and the gentleman. (Link thanks to visitor William.) * Inflation is back again, of course. But is it always such a bad thing? The Independent Institute's Robert Higgs points out that even activist government-lover J.M. Keynes considered inflation to be a disaster. Nice passage from Keynes: By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. * Rick Darby riffles through some of California's daffier government agencies. Which reminds me: What I really want to hear from candidates is a list of things they'll refuse to do, of laws and regulations that they'll toss or fix, and of government agencies and functions that they'll close down. I'm soooo tired of dynamic and exciting new government initiatives ... Don't the words "already" and "overextended" mean anything to these people? * Dennis Mangan does a good job with the Absolut vodka ad that handed the western U.S. over to Mexico. * Simon Heffer celebrates Enoch Powell. * Steve Sailer tries to puzzle out the economics of polygamy. * Rod Dreher wonders when it's OK for a crunchy-localism fan to go to Starbucks. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 24, 2008 | perma-link | (11) comments

Tuesday, April 22, 2008


Eternal Recurrence, American Style
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, I’ve been reading Sean Wilentz’s “The Rise of American Democracy,” a political and social history of antebellum America. I’m enjoying it immensely. I’m not done with it – I’m only up to Jackson or so – but I can make two observations: (1) American political and economic life seems to have certain patterns that repeat over and over again. It’s as though America is an instrument that only vibrates at certain pre-set frequencies. Sometimes we vibrate on one frequency, sometimes on another, but there’s a very small fixed number of notes that we can sustain for any length of time. (2) The way these apparently fixed patterns played out a couple centuries ago was, by and large, more entertaining than in our contemporary America. To see an example of this American ‘eternal recurrence’, take a look at the similiarities between our current economic impasse and the Panic of 1819. According to Wilentz: Under the financial stresses of [the War of 1812], state-chartered banks had suspended specie payments, which meant they could issue the equivalent of paper money in bank notes to borrowers without regard to the amount of gold or silver coin the banks actually held in their vaults. The suspension continued after peace returned, allowing established banks to make large dividends by extending loans and note issues far in excess of their specie reserves, and permitting new private banks to open with only tiny amounts of borrowed specie on hand and indulge in profligate lending of their own notes. Gee, it sounds a lot like modern day financial innovation to me! For the last decade or so, banks in modern-day America have made record profits by using tricks -- oops, I mean sophisticated financial techniques -- like securitization and off-balance sheet entities that allow them to do much more lending with much less capital. (And those new banks starting up in the latter 1810s and jumping into the game are clearly the forerunners of today's hedge funds.) In the 1810s, banks kept their capital in the form of gold and silver (i.e., 'specie'), and made their loans in the form of bank notes, essentially paper money. Today's banks no longer need to worry about keeping enough gold or silver in the vault but via financial innovation they've gotten us to exactly the same place -- an excessive expansion of lending which has escaped any prudent relationship with the bank's underlying capital, leading inevitably to borrowers indulging in wild speculative buying and selling of assets at ever increasing prices. Just like in 1817: With so much bank paper of dubious value forced into general circulation, the nation’s economic health was threatened by a large and growing bubble of speculation. Hey, it sounds like sub-prime mortgages and CDOs all over again! Wait a minute, I guess it's the other way around. Anyway, this orgy of speculation took place against the increasing global trade that sprang up at the end of the Napoleonic Wars: Britain’s warehouses... posted by Friedrich at April 22, 2008 | perma-link | (5) comments

Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- As L.A. goes ... In Los Angeles, immigrants make up half of the city's workforce. Most of these workers are unskilled; as many as 60% of them speak little English. A local official of some hard-to-determine sort asks an apt question: "The question is: Are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and the majority at poverty or near poverty wages?" Source. Steve Sailer notices a study trying to sort out the implications of the above facts. A nicely-understated quote from a news report about the study: "The looming mismatch in the skills employers need and those workers offer could jeopardize the future economic vitality of California and the nation, experts say." As Steve likes to say, "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is -- stop digging." Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 22, 2008 | perma-link | (11) comments

Friday, April 18, 2008


You Can't Say That !
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- It's quite amazing that in some modern countries it's not just impolite but against the law to say unappreciative or critical things about various racial and/or ethnic groups. Why, you'd almost think that some powers-that-be are doing what they can to prevent certain key debates from occurring, wouldn't you? Reason's Jacob Sullum explains how the game works in Canada. In a nice touch, Sullum refers to Canada's "human rights commission" martinets as "kindly inquisitors." Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 18, 2008 | perma-link | (16) comments

Time for a More Nuanced View?
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, When the professors at our Lousy Ivy University taught me about the wonderful benefits of free trade in their discussion of two countries trading two products, I don’t remember them addressing a number of points which now seem rather striking to me. Like, for example, the impact of free trade on where R&D activities will occur. The following is from a post in February by The Angry Bear: Where is R&D going? China, of course. Take a gander at the following article. Some highlights: Sixty-two percent of global companies ranked China first "as the most attractive location for prospective R&D." Multinationals have set up 1,160 research institutions by the end of 2007. Total revenue of the hi-tech industry (foreign companies) exceeded 706 billion U.S. dollars. Patent applications as of 2006 put China fourth in the world. And here is the kicker: 40% of those applications came from foreign companies. Yes, yes, globalization will raise all boats. The only boats I see rising are the foreign companies in China. Nor do I remember any discussions of free trade and national security like this one by Emmanuel at the International Political Economy Zone on the bid by Chinese telecom manufacturer Huawei and Bain Capital for U.S. defense contractor 3Com: …the only way to avoid furriners buying ever larger chunks of America is to get US finances in order. With $170 billion giveaway packages to further fund the US jihad on fiscal sanity (and whose proceeds probably end up in China anyway), nobody is counting on that to happen soon. US deficits from here to Chongqing will only see to it that more and more of America is sold off. Enough with this protectionist nonsense. This is free trade, pal: if the US wants more borrowed time, it had better be prepared to give up this "national security" jive talking. The real owners of the US are in the PRC. Deal with it. Or any discussions of how free trade with a government-run economy might turn out, like this one by Brad Setser on the World Bank’s China Quarterly report: The [World] Bank wasn’t able to find much evidence of a real rebalancing of China’s economy. Investment growth continues to outpace consumption growth. Industrial production continues to grow faster than services. So investment and industry are continuing to rise as a share of China’s GDP…The Bank also highlights another key point - for all the talk of the strong growth in Chinese consumption, consumption is still falling relative to GDP. Or exactly how currency manipulation generally might impact 'free' trade, as from this post by Macroman on the economic communiqué issued at the recent G7 meeting: Macro Man has long thought that the endgame for the current dollar downtrend will be a commitment from the relevant authorities to act to turn it around. However, it's far from clear that the G7 are the relevant authorities; after all, it's not Japan or Germany or the UK that is... posted by Friedrich at April 18, 2008 | perma-link | (14) comments

Tuesday, April 8, 2008


Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- In 1980, federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 2004, about 267,000 noncitizens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities. Source. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 8, 2008 | perma-link | (29) comments

Friday, April 4, 2008


Critiques of the Imperial Status Quo
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Steve Sailer wonders why NATO is expanding. * Tom Piatak is tired of dogmatic, wet-behind-the-ears "free traders." * Allan Wall reports that Mexicans are rooting for Hillary. (UPDATE: Thanks to Bryan for pointing out this amazing L.A. Times story.) Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 4, 2008 | perma-link | (37) comments

Thursday, April 3, 2008


Two New Group Blogs
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * From the right: a new group blog by contributors to The American Conservative, edited by Daniel McCarthy. * From whatever side of the spectrum it is that libertarians inhabit: a new group blog from the Independent Institute. Best, Michael UPDATE: Thanks to TGGP, who points out another rewarding new group blog, The Art of the Possible, where the excellent Kevin Carson posts frequently.... posted by Michael at April 3, 2008 | perma-link | (2) comments

Economics California-Style
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards Edwin Rubenstein thinks that, without illegal immigration to contend with, California would be able to balance its budget. Philip Romero writes that mass immigration is hurting California in other ways too. Key passage: The dirty secret of too many of our industries is that they have been able to avoid modernizing -- finding ways to be more productive, usually by substituting machines for labor -- because they have been able to exploit cheap labor. In the short run, this keeps costs, and therefore prices, low. In the long run, their failure to update will cause them to lose the productivity race to foreign competitors. So turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is undermining the competitiveness of many American industries, and will cost Americans jobs in the future. Link thanks to FvBlowhard. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at April 3, 2008 | perma-link | (0) comments

Doing Some Figuring
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, I’ve been doing some figuring lately. I thought the results were interesting enough to share. I wanted to look at U.S. economic growth independent of two factors that often distort it: inflation and population growth. After all, any economy can appear to grow if you distort the measuring stick (inflation) or add production inputs (people). The question is, how well is the economy doing at the job of creatively utilizing its productive inputs? I took the real U.S. GDP (that is, adjusted for inflation, all numbers in FY2000 dollars) at 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2007, and divided each number by the official population of the country the same year, thus coming up with the real GDP per capita for that year. I then calculated the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for that decade. Of course, I used a 7-year "decade" instead of a 10-year decade for the current period. Obviously, the long-term trend is down. It seems to me that this graph suggests a good deal about the political life of our country over the past 70 years or so. Obviously during the 1940s, the 1950s and the 1960s, things were looking pretty good to the average citizen . Life and the paycheck were getting better. The New Deal consensus about how to run our country was firmly in place, and the extension of that New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs, were a logical next step. The 1970s were obviously a big blow to this optimism. What could have gone wrong? The 1980s and the 1990s were perceived as rebounds from that horrible decade. The general consensus was that the economy had been rejuvenated by the impulse toward deregulation. The glories of the free market were trumpeted. The numbers suggest, however, that this widespread perception was a myth, at least economically: the rebound decades were actually less impressive than the so-called horrible decade. This misperception suggests to me that there is a bias in the media, and possibly in our national life, which is not liberal or conservative, exactly. It's a bias that focuses attention on the fortunes of the people at the top. If they’re doing well, then the country is doing well. And the people at the top have done very well over the past 27 years, although unfortunately not as a result of their incredibly successful economic management of the general economy. This graph also makes it pretty clear why there is a disjunction between elite opinion and mass opinion on currently high levels of immigration. If your compensation correlates with total GDP growth (and thus with asset values like stock prices) rather than per-capita GDP growth, you’d tend to support the notion that the antidote to slowing per person growth is, um, more people. Of course, if you’re just one of these people, you might prefer a different strategy, since what you’re seeing is a continually slowing rate of improvement in your lot (maybe none... posted by Friedrich at April 3, 2008 | perma-link | (14) comments

Monday, March 31, 2008


No Help at All
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Tony Blair inflicted a decade of unprecedentedly high immigration on Britain. The results? Massive social unrest, and -- as a parliamentary report now makes clear -- absolutely zero economic gains for the country. Dramatic new social initiatives resulting in lasting pain and no benefits whatsoever -- now that's great governance. (Hence my own preferred political philosophy: First do no harm.) Link thanks to Peter Brimelow, whose "Alien Nation" is one seriously eye-opening book. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 31, 2008 | perma-link | (5) comments

Arms Dealers
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Not to be missed: Steve Sailer and the Steve Squad are doing a phenomenal job of figuring out who and what's behind a current arms-supply scandal. The story they're unearthing is pure high comedy, if in the wasteful / painful genre. I especially loved learning that Hasidic Jews qualify for affirmative action -- and that it was the Reagan administration that declared them disadvantaged. Here, here, here, here, here, here. A couple of lessons to take away from the mess, or so it seems to me: As fun as it can be to dream up "things the government should be doing," it also doesn't hurt to remember that every new ambitious government program opens up big opportunities for corruption and abuse. That goes for war, too. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 31, 2008 | perma-link | (14) comments

Thursday, March 27, 2008


Uh-Oh
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Fred Reed -- who has lived in Mexico for the last five years -- writes with a lot of brains and authority about some of the reasons why allowing mass immigration from Mexico is a very, very bad idea for the U.S. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 27, 2008 | perma-link | (15) comments

Monday, March 24, 2008


A Real Campus Rape, Part Two
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Yesterday I introduced “Hannah,” a professional woman who, as a college coed in the 1970s, was the victim of a stranger-rape. In that installment of our two-part interview with her, Hannah told us about the rape and the investigation. Today, in Part Two, Hannah takes us through the trial, ventures some reflections, and fields a lot of questions from me about distinctions between different kinds of bad sex. A warning: In this part of the interview I talk too much. Apologies in advance for that. Luckily, Hannah handles my garrulousness with grace. *** 2Blowhards: Tell me about the actual trial. Hannah: The county prosecutor was young, energetic, humorous, and easy to work with. He met with me once, and called me several times to prepare the case. Preparation consisted of him telling me the questions he would ask me on the stand, and me replying. He told me what the courtroom would look like, who would be sitting where. We probably spent a total of 2 hours on prep. The jury was a mix of race and sex. All of them seemed my parents' age or older. I wore what was for me a dressy outfit: woolen slacks, sweater, and scarf. When it came time for my testimony, I was sworn in and the prosecutor started asking me to describe what happened on the night of whatever it was. This was different from grand jury in that I had to describe what happened, and he couldn't ask leading questions. Was your rapist present? At the end of my testimony, the prosecutor asked me to look around the courtroom and see if I could identify my attacker anywhere. He had told me beforehand where Albert, my rapist, would be sitting, but I had no problem spotting Albert and pointing to him. I didn't make eye contact with Albert at anytime, and I tried to pretend in my mind that he wasn't there. We broke for lunch, and Winnie, Ryan, and I went to a nearby coffeehouse. We didn't stay, though, because Albert's family was in there eating. We went somewhere else. Did the defense attorney then have at you? Yes. After lunch I was cross-examined. I remember the defense attorney as a sleazy, short, fat, gray-haired man, sloppy-looking. I'm not sure if this was accurate, or if it's me demonizing him. He asked me to repeat things from my testimony over and over. He tried to catch me up on questions, for the most part unsuccessfully. One thing I did blow. He asked me if Albert had helped me up, and I said no. He then had them put something in as an exhibit, and showed me a copy of my written statement from the police station where I said that Albert had helped me up. He asked me how I explained the discrepancy, and I said it had been a year and a half, and I had forgotten that detail. He tried to trip... posted by Michael at March 24, 2008 | perma-link | (30) comments

A Real Campus Rape, Part One
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- A few weeks ago, Blowhards and visitors compared notes about what seemed to many like a particularly absurd case of is-it-rape-or-isn't-it? on a Northwestern college campus. Soon after I was contacted by a woman who actually was raped while in college in the mid-1970s -- raped in the traditional sense, if I can be allowed to put it that way. I asked her if I could interview her about the experience. She kindly agreed, then gave me a remarkably frank and open interview. I think that you'll find her descriptions and reflections very interesting and thought-provoking. I should add that I also suspect that you'll find her evocations of the era enjoyable and informative. She's very eloquent and direct. Have I mentioned recently how much I love the way that blogging has made the mini-memoir such a vital and accessible form? Life as it's actually lived, baby -- gotta love that. In this interview/memoir, you'll make the acquaintance of a smart, thoughtful, and soulful woman. A quick word to the uptight: “Hannah” and I use some earthy language. If you aren’t in the mood for uninhibited talk, please surf off now to another blog. We link to a lot of good ones in the left-hand column. To everyone else: “Hannah” has agreed to field questions and to participate in any conversations that might crop up in the comments. So please feel free to make observations and ask questions. She’ll be dropping by today for Part One, and for Part 2 tomorrow. Today, Part One: The Rape, and the Investigation *** 2Blowhards: Maybe first we should set some context up. What was your background? Hannah: Middle class, middle of the road. Culturally Jewish. We celebrated the holidays and kept the traditions, but I had no religious training, and only went to temple for the high holy days. My parents were sexually conservative. I'm sure they expected me to be a virgin when I married. How about politics? My family was politically moderate to liberal. My dad did not want me to apply to Harvard. He thought it was too radical (but he had no problem with Columbia -- funny). I wasn't particularly political myself. But if you think about what was going on then, I was a lot more political than the average kid today. While I was in high school, we went through Vietnam, Cambodia, Kent State, the first Earth Day, the Pentagon Papers -- how could you not be a little political? That was unbelievable stuff. What kind of person were you as a girl-slash-young-woman? 35 years ago, I would have told you I was strong, capable, practical, and competitive. Sexually neither wild nor conservative, but somewhere around the middle. Anti-war but not particularly political. I thought I was more of an intellectual than I was. Was that an accurate self-assessment? Looking back, I see that I was very naive and idealistic. I trusted people. I came from a typical small public high... posted by Michael at March 24, 2008 | perma-link | (20) comments

Saturday, March 22, 2008


The Archetypical Robert Rubin
Dear Blowhards, A week ago or so Dean Baker was a bit peeved at Robert Rubin. According to Mr. Baker’s post of March 14, “Robert Rubin Still Doesn't Know that People Warned About the Bubble”: Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was at a session at the Brookings Institution this morning at which [he] said that "few, if any" people anticipated the sort of meltdown that we are seeing in the credit markets at present. This should be newsworthy. Mr. Rubin is not only a former Treasury Secretary, he is in the top management at Citigroup and he is one of the top Democratic policy advisers. The failure to recognize the housing bubble and the danger it posed was an act of extraordinary negligence that would get people fired in most lines of work. The fact that he still doesn't recognize the enormity of this oversight even after the fact (economists did recognize the housing bubble and the dangers its collapse would pose to the financial system) is remarkable. In case you didn’t guess, Mr. Baker was one of the economists who not only recognized a housing bubble when he saw it, but also warned of the dangers its collapse would pose for the financial system. If you like, you can check out Mr. Baker’s prescience in two articles, “After the Housing Bubble Bursts” and “The Menace of an Unchecked Housing Bubble”, both from 2006. Mr. Baker’s remarks got me to thinking about Mr. Rubin’s very interesting career in finance, government and politics. It’s so interesting, in fact, I thought I would make him a case study of my “theory of everything.” As some of you may recall from my post of that name,I’ve suggested that the most important trend in American life of the past century -- political, economic and cultural -- is the profound alliance between the government and members of the New Middle Class, the New Class for short. These people are the technocratic-administrative elite of our society: financiers, professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.) senior government and corporate manager-bureaucrats, university professors, etc. They occupy well-paid or highly prestigious positions but do not owe their status or wealth to personal risk taking, making them rather anomalous in what is often termed a capitalist economy. As I said in my post, these people are able to float above the standard risk-reward curve that governs the rest of American society due to their ability to bend the power of government to their will: The New Class control of government occurs through three channels: first through campaign contributions to, and lobbying of, elected governmental officials (who are often New Class members themselves), a process that was invented in its modern form by the New Class; second through capturing regulatory and administrative policy and turning it to their own benefit, another New Class specialty; and third through the revolving door between government and private-sector New Class occupations. The nexus of the risk-averse New Class with the coercive power of the state has proven... posted by Friedrich at March 22, 2008 | perma-link | (8) comments

Friday, March 21, 2008


Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- In the past ten years the birth rate among unmarried Latinas in the U.S. has risen from 89 to 100 per 1,000. It is now much higher than the rate among black or white women. Source. A striking further fact: Last year, for the first time, half of all Hispanic children born in the U.S. were born out of wedlock. Best, Michael UPDATE: As for Ireland ... Hibernia Girl points out a study indicating that "by 2050, Ireland's population will consist of a multicultural and multiethnic mix in which the indigenous Irish will form a minority." Should the Irish be thanking their leaders for pursuing policies that lead to such results?... posted by Michael at March 21, 2008 | perma-link | (7) comments

The Uncomfortable Position of Civilians in Wartime
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, I came across a very interesting blog posting, "You Weren’t Meant to Have a Boss" (courtesy of Yves Smith at Naked Capital). It’s by Paul Graham, who is an essayist, programmer, programming language designer and a venture capitalist: A few days ago I was sitting in a cafe in Palo Alto and a group of programmers came in on some kind of scavenger hunt. It was obviously one of those corporate "team-building" exercises. They looked familiar. I spend nearly all my time working with programmers in their twenties and early thirties. But something seemed wrong about these. There was something missing… I think...that there's something missing in the lives of employees. I think [entrepreneurs who start companies,] though statistically outliers, are actually living in a way that's more natural for humans. I was in Africa last year and saw a lot of animals in the wild that I'd only seen in zoos before. It was remarkable how different they seemed. Particularly lions. Lions in the wild seem about ten times more alive. They're like different animals. And seeing those guys on their scavenger hunt was like seeing lions in a zoo after spending several years watching them in the wild. […] Watching employees get transformed into [entrepreneurs] makes it clear that the difference between the two is due mostly to environment -- and in particular that the environment in big companies is toxic to programmers. In the first couple weeks of working on their own startup they seem to come to life, because finally they're working the way people are meant to. As a small business owner, this is pretty much exactly my point of view on the world. Or, as I’ve put it occasionally, talking to other business owners: Capitalism is war. Employees are civilians. Being a civilian in a war zone ain't too comfortable. Cheers, Friedrich von Blowhard... posted by Friedrich at March 21, 2008 | perma-link | (5) comments

Saturday, March 15, 2008


Political Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- I was dreading a dull, dull election campaign. If politicians can't even deliver some entertainment value for our tax dollars, then what use are they? But the gloves are finally coming off, aren't they? * Steve Sailer deserves lots of credit; he has been asking probing questions about Barack Obama, and about Jeremiah Wright -- Obama's zany black-nationalist preacher -- for months now. Here's Steve's latest Barack posting. Here's Wright in action. Funny to think that a few bad-taste remarks in long-ago newsletters got Ron Paul in such trouble that his campaign was effectively killed, isn't it? * Camille Paglia returns to Salon with a lot of smart and vivid observations about Hillary and Obama, as well as some bitching and moaning on the theme of "why has sex in America become so pushy yet unerotic?" I've treated myself to some similar rants. * The excellent Cristina Hoff Sommers reports the unnnerving, maybe even alarming news that institutionalized Boomer feminists are bringing Title IX-style pressures to bear on the worlds of math and science. Just what America needs: diversity officers running math departments and research centers. * Prof emeritus Anne Barbour Gardner says that the biggest influence on academic literary studies in recent years hasn't been deconstruction, it has been feminist criticism. A laugh from The Onion may be a propos here ... * Does anybody want dollars any longer? * Secessionism buff Bill Kauffman tells the story of the people who would like to create a new state out of southern Oregon and Northern California. I'm looking forward to Bill's new book, which goes on sale soon. * Good to see that someone has finally figured out how to make money on the web! * Too keep the insanity in perspective, how about a little something that offers real pleasures and satisfactions? How about a little Sam Cooke? Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 15, 2008 | perma-link | (29) comments

Friday, March 14, 2008


Quote for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- From Dean Baker: Why wouldn’t we want the [U.S.] banks to be forced to come clean and eat their losses? This is always the policy that the economists advocate when the parties in question are not the big New York banks. Does anyone remember the East Asian financial crisis when the media was full of condemnations of crony capitalism and the IMF insisted imposed stringent conditions on South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia as a condition of getting bailed out? At that time, everyone insisted on transparency. Aren’t there any economists who still have this perspective? If so, why aren’t their views appearing anywhere in the news? But it's soooooo much more fun to put the other guy on a diet than it is to lose a little weight yourself ... Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 14, 2008 | perma-link | (4) comments

Fact for the Day
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- "Since 1999, annual oil revenues for OPEC countries have more than quadrupled, to an estimated $670 billion in 2007." Source. Further: Since 1999, China's oil use has almost doubled. World oil use is up 13%; U.S. oil use is up 7%. "To some extent, we are paying for past shortsightedness," writes Robert J. Samuelson, perhaps understating matters by a tad. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 14, 2008 | perma-link | (0) comments

Something is Rotten…
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, Just after absorbing the news on the NY Fed’s bailout of Bear Stearns, I noticed this little item by Shobhana Chandra on Bloomberg: March 14 (Bloomberg) -- Consumer prices in the U.S. were unexpectedly unchanged in February, making it easier for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to cut interest rates by as much as three-quarters of a percentage point. The figure followed a 0.4 percent gain in January, the Labor Department said today in Washington. So-called core prices, which exclude food and energy, also showed no change, the first time they didn't increase since November 2006. Since the core prices are flat, and food is up, we can conclude that energy costs are down? With oil at a record high, and natural gas up? WTF?! I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only person left scratching his head. Carl Gutierrez of Forbes seems to share my puzzlement in “Flat CPE Brings Sighs of Relief”: Despite the positive reaction in the bond and equity markets, some analysts were skeptical about the figures. "It is kind of bizarre," Robert MacIntosh, chief economist with Eaton Vance Management in Boston, told Reuters. "I don't know why you don't see inflation here. It must be a faulty measurement system -- it makes no sense whatsoever. How could energy have fallen 0.5%? Do you think energy-related costs are down? I bet that the market is just going to disregard this and move on." And, of course, in Europe where the ECB is stubbornly keeping interest rates higher than in the U.S. (generally an inflation-containing strategy) they weren’t nearly as ‘lucky’ as we were. Ms. Chandra remarks: The report from the U.S. contrasts with figures from overseas also issued today. European consumer prices and wages rose more than economists forecast, leaving the European Central Bank with little room to lower interest rates as economic growth slows. It's probably nothing but my terminally cynical nature that prompts me to wonder if the "faulty measurement system" mentioned by Mr. MacIntosh of Eaton Vance is perhaps not so much faulty as one suffering from a thumb on the scale by government statisticians. The Bloomberg story goes on to quote Stephen Gallagher, chief U.S. economist at Societe Generale SA in New York, who points out that with such low inflation, "The Fed certainly has more room to cut rates next week." So inflation numbers join unemployment numbers in my list of indicators to pay less attention to. Well, do you believe that this is credible? Cheers, Friedrich... posted by Friedrich at March 14, 2008 | perma-link | (19) comments

Thursday, March 13, 2008


Mamet Reads Sowell
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Playwright David Mamet takes stock of life as he has experienced it, scrutinizes his actual beliefs, reads some Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele -- and finds that he's no longer the true-believin' leftie he once was. (Link thanks to the Tory Anarchist.) Nice passage: What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow. But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out? I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own -- take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production. * MBlowhard Rewind: I described my own adventures in rightie thought, and discussed the history of the director. (Scroll down a bit.) Theater productions didn't always have directors, you know. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 13, 2008 | perma-link | (7) comments

Spitzer Bits
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- A few stray things that have caught my attention during the Client 9 -- er, the Eliot Spitzer -- scandals: * I don't personally know why prostitution is illegal, and I think Americans make far too much of it when public people are caught straying. Gosh: Ambitious, power-driven men tend to have strong sex drives and a taste for conquering women -- now who could have imagined that? All that said, the whole "crusading moralist caught with his own pants down" thing makes for a pretty irresistable news story. * Until his resignation, the NY Post was referring to Spitzer as the "governor erect." * Alex Tabarrook thinks that it's worth thinking about Spitzer's actions in terms of trade-offs. * Kirsten Mortensen figures out how much Spitzer owes in sales taxes. * Mark Brener, the man who allegedly ran the online callgirl ring that Spitzer patronized, once worked as a tax preparer. Brener, who is 62, dyes his hair black and when arrested was living with a 23-year-old woman. * Cindy Adams has some almost European-style advice for Spitzer's wife. It's startling to find this kind of thing in an American newspaper, isn't it?: I want to tell her -- so what. She may no longer be New York's first lady, but a husband hooking up with a hooker is not reason enough to no longer be a married lady. Sex, a primal need, outpoints fear, hunger and love as mankind's No. 1 driving force. Unless you're a pig or a monk, many an able-bodied -- and I use that term deliberately -- 48-year-old husband of 21 years has grazed. I'm not advocating it. I'm merely saying, so what? It's like takeout food. Less work for mother. * The Daily News reports that many guys have been with prostitutes. "Variety is sweet," says one of them. * Married 50-something Philip Weiss confesses that he feels sympathy for Spitzer's need to stray, and marvels at Spitzer's hooker-of-choice's "amazing rack." She's a cutie, that's for sure. * Read more about Ashley -- who wants to be a singer -- here. Ashley's mom says that she was “shell-shocked” when her daughter called mid-last week and told her she had been working as an escort and was now in trouble with the law. I'll bet she was. "Hi, Mom. Um, you know those headlines you've been seeing about Eliot Spitzer being caught spending time with a hooker? Well ..." * Tameka Lewis, who may have booked the Spitzer-Ashley assignation, is described by her family as "a church-going honor student who graduated from a prestigious school." * Steve Sailer guesses that NY's new First Lady will soon be getting a raise. * Steve Malanga reports that New York State has a $4 billion deficit, that nine of the U.S.'s ten most heavily-taxed counties are in New York, and that during Spitzer's brief tenure "the state's budget grew sharply." Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 13, 2008 | perma-link | (15) comments

Tuesday, March 11, 2008


Financial Innovation
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: [Editorial Note: I wrote this last night, before news of coordinated activity by the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada and the Swiss National Bank had come out. As far as I can tell from a quick overview, none of that changes the overall conclusions of this post.] Dear Blowhards, As those of you who are following the financial news are no doubt aware, the ongoing saga of the credit crisis has taken another turn for the worse. Now that the banks have taken nearly $200 billion worldwide in write-downs, another domino is apparently falling: hedge funds. Many of these institutions use money borrowed from banks to help fund their investments, a practice known as lending (or borrowing) on margin. Unfortunately, the value of some hedge fund investment portfolios -- which are apparently in mortgage-related bonds -- has fallen, and the banks are demanding that a number of hedge funds reduce their margin loans now. If this is impossible, as the amount of money needed is very large, the banks will seize the hedge funds' bonds (as they have the legal right to do) and sell them off to raise cash. This, however, is a bit trickier than it looks. Right now, there aren’t many people willing to buy these mortgage-backed bonds – at least not without demanding a serious discount. In a market with very few buyers, sales such as these drive the price of the seized bonds down. Gillian Tett of the Financial Times in a story "Vicious Spiral Haunts Debt Markets" points out that this is a catch-22 situation. The quickest way to end the current crisis in financial markets is for the prices of assets, like for example those bonds owned by hedge funds and banks, to be driven down to the point where they actually look cheap to investors. At the moment, the investors are currently sitting around with their hands in their pockets, hording their dough. Why? Because the investors figure that even though much of these bonds are being offered at a discount, it will likely be offered at a still-larger discount next week or next month. Back in the S&L crisis of the late 1980s, the government helped resolve a similar problem by staging auctions of the assets of failed thrifts; as soon as investors saw people buying those assets at fire sale prices they figured the bottom had been reached and felt confident that anything they bought today was likely to retain its value in the future. Investors started reaching for their wallets and life in the financial markets went back to normal. However, Ms. Tett points out a key difference between then and now; in the late 1980s banks didn't have to reflect the market value of their own assets in evaluating their financial condition. Today they do; this is known as 'mark to market accounting.' And banks hold a lot of bonds very similar to the ones that they are forcing... posted by Friedrich at March 11, 2008 | perma-link | (6) comments

Wednesday, March 5, 2008


Political Linkage
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- * Hibernia Girl wonders why our elites so hate the idea of monocultural societies. * Lester Hunt confesses that he's basically an anarchist, and is hilarious on the topic of contemporary political moderates. * Fred Reed gives a talk to a gathering of the American Renaissance gang, and finds the experience not all that unpleasant. * As nuts as he has been about the mideast war, Victor Davis Hanson nonetheless does a great job of spelling out the basics where immigration issues in the US and Europe go. * It's one of the most taken-for-granted demographic/political assumptions around: that, because of the large number of soon-to-retire Boomers, the country simply couldn't go on without scads of immigrants. Well, it's also untrue. Dean Baker explains why. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at March 5, 2008 | perma-link | (5) comments

Tuesday, March 4, 2008


Hopes for Barack; Worries About Barack
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Software genius Marc Andreessen meets Barack Obama and comes away with a good feeling about him. Steve Sailer worries that an Obama presidency will mean a lot more involvement in baffling Kenyan politics than we have now. Best, Michael UPDATE: FWIW, my feelings about day-to-day-style American politics: All politicians are guilty until proven innocent, which never happens. Nine out of ten times, nothing really needs to be done. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and take it for granted that you'll be amazed, appalled, and horrified anyway. Here's a posting where I summed up my thoughts about American politics circa 2004. I can't see that a lot has changed since. UPDATE 2: Charlotte Allen wonders what makes women scream for and swoon over Barack.... posted by Michael at March 4, 2008 | perma-link | (5) comments

Sunday, March 2, 2008


Maybe there's a cheaper way...
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, I noticed that on Bloomberg there's a story on Joseph Stiglitz, who has written a book on the cost of the Iraq war: March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz, author of a new book that claims the Iraq war will cost the U.S. more than $3 trillion, said the final tally is likely to climb much higher than that. "It's much more like five trillion," Stiglitz said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. "We were trying to make Americans understand how expensive this war was so we didn't want to quibble about a dime here or a dime there." I guess I'm getting numb to bad news or something, as that didn't even get my pulse racing. No, what actually registered with me was a bit in the next paragraph of the same story, in which we got a justification for the cost that should go into the record books: The 2001 Nobel winner's initial estimate of $3 trillion drew criticism from Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who said that the number ignores the price the U.S. would pay if Iraq became a terrorist state. Hmm, let's see if I understand Senator Brownback’s logic. Assuming that any predominantly Islamic country is at risk of becoming a terrorist state, I checked Wikipedia and found this article that considers some 30-40 countries to be majority Moslem. If we invade each it’s gonna cost us, at the lower of Mr. Stiglitz’s estimates for the Iraq contest, between $90 to $120 trillion. But at least we'll be safe from terrorist states. Of course, sadly, this may underestimate the cost, as not all Moslems live in Islamic-majority countries. To come up with a more realistic estimate of our upcoming Brownbackian military expenditures, we need to consider the cost of pacifying the entire Moslem population, world-wide. Assuming the lower of Mr. Stiglitz's numbers, we have committed ourselves to spending around $109,000 per Iraqi man, woman and child to safeguard ourselves for the past five years. Of course, since only about a third of the Iraqi population could physically qualify as serious menaces, the number is actually more like $330,000 per adult male Iraqi--um, I mean, potential terrorist. (And if one assumes that only one adult male Iraqi in 10 is actually what you'd call an insurgent, the number we've committed to spending climbs to over three million dollars per serious antagonist. Gosh, we could have bribed them all with fully-paid-off houses in nice L.A. neighborhoods for a third that price. Well, fairly nice L.A. neighborhoods, anway.) Anyway, according to the same Wikipedia article, the number of Moslems worldwide may be as large as 1.8 billion. That means we might have to spend $196 trillion to keep ourselves safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism -- at least by our remarkably expensive military invasion methods. Safe for a few years, anyway. Of course, there are other threats as well that military invasion might not be the... posted by Friedrich at March 2, 2008 | perma-link | (51) comments

Thursday, February 28, 2008


How Things Really Are?
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Barry Ritholtz gives expression to the words Ben Bernanke dares not speak. Short version: "The credit crunch is unprecedented, far worse than the S&L collapse and Long Term Capital Management -- combined." (Link thanks to FvBlowhard.) Best, Michael... posted by Michael at February 28, 2008 | perma-link | (1) comments

Wednesday, February 27, 2008


Your Opinion Wanted
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Everyone -- As a followup to my previous posting: Rape? Or just messy college sex? (Link thanks to Cheryl Miller, who comments on Heather Mac Donald's piece here.) Best, Michael... posted by Michael at February 27, 2008 | perma-link | (50) comments

Tuesday, February 26, 2008


Campuses and Rapes
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Heather Mac Donald reviews the status of Ivy League rape centers. Her article also functions as a review of just how nutso sexual matters became in the early '90s. Nice quote: The campus rape industry's central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years. This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. [Sorry -- couldn't resist highlighting that passage. Ed.] Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the "rape culture." A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were "co-survivors"; "survivors" existed in a larger "community of survivors." An army of salesmen took to the road, selling advice to administrators on how to structure sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing freshmen on the "undetected rapists" in their midst. Rape bureaucrats exchanged notes at such gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and the New England College Sexual Assault Network. Organizations like One in Four and Men Can Stop Rape tried to persuade college boys to redefine their masculinity away from the "rape culture."... None of this crisis response occurs, of course -- because the crisis doesn't exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results -- very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published. It's funny, isn't it, the way some people claim that Political Correctness (or Sexual Correctness) never existed, isn't it? Of course it did. I'm reminded of the way some people, when thinking back to (or remembering) '70s-style feminism, say, "Oh, it wasn't so bad." Sure it was. I compiled some examples of how loony things got in this posting. Here's Mary Koss's page at the U. of Arizona's website. Christina Hoff Sommers reviews feminists' claims about rape. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at February 26, 2008 | perma-link | (33) comments

Monday, February 25, 2008


Late Boomers
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Steve Sailer writes an enlightening posting about late Boomers -- people who are technically Boomers, but who were born too late to enjoy trashing the campuses, snagging the groovy jobs, and helping themselves to the cultural reins: the younger siblings of the crowd usually thought of as "the Boomers," basically. I wrote about the same group -- the gang FvBlowhard and I happen to belong to -- back here. Best Michael... posted by Michael at February 25, 2008 | perma-link | (11) comments

Saturday, February 23, 2008


Bailouts, Part II
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards, The competition for "most revealing anecdote about how the U.S. political economy really works today" is fierce, but this story in the New York Times may be the winner. Edmund L. Andrews writes: WASHINGTON — Over the last two decades, few industries have lobbied more ferociously or effectively than banks to get the government out of its business and to obtain freer rein for “financial innovation.” But as losses from bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities climb past $200 billion, talk among banking executives for an epic government rescue plan is suddenly coming into fashion. A confidential proposal that Bank of America circulated to members of Congress this month provides a stunning glimpse of how quickly the industry has reversed its laissez-faire disdain for second-guessing by the government — now that it is in trouble. The proposal warns that up to $739 billion in mortgages are at “moderate to high risk” of defaulting over the next five years and that millions of families could lose their homes. The essence of the proposal is that Bank of America -- which, as you recall, just voluntarily increased its exposure to the home mortgage market by buying the nation’s largest mortgage lender, Countrywide -- wants the U.S. government to step in and buy some fraction, or possibly all, of these loans, thus providing the banking industry and securitized mortgage-backed bond holders with a sort of re-insurance stop-loss agreement. The industry and the investors would agree to take a modest hit today in order to get a much larger potential problem off their books. This would, of course, be a very, very good thing for the financial services industry and for its investors; perhaps not such a good deal for the rest of the nation’s taxpayers. (I was quite surprised not to see any mention of the banks and their employees voluntarily disgorging the salaries and profits they’ve made on originating and securitizing such potentially troubled loans as they pass them off to the government, but maybe that’s down in the fine print somewhere. And if Bank of America is really worried about "millions of families losing their homes" in any sense other than how that would impact Bank of America’s balance sheet, it could, you know, just decide not to foreclose on those families, but I didn’t see that option discussed in the story, either.) This proposal is supported by what the story calls "community advocacy activists" such as John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. I checked Mr. Taylor’s group out and found that it describes its mission thusly: NCRC creates, implements, and supports long-term solutions and strategies that build community and promote individual economic well-being. Through information, research, programs, training and service, we ensure that people in traditionally underserved communities are treated fairly and justly when applying for credit, opening a bank account, getting a mortgage, a loan, or other financial product or service. NCRC ensures that banks, mortgage lenders, and the financial community... posted by Friedrich at February 23, 2008 | perma-link | (9) comments

Friday, February 15, 2008


Bailouts
Friedrich von Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards: I just came across a very funny short posting by Michael “Mish” Shedlock. The portions that caught my eye were as follows: The list of those wanting a government bailout and/or bigger bailout than they have received so far keeps growing...Ambac (ABK) and MBIA (MBI) are both pleading for bailouts...MBIA wants cash, Ambac is blaming the rating agencies and wants guarantees of an AAA rating it does not deserve...The banking community is also looking for handouts, straight from taxpayers...Let's call it for what it is: A request for taxpayer funds to bail out lenders making stupid loan decisions...The national Association of Homebuilders recently announced that they have stopped all Congressional bribes…Obviously the NAHB was expecting a bigger bailout than it has seen so far for the bribes it has paid out. That first sentence made me laugh out loud. (Okay, so I'm easily amused.) This got me thinking that the term "bailout" (and all it signifies, including earlier ill-advised risk taking) is pretty much the meat of the problem of our contemporary political and economic life. This whole syndrome has been described by Martin Wolf, chief economic columnist of the Financial Times, and others as “privatizing the gains [of the economy] and socializing the losses.” If this seems unfair, just remind yourself how much money the credit insurers like Ambac and MBIA, the bankers, and the homebuilders have been making over the past decade or so, and notice how they respond to adversity caused chiefly by their own piggish greed and stupidity. (The little economic crisis we're going through has one major upside: it's a golden opportunity to see how things really work in contemporary America. The situation has gotten so screwed up right now that the government, a relatively slow moving and stupid beast, can’t keep up with all the requests to socialize losses in real time. A year or two ago when everything seemed right with the world all this was much less visible.) Why are we in this situation? Well, it’s more or less inevitable as a result of our political-economic system, which I would describe as "democratic Fascism." Sorry to use the F-word right out in the open like that, but it’s the correct one, at least according to the rubric they taught me in junior high school: "Fascism is public control and private ownership." (You know, in the sense that "Capitalism is private control and private ownership" and "Socialism is public control and public ownership.") The widely repeated notion that the U.S. is a capitalist country is hard to understand, when you consider the extent to which government controls all the commanding heights of the economy, certainly including Wall Street. (Note how much of the business press actually covers the activities of one level or another of government.) But that just pushes the issue up a level. The obvious follow-up question, although oddly obscured most of the time by people on both the left and the right, is "So... posted by Friedrich at February 15, 2008 | perma-link | (8) comments

Monday, February 11, 2008


Populations
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- The Pew Center predicts that by 2050 ... The population of the U.S. will pass 430 million people. That's almost three times the number of people the US had when I was born. Nothing like cramming 'em in, eh? White people will be in the minority. That's a dramatic development. It might also prove to be a dangerous one. People who are fans of this kind of thing: Please tell me how many times in history ethnic upheavals on this scale have occurred with good results. A reminder: All this is unecessary. It's happening entirely because of the zany 1965 Immigration Act, and because of lax enforcement of what immigration law we do have. Unprecedented levels of crowding ... Unwanted and potentially dangerous ethnic turnabouts ... That's quite a legacy Ted Kennedy will be leaving us. No doubt he had the noblest of intentions, though. Steve Sailer asks a good question: "How is affirmative action going to work when the beneficiaries outnumber the benefactors?" The New York Times Sam Roberts takes a look at the study's numbers. Best, Michael... posted by Michael at February 11, 2008 | perma-link | (23) comments

Sunday, February 10, 2008


Senators as Presidents: Oh Dear!
Donald Pittenger writes: Dear Blowhards -- Back in the late 60s and early 70s, political conventional wisdom had it that the route to the presidency was through the Senate. In recent years, that road is supposed to go through a governor's mansion. In the first case, it was assumed that foreign policy was the most important presidential task, and that was the one thing governors didn't get to deal with. Nowadays, the theory is that management is the key task; governors have to administrate, assemble budgets, deal with legislatures, and so forth. Senators only have relatively small staffs to run (and have an administrator to handle that task, in any case). Guess what? Barring an Act of God, the next president will be a former senator. What does that portend? I dunno. Nor am I sure that history is a great guide. Nevertheless, why not take a stab at it. Here are the presidents, since 100 years ago today, listed by their highest elected office, not counting Vice President -- according to John Nance Garner "Not worth a bucket of warm sh*t." Senators Harding Truman Nixon Kennedy Johhnson Governors T. Roosevelt Wilson Coolidge F.D. Roosevelt Carter Reagan Clinton G.W. Bush Congressmen Ford G.H.W. Bush No significant elective office Taft Hoover Eisenhower And who were the most consequential and/or most effective presidents from this list? Every so often surveys of historians are taken, and the results are skewed according to whether the panel has a left or right bias. Let's forget about the presidents who served since Reagan to avoid injecting any more partisan bias than necessary. So drop Clinton and the two Bushes. Most surveys that I recall place the two Roosevelts at or near the top. Reagan seems to on his way there. Truman, highly unpopular when he left office, is now generally thought of as being one of the better ones. Eisenhower also is looking stronger than originally. Kennedy is starting to slip, and may drop further once historians who loved him pass on to the Great Library Stacks in the Sky. Among righties, Coolidge seems pretty good. And lefties are still high on Wilson. So if those surveys are meaningful, governors indeed tend to do better than senators. What do you think? Later, Donald... posted by Donald at February 10, 2008 | perma-link | (9) comments

Thursday, February 7, 2008


Gold Standards
Michael Blowhard writes: Dear Blowhards -- Can anyone explain to me why putting the money supply on a gold standard is a bad idea? I'm aware that all right-thinkin