Information
ARCHIVES
Monday, March 30, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

Via Reuters: UPDATE 1-US autos task force rejects GM, Chrysler plans

The Obama administration autos task force on Monday rejected the turnaround plans of General Motors Corp (GM.N) and Chrysler LLC and warned both could be put through bankruptcy to slash debts.

[...]

“We have unfortunately concluded that neither plan submitted by either company represents viability and therefore does not warrant the substantial additional investments that they requested,” said a senior administration official, who asked not to be named.

Instead of granting GM’s request for up to $30 billion in loans, the administration only pledged to fund GM’s operations for the next 60 days while the top U.S. automaker develops an even more sweeping restructuring plan under new leadership.

Quite frankly something like this had to happen at some point. There are only so many billions to go around, and neither GM nor Chrysler has appeared all that worthy for the the get-go. If these companies are going to going hat-in-hand to the taxpayers over and over again, then there are going to have to be strings attached. I thought from the beginning that bankruptcy made more sense, even if it was a specialized process devised for this specific emergency and not called “bankruptcy.”

BTW, for those keeping score at home: this isn’t a move to socialism, this is the administration making a choice between helping a major industry in the time of crisis or letting the market take over, which would mean the collapse of these companies. It was clearly decided in the previous administration that the economy could not handle such a collapse, and stepped in with aid. Now it is a question of both the broader economic effects of an outright collapse and whether the taxpayers will see any of repayment of the loans already given to these companies.

No doubt more later.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (17)|
Sunday, March 29, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

Via ABC News: GM Boss Wagoner to Resign, Source Says

A White House official tells ABC News that the Obama administration asked GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner to step down, and Wagoner agreed to do so.

GM had no official comment.

The move is part of the administration’s plans to restructure the auto industry, which President Obama is expected to announce Monday.

Of the various bailouts, I think that the auto industry business has been the most troublesome to me, as while clearly the proximate cause of the Big Three’s woes was the global financial crisis, the seeds of the problems were self-sown some time back. Further, it seems like the government loans to GM and Chrysler were always destined to be un-repaid gifts (the phrase “down a rathole” comes to mind) and that there was no way those two companies in particular could survive this process intact.

I am hoping that whatever is announced is basically a specialized bankruptcy proceeding so that these companies can be properly restructured/dismantled rather than an attempt to take control of them in the vain hope of making them whole again.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (5)|
By Steven L. Taylor

After the Rain

365.87. We have had a great deal of rain lately–several days over a week ago (see shots 73, 74 and 75) meant a saturated ground and therefore a lot of standing water after the latest round. This was from a friend’s yard.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
By Steven L. Taylor

Indoor Soccer

365.86. Middle Son had his first indoor soccer game this week. I took a few shots at the first two games, but am trying to deal with the lighting and the fact that since I am an assistant coach, my position for a shot is limited. I didn’t really like any of the shot, but was generally pleased with the basic composition of this one, and the blur suggests spped. If anything I needed a shor for the day, so here it is!

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
By Steven L. Taylor

Better than Nothing (Barely)

365.85: One of the few days (maybe only the second) since starting that I really didn’t feel like fooling with Project365. I saw the sun on the geranium pot and thought I saw a shot of the leaves, but nothing worked. The shadow of the watering can intrigued me, but I really didn’t work hard enough on the composition.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor

Two Iranian professors offer their views on the current moment in US-Iranian relations in a column in today’s Boston Globe (A new season in Iran relations) which dovetails well with two of my posts from earlier in the week on the subject (here and here).

In regards to the point I have been trying to make, Mojtahedzadeh and Afrasiabi note:

There is a real convergence of interests between the United States and Iran on Afghanistan. Both oppose the Taliban and their Wahhabi Al Qaeda supporters, support the Kabul government, and fight the drug smugglers, who kill hundreds of Iran’s drug officials each year. Iran has given generous economic assistance to Kabul and has contributed to Afghanistan’s reconstruction by giving a 90 percent discount on duties for Afghan goods. Last year’s trade between the countries approached $1 billion and this figure is anticipated to grow now that Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan have agreed to connect railways and ship water and electricity into Iran from Tajikistan via Afghanistan. There is already a well-built highway from Iran to Herat in western Afghanistan and plans are underway to connect the landlocked Afghanistan to the Iranian port of Chahbahar.

Given its geographical proximity and close historical, cultural, and linguistic ties with Afghanistan, Iran is well positioned to play an increasingly important role in Afghanistan’s stabilization. However, Iran’s leaders cannot forget how their post 9/11 cooperation with Washington to uproot the Taliban was rewarded by President Bush in the form of their demonization as part of an “axis of evil.” So they are now adamant that their future cooperation will be part of a comprehensive and strategic context, whereby Iran is firmly included in regional stabilization strategies.

Further, they note that the immediate interpretation in the Western press of Ayatollah Khamenei’s response to President Obama’s Persian New Year message was incorrect:

Sure, the Iranian leader’s response was peppered with negative reactions to Obama’s video message – to both the Iranian public and its leaders – linking Iran with terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But much of the Western media seriously misinterpreted Khamenei’s response by saying that he had rebuffed, dismissed, or “brushed aside” Obama’s important overture.

On the contrary, the instant response by the leader has been widely interpreted in Iran as a sign of respect for Obama. Khamenei challenged the president to back up words with action, adding “change only in words is not enough, change must be real.” This means Khamenei has taken charge of Iran’s US policy, preempting often-fractious voices in Iranian politics that could hamper evolution of a US-Iran dialogue.

Juan Cole provided a similar interpretation during an interview on the Dinne Rehm Show last Monday.

Understand: I would be more than happy to see liberalization in Iran. I think that there are numerous problems with the regime in power. However, the notion that isolating the Iranians is ultimately in the best interest of the US or of the region strikes me as incorrect. If anything, we have three decades of evidence to suggest that the policy really doesn’t work. And the notion that the US cannot engage with a country that has human rights abuses or that is authoritarian or that doesn’t get along with Israel (or whatever one wants to put in the mix) is put to the lie by any number of other relationships we have with any number of other states.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (1)|
Saturday, March 28, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

Via the LAT: Markets again bet the worst is past

The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has pared its year-to-date loss from a stunning 25% as of March 9 to just under 10% at Friday’s close.

The global economy still is in miserable shape after the dive in consumer and business spending since mid-2008. Banks still totter, unemployment keeps rising and corporate earnings are cratering.

But for the moment, Wall Street has stopped anticipating the end of the world, and is figuring we’re just in a very bad recession — and one that depressed share prices may already largely reflect.

All of which is one of the more optimistic things I have read on this subject in a while–although the fact that the above also has a litany of negatives as well indicates how bad the news has been of late.

And, there is this caveat:

This is the fifth time U.S. blue-chip stocks have risen more than 10% since the long slide began in October 2024. The previous four rallies all gave way to more selling and new market lows.

I am hardly qualified to say what any of this means, so this post falls very heavily under the slogan of I report, you decided (or a more accurate cliché is probably “time will tell”).

Much, no doubt, depends on whether there is any confidence in the Getheiner toxic assets plan beyond the immediate.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
By Steven L. Taylor

Via the BBC: Iran and Nato end 30-year impasse

An Iranian diplomat has held informal talks with Nato officials for the first time in 30 years.

Senior Nato negotiator Martin Erdmann said he had met Iran’s ambassador to the European Union, Ali-Asghar Khaji, more than two weeks ago.

[...]

A Nato spokesman, James Appathurai, said the talks with Mr Khaji had concentrated on Afghanistan.

Foreign affairs is often about baby steps, and this strikes me as a real one. Again, it is Iran acting like a normal state in the international system. While hardly the most dramatic of steps, it should be seen as a positive one and fits in with my post yesterday.

Also: one of the needs for starting up serious relations between two states is a common interest, and perhaps the opening for US-Iran dialog is the Afghanistan question, not the more confrontational issues on the table.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
Friday, March 27, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

The following post by DougJ @ Balloon Juice (Drudge rules their world) wherein White House Press Secretary Gibbs is quoted discussing the mini-brouhaha that is bouncing around about Obama’s usage of the Teleprompter reminded me that I have been meaning to post my pet theory about the meme in question.

The Meme in Question. First, what am I talking about?1 Well, it goes something like this: President Obama isn’t really the smooth communicator that so many of you out there think that he, because he likes to use a teleprompter! Indeed, what would he do without one? Odds are, he couldn’t even speak! Some say that he is reduced to a sobbing heap with it!

This is a favorite over at Power Line. For example, on March 23, John Hinderaker2 wrote:

Everyone knows that Barack Obama is lost without his teleprompter, but his latest blunder, courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, via the Corner, suggests that the teleprompter may not be enough unless it includes phonetic spellings. Obama was speaking at a White House roundtable on clean energy systems, and repeatedly saluted Orion Energy Systems, whose CEO, Neal Verfuerth, was present at the event. So Obama referred to “Orion” a number of times. Only problem was, he appeared to be unfamiliar with the word:
All terrific press for Orion, except that Obama kept pronouncing the company’s name wrong, calling it OAR-ee-on.

Unbelievable. Orion is one of the best-known constellations, mostly because it actually looks like its namesake. So evidently we have to add astronomy to history and economics as subjects of which Obama is remarkably ignorant. I’m beginning to fear that our President has below-average knowledge of the world. Not for a President, but for a middle-aged American.

On the 18th, Scott Johnson posted:Why Obama thanked himself

Despite the jocular tone of the AP report, a Teleprompter meltdown in Obama’s White House is no laughing matter.

Yes, the horror.

Mark Steyn, blogging at the Corner wrote about the incident:

Is the Teleprompter really the brains of the operation? And, if so, why hasn’t it nominated a new Deputy Treasury Secretary?

Another example: Kim Priestap at Wizbang:

This is why Obama brings a teleprompter with him everywhere he speaks, even at a rodeo. If he doesn’t have the words scrolling in front of him, he collapses:

And, of course, Rush Limbaugh: Off Prompter, Obama Can’t Speak.

The Theory. This is all a rather transparent attempt to take what was an obvious foible of the previous president, i.e., his rather obvious lack of fluidity with the English language3 especially when speaking extemporaneously, and say: see! Obama can’t do it either!

Now, this is, of course, patently silly. Obama is an objectively good speaker and speaks quite well off the cuff. He does have his own cadence, which one could make fun of, I suppose, but the notion that he can’t manage without a teleprompter is just asinine.

I suppose that it could also be simply trying to tear down an obvious asset that the President has, but I can’t help but think that there is a linkage back to Bush and the slings and arrows he suffered over his locution.

In response the whole thing, I am with James Fallows, who wrote the other day:

The whole “Obama can’t talk on his own” concept is bizarre, given his performance through two years of stump speeches and debates during the campaign. But it seems to have gotten so much credence in the right-wing world that it is worth addressing head on.

Conclusion. Politicians and candidates often find certain aspects of their personality, speech pattern or personal history become caricatured and those traits become sources of comedy and sometimes of political attack. This works better for some than others. Consider the following (very partial) list:

Gerald Ford: a klutz (thanks to his own falling down the stairs of Air Force One and trying to eat a tamale with the husk on, among other things, and being portrayed as a bumbler on SNL by Chevy Chase).

Dan Quayle: a dummy (thanks to a number of things, probably most famously, “potatoe”).

Bill Clinton: sexaholic and hyperparser of words (does that really need explanation?)

Al Gore: maker-up of stories to self-promote (most famous, the line about inventing the internet).

One could name others, but these are easy and obvious examples.

Now, two things have to be noted.

One, the caricatures are just that: overblown (well, except maybe Clinton…) and supporters of the given politician, or even a fair-minded observer, could point out where they are inaccurate. However, once a politician is identified in such a manner, it is impossible to totally shake the image from the public’s consciousness.

Two, it is always a mistake for the partisans of a given politician who has been caricatured to try and do the ol’ switcheroo and try and use the same description on someone of the other party. For example, I recall back in the early 1990s, right after the election in ’92, and Rush Limbaugh was pointing out how Al Gore asked who the busts of Washington, Franklin and Lafayette were at a tour of Monticello.4 Limbaugh said something to the effect of “can you imagine if Dan Quayle had said something like that?” And, of course, the answer is that Quayle would have been made fun of, because the template was already in place about Quayle. Of course, Gore developed his own template over time (one of being somewhat pompous) and hence his sighing at the first Bush-Gore debate did him great harm–more harm than another sighing politician would have received.

Back to the basic point, if one has to say “can you imagine what would’ve happened if X had done/said that?” then one is really does trying to score a retroactive point, and it really won’t work except to make other co-partisans happy–but it certainly won’t impress anyone else.

And, as such, Hinderaker makes my point in the conclusion from the post linked above:

Finally, I know it’s a trite observation, and one to which we have been driven on almost a daily basis since the Age of Obama began two short months ago, but can you imagine the hooting and hollering that would have ensued if George Bush had never heard of Orion? I can’t, actually

(Side note: one can mispronounce a word that one knows, as it is possible to read a word, understand a word, and yet not know how/have even thought about how to pronouce it and then sound like an idiot the first time one utters it with other humans around. Think, for example, of the word “epitome.”)

I honestly don’t know what “I can’t, actually” means, except that maybe he is suggesting that Bush would know about/how to say Orion. Although, again, of the turf upon which to fight, is George Bush’s ability to pronounce words the place one wishes to be?

At any rate: note to those at Power Line and elsewhere: find something else to make fun of, as there has to be something, and stop trying to score retroactive points.

At a minimum, one would think that if Obama was, indeed, bringing socialist totalitarianism5 down upon us, that there would be more to talk about than the frakkin’ Telemprompter. I note all of this because I find a) it to be all so ridiculous, b) it is just more evidence of the general lack of a serious opposition in the center-right at the moment, and c) the whole issue has spilled over from silly blog commentary to mainstream news.

  1. Although if one is a denizen of the ‘Sphere, one is likely familiar. []
  2. Andrew Sullivan’s rejoinder to this is classic and worth a quick surf over to his place. []
  3. And this is just an objective fact and not intended as a slam. He could actually give, on occasion a decent prepared speech, but no reasonable observer could look at his locution and not note that it was idiosyncratic, to put it kindly. []
  4. Indeed, this was a talking point used against Gore, as a Google search reveals numerous mentions out there on the ‘net–serves Al right for inventing it, I guess. []
  5. And I am not engaging in hyperbole here. See, for example, WND: Obama camp seeking ‘totalitarian’ state? or the multiple rantings of Glenn Beck (examples here and here. []
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (21)|
By Steven L. Taylor

Faced with the task of providing a counterproposal to President Obama’s budget. the Republicans have offered one of their own (sorta). If one surfs over to GOP.gov one can find at The Road to Recovery Begins Here, which is a summary page and link to a 19-page PDF containing the “proposal.”

Here’s the deal: if one is going to engage in a serious1 policy debate about very serious fiscal and monetary matters in a time of a very deep financial crisis, one has to come prepared and be ready to have a a real discussion. If one is going to assert that one’s ideological prescriptions are superior to the ones being deployed, one needs to attempt to prove it. Not only is this all true in terms of legitimate discourse (political or intellectual), but if a party wishes to move from minority to majority it has to give the public good reasons to grant such a request.

If one looks at the GOP proposal what one will find is that it is not a proposal, but rather it is a prop. It is something to take to the podium and shake in the air for the camera. Yet, in reality it is a chimera and it is the best representation to date of the utter bankruptcy of the Republican Party in present era.

One of the most remarkable illustrations of the failure of the document is the it fails to actually provide hard numbers in the proposal (no small thing in a budget outline).

Ezra Klein properly notes:

Bush, famously, described his first budget by saying, “It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.” Indeed it was, and did. This isn’t. There are no numbers. Let me repeat that: The Republican budget proposal does not say how much money they would raise, or spend. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “budget” as “an estimate of income and expenditure for a set period of time.” This is not a budget. It talks about balancing the budget but doesn’t explain how. It advocates tax cuts but doesn’t estimate their costs. It promises to cut programs but doesn’t name them. The threat going around the Capitol is that some impish Democratic chairman will ask the CBO to try and score the Republican proposal.

(Emphasis his).

Indeed, the only numbers are either vague notions of things like what a flat tax would look like, or numbers related to what the Democrats have proposed. There are not actual budget proposals that would show how the party would deal with our current economic woes nor how they would navigate the fiscal pitfalls ahead. Instead they just assert that they have a plan.2

The document is, at best, a campaign pamphlet with such well thought out idea as:

• Lowers Taxes
Instead of raising taxes on all Americans in the midst of a recession,
Republicans seek to reduce the tax burden on working families and small
businesses, in order to create jobs and unlock private capital.

• Keeps Energy and Fuel Costs Low
Instead of taxing all energy users with a new national energy tax that will CURBS SPENDING
cost up to $3,128 per household, Republicans want energy independence
with increased development of all our natural resources, including
renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.

They don’t by the way, say how this will be done or what the consequences will be, simply that they want tax cuts and energy independence. Yes, there is a brief discussion about a flat tax and a retread of “drill, baby, drill” along with some platitudes, but nothing of any substance. A maxim about beggars, wishes and ponies comes to mind.

Beyond anything about the proposal itself, I will reiterate that what this demonstrates is the utter hollowness of the party at the moment, which I find disappointing and frustrating, if anything because the system needs two (or more) serious parties (and for other reasons as well). While one may well wish to counter that the Democratic Party isn’t exactly brimming over with intellectual giants, at least they have a clearly identifiable set of policy from which governing can take place.

At a minimum, the GOP is going to have to do a lot better than this if they think that they are going to reclaim control of any portion of the United States government any time soon.

You can easily check out our best quality 1Y0-A21 prepare you well for the real 642-654 exam. You can also get success in real exam of 1z0-050 with the quality testking 642-631 questions and hp dumps answers.

  1. Speaking of serious, enough with the childish insistence on using the word “Democrat” as an adjective (e.g., “The Democrat Plan” instead of Democratic), when everyone knows it is both incorrect and done solely to annoy the other party. This is done throughout the document. []
  2. Which sound more like the intro to Battlestar Galactica than a serious policy proposal. []
« Previous PageNext Page »

blog advertising is good for you

Visitors Since 2/15/03


Blogroll
Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
---


Advertisement

Advertisement


Powered by WordPress