COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

A year after Washington rescued the banks considered too big to fail, the ones deemed too small to save are approaching a grim milestone: the 100th bank failure of 2009.


There are now a number of companies... private insurers... who have more in cash reserves backing their own promises than the FDIC has available to back the banking system...

While the parade of failures still represents a mere fraction of America’s small banks, it underscores a growing divide between them and large institutions like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bancorp, which are slowly growing stronger as the economy improves.

Leave it to the New York Times to fall for the 'rich get richer' divide. I mean, they already went for "grim milestone." Why not go whole hog for the stupidity? News flash for the Times: It's called "consolidation." Solid banks get a chance to purchase distressed assets of failing banks at a discount and thank God they do! It's good for everyone, and is saving the system from collapse right now.

Burdened by worsening commercial real estate loans, many small banks’ troubles are just beginning. Many analysts say that the now-toxic loans could sink hundreds of small lenders over the next few years and place a significant drag on the economy.

Already, the bank failures are placing enormous strain on the F.D.I.C. and its fund, which keeps depositors whole. Flush with more than $50 billion only two years ago, the fund recently fell into the red.

The prospect of more failures has led the F.D.I.C. to seek new ways to replenish the fund with higher and earlier payments by healthy banks, even after setting aside reserves for future losses.

Those commercial loans aren't turning around yet, either. And there's a new wave of ARMs due to reset soon, which should trigger a new round of foreclosures.

Yippee.

The initial wave of failures has also unsettled some communities, even though most of the troubled institutions have been bought by other banks rather than shuttered. While deposits are safe thanks to federal insurance, the new buyers often do not have the same ties to local businesses as the former owners.

More stupidity. Deposits are safe? Only deposits up to $250,000. And that's not really sustainable, because we upped the limit from 100k to 250k without a supporting increase in premiums. Oh, and what's this "federal insurance?" Kemosabe?

In some cases, they tighten lending and make it harder for longtime customers to obtain loans or favorable terms. In other cases, managers of the new bank make other changes, like ending offers for high-interest certificates of deposit and calling in certain lines of credit. In the longer term, some new owners are likely to close branches of the bank they have acquired in order to cut costs.

Ok, time to hit the Times reporter over the head with a clue-bat: Larger banks don't pull back on CD rates because they're out of touch with local businesses, moron. They do it because they aren't desperate and stupid. There's a reason banks offer above-market CD rates. Think about it: They are trying to raise cash in a hurry, to stave off a short-term crisis. Often it doesn't work, and the bank fails. Sometimes, the smart money sees their bank offer a significantly above-market CD rate, and they yank their money, and the bank fails as a result of what amounts to a large-depositor run on the bank. (Small depositors tend to be lazier.)

Once the bank is acquired by a healthier bank, the crisis is past, and banks no longer have a reason to offer CD rates significantly above market.

(Here's another clue: If you are looking for a good deal on a loan, don't go to the bank offering crazy-good CD rates! They're not looking to lend, and will be very picky and jack up rates to exceed their new higher cost of capital.

This calls for a song!

Labels: banking, economy, finance, New York Times

When Al Gore is pressed on a point, he has his henchmen cut off the microphone.



And the rest of the press corps does nothing.

I would not have been so polite with the organizer in the hall. Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist.

The fact is that the British court ruled that it would be illegal to show the film in schools in the UK without additional guidance for students correcting the nine listed errors in the film. I would have to imagine that's unprecedented, and hardly "in favor" of the film's producers. Even if they agree with the overall thesis, you cannot pull out nine egregious factual errors from any documentary, call the presentation "one-sided," issue a ruling that it would be illegal to show the film without correcting these errors, and call that a 'ruling "in favor of" the movie.

Splash, out

Jason

Hey, Jay Rosen... I got your 'rollback' strategy right here!

Labels: Al Gore, environment, global warming, Media, movies

Ace of Spades, call your office.

Roger Lee Nance, of 1117 Shew Ridge Mission Road, was charged with possession of non-tax paid liquor, possession of non-tax-paid liquor for the purpose of selling, and possession of equipment and ingredients intended for the use in the manufacture of an alcoholic beverage.
“This is one of the biggest seizures of white liquor I’ve seen come out of the mountains in my career,” ALE Director John Ledford said in statement.
The arrest follows a two-month investigation by ALE agents, assisted by the state Highway Patrol. In addition to the liquor, large amounts of sugar and other items were seized during a search of Nance's property, authorities said.

You'd better stay away from Copperhead Road

Labels: Crime, law, Music, Steve Earle

'This word, counterinsurgency ... I do not think it means what you think it means.'

Labels: counterinsurgency, doctrine, Obama, Politics, Warfighting

HOPE!!!!

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

That's a direct result, in my view, of the lack of resolve, decisiveness, and leadership coming from the White House. If the trumpet sounds uncertain, who will answer the call?

That said, the selection of soldiers who go see the chaplain isn't always representative of the military as a whole. Soldiers who speak to the chaplain about morale problems are naturally the ones with morale problems.

But you can bet dollars to doughnuts that these chaplains are in a position to assess the delta - the change, in morale - and if the chaplains in two separate battalions are concerned enough to take the extraordinary step of speaking to the media about it, then Houston, we've got a problem.

This can be turned around, though. The morale problems on the ground simply reflect the morale problems at home. And if Congress is questioning the mission, and the folks back home are questioning the mission, and the White House is questioning the mission, but none of them our paying the price... it's only the US soldier, sailor and Marine on the ground shedding blood every day for a mission the President can't be bothered to sell (too busy trying to enrich Mayor Daley and the rest of the Chicago mob with the Olympics), well, to quote Rudyard Kipling,

Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool, you be that Tommy sees!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, chaplains, Politics, soldiers issues, Warfighting

The New York Times reports:

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general.

The truth, however, is that Obama is undecided about the major troop buildup he himself proposed during the campaign.

Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.

The proposed force increase - about 7,000 troops - is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said.

Obama hasn't articulated a contrary position since that time. McChrystal came out in support of the only guidance Obama has publicly given so far. Truth be told, it was Biden, not McChrystal, who 'put his cock on the anvil' arguing a position contrary to the President. It was Biden, not McChrystal, who was "off the reservation," with his proposal.

Biden should keep his council private and use the chain of command. If Biden really has a problem with the Commander-in-chief, he should resign now, and then he can go as public as he likes.

Democrats, of course, philosophically hold the same position -- and blame McChrystal.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, Biden, foreign policy, McChrystal, Obama, Politics, soldiers' issues, War on Terror, Warfighting

So General McChrystal is getting excoriated by the leftards in the media, by Gen. James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, and now by Generalissima Pelosi herself for providing a forthright answer to a question directly in his purview by a member of the media.

The treatment he is getting is outrageous.

Why?

1.) The question was whether the General would support Biden's suggestion to dramatically lower troop strength in Afghanistan, and try to fight it with special operations forces and Predator strikes. The general said he would not.

There are strong doctrinal resources for this: COIN doctrine, however imperfect the fit with the Afghanistan battlefield, holds that the "key terrain" in the counterinsurgent fight is the population itself. The fight is not for control of real estate, but for the loyalty of the people.

That takes boots on the ground.

The second doctrinal reason to reject the Biden plan is that COIN, by its nature, is intelligence driven. The best source of battlefield intelligence is a strong relationship between our soldiers and marines on the ground and the local population. If we enact the Biden plan, the result will be a rapid retreat from the battlefield, leaving the population, including many who risked everything to support us, to the tender mercies of Taliban reprisals. If we retreat even a little from our commitment to village and tribal elders who have stuck their necks out to support us, word will spread like wildfire and the village and tribal elders will cut their own deals in order to survive.

In my view, we may already be seeing this happening: In a vicious firefight last week, in which an American outpost was in danger of being overrun, the Taliban was able to stockpile hundreds of weapons in a nearby village mosque. Large numbers of villagers must have known. And yet no one alerted coalition forces.

The logistics for massing materiel already underway, the Taliban managed to quietly gather in battalion strength to launch two deliberate attacks against American and Afghan outposts... and again, no one alerted Coalition forces.

This is symptomatic of a huge tactical intelligence failure on the ground. American forces were not, apparently, present in enough strength to defend the position and patrol aggressively simultaneously - with disastrous but not unsurprising results: A poor relationship with the people of the neighboring village and the ceding of the tactical initiative.

General McChrystal is seeing the same compromise being made all over the country: Troop strength being spread too thin. And Biden, without acknowledging the strategic and operational tradeoffs that MUST come with a reduction in troop strength, and without adjusting the General's mission in Afghanistan, wants to spread those troops even further.

So General McChrystal sticks up for his mission - and what's more, advocates precisely what President Obama himself is already on record as advocating: a substantial increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe three brigades in Afghanistan."

McChrystal, then, was simply articulating a view already publicly endorsed by the Commander in Chief. As far as we know, the President has said nothing since that piece was published that would contradict that view. He has long held that Afghanistan is the central front on the War on Terror Group Hug Against Scary Things, and has repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan to prosecute that war. McChrystal was well within his guidelines, and when the President has been as vague and noncommital in policy statements as he has - despite a direct request from McChrystal for more troops, what else does McChrystal have to go on besides Obama's own public pronouncements?

Further, given the President's repeated calls for an increase of two to three brigades in Afghanistan, it wasn't McChrystal speaking out of school, it was Biden. I would argue that the Biden plan is the outlier, not McChrystal's statement that he would not support it.

What's more, there is no way that McChrystal can possibly be seen to be bucking the chain of command... because A.) Obama, the commander in chief, is already on record as calling for MORE boots on the ground, not fewer, and B.) Biden is NOT NOT NOT in the chain of command in any sense whatsoever.

I'm very cognizant that subordinates at all levels should take care not to pain their leadership into a corner. But that obligation goes both ways - leaders owe subordinates clear guidelines and directions. And that goes ESPECIALLY when the battlefield situation is vague.

I've noticed for several months now that Afghanistan policy was coming apart at the seams. Not from any one thing, but from having read a variety of news reports and hearing things through the military grapevine, the infantry mafia, the blogger boys club, and the intel syndicate. I haven't had time to blog them lately, and I regret that now. But this was a long time in the making.

McChrystal used the chain of command. He submitted his request to his boss,, General Petraeus at CENTCOM. And that, apparently, is where it languishes, because the President and his National Security decision-making apparatus has not yet produced a product useable for the commanders in the field.

McChrystal used the Chain of Command... the Chain of command, unfortunately, is not functioning.

McChrystal is entitled to know what he is expected to accomplish. He needs to know in order to issue orders down the chain. Every soldier and marine and corpsman and airman on the ground is entitled to know what he or she and their units are expected to accomplish.

Everyone involved in the effort is entitled to a decision from the President.

It's not like he didn't know the Afghan war was waiting for him when he got to the Oval Office.

Splash, out

Jason

And Pelosi's an ignorant twit.

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, COIN, McChrystal, soldiers' issues, USMC, War on Terror, Warfighting

Seven Rooms of Gloom. A capella.



Wow.

Labels: Music, vocals

I wrote earlier this year that the FDIC promise is paper thin.

It's getting thinner.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. may take the unprecedented step of ordering banks to prepay about $36 billion in premiums to replenish the deposit insurance fund that has been severely depleted by a rash of bank failures.
The FDIC board likely will call for "prepaid" bank insurance premiums at its public meeting Tuesday to discuss the issue, three industry executives and a government official said. The banking industry prefers that option over a special emergency fee — which would be the second this year. The executives and the official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has yet to be made public.

It would be the first time the FDIC has required prepaid insurance fees. Under the plan, banks would have to pay in advance their insurance premiums for 2010-2012, bringing in about $12 billion for each of the three years, two of the executives said. That is the normal amount of insurance fees, though it could vary somewhat according to growth in total insured deposits — the basis for determining the fees.

Labels: banking, economy, FDIC, finance, I told you so

The man who coined the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism" is no more.

Though as a conservative, he was not a member of the New York Times' tribe, they understood him better than most, and nail the essence of the man in the final two graphs.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: in memoriam, The media, the New York Times, William Safire

If PTSD and "Military Sexual Trauma" are such widespread phenomena among women veterans, and if this soldier's profile is so similar to others, as the article states, why is it they keep interviewing the same Angela Peacock?

I think Paul Reikoff keeps her number on speed-dial. A rapid-deployment victim. The poster girl for PTSD.

Angela's on the prayer list, big time. Lord knows lots of veterans have had trouble coming home. But come on, CNN! Up your game! Do your own research! Don't get led around by the nose by the Huffington Post/IAVA axis!

I already started a tag with her name. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to start a Google Alert to track Angela Peacock sightings!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Angela Peacock, CNN, Paul Rieckoff, soldiers' issues, The media, veterans

There's a bipartisan effort afoot in Congress to pry open and audit the Fed's books.

I say, beware the law of unintended consequences.

One of the reasons the federal reserve's discount window operations are effective in preventing bank runs and collapses when member banks encounter short-term liquidity problems is because discount window operations are confidential. If we blow this, we take away an important arrow in the Fed's quiver.

Large depositors are very careful with their investors' money - and are not protected by FDIC. They maintain a watchful eye on bank strength and solvency.

If discount window transactions are not confidential, then the mere act of seeking much-needed assistance at the fed discount window is likely to create a run on the banks, thereby creating the liquidity disaster that the fed discount window was designed to prevent.

Congress is playing with fire, and not more than a handful of them know how big that fire is, or even that they've got matches in their hands.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: banking, Congress, Economics, economy, finance, investing, The Federal Reserve

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Back in January of this year, I wrote that Obama's decision to commit to closing Guantanamo Bay Prison down without first having a plan for disposition of each one of the inmates was dumber than a sack of hammers. Indeed, I wrote that Obama was painting himself into the biggest legal corner in living memory, and that his "ready, fire, aim" decision-making process was indicative of his fundamental unseriousness and and the intellectual unseriousness of the American left.

It turns out reality caught up to these dreamy-eyed morons, as unicorn shit and pixie panties and Skittles from on high were not enough to empty the prison by that idiotic, self-imposed "deadline."

The Washington Post account is by far superior to the CNN account (no surprise: their reporters have a much thicker rolodex of well-placed sources in government than CNN), and makes the backstory clear: The outgoing Bush Admin officials and career diplomats clearly warned the Obamabots against trying to close Gitmo without placing the inmates first. The arrogant, starry-eyed libtards thought they were better, and threw the government at the mercy of foreign governments they could not control.

Craig oversaw the drafting of the executive order that set Jan. 22, 2010, as the date by which the prison must be closed.

"It seemed like a bold move at the time, to lay out a time frame that to us seemed sufficient to meet the goal," one senior official said. "In retrospect, it invited a fight with the Hill and left us constantly looking at the clock."

"The entire civil service counseled him not to set a deadline" to close Guantanamo, according to one senior government lawyer.

Think of it: The entire civil service. And this crackhead overrulled them all. I hope Obama told him what I would have told him: "You made me look ridiculous, and a man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!!!"

Looks like Craig's been taken off the case. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, he's been heavily involved in vetting White House appointees.

So now we know who's responsible for Van Jones, too. Brilliant!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: detainees, Gitmo, I told you so, Obama, Politics, State Department, War on Terror

The great Michael Yon takes a vivid look at how the British Army public affairs machine is interfering with the press.

Labels: Afghanistan, Great Britain, soldiers' issues, The media

but I do want to pause to reflect, with gratitude, on the risks many of them take and the hardships they endure to bring us the story.

This is the story of CNN camerawoman Margaret Moth, who nearly lost her life in the service of the cause of an informed public.

Splash, out

Jason

P.S., As I recall, there was some fantastic journalism coming out of Sarajevo at that time, and Christiane Amanpour was responsible for a lot of it. She's not perfect, but she's got balls of solid rock. Well, ovaries of solid rock. Whatever.

Labels: The media

Just up late looking for chorale music. I remember hearing this in college for the first time in 1989 and being profoundly moved by this 1955 recording.

Labels: Music

This report just came out today.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.
The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

At least our Eastern European allies feel secure in our commitment to protect them.
Oh, wait!

Labels: International relations, Iran, NATO, nukes, Poland, War on Terror

"I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is."

--Davie Crockett, Congressman, 1833.

Labels: Americana, history, Politics

There were 31 dollars worth of insider stock sales last month for every dollar's worth of insider buys.

I'd like to know if that's accompanied by a spike in volume or not. And I'd expect there to be some profit-taking after this. I'm advising clients that tax rate increases are coming - as are most financial advisors, I'd imagine, and so some of this might be an attempt to realize capital gains this year, rather than give the revenue-desperate Congress a chance to hike capital gains taxes effective Jan 1.

But still, not a bullish sign at all.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: economy, finance, investing

The Columbia Journalism Review's Mike Hoyt asks the question.

No time to do a detailed blog today. Off to AT in the morning.

Discuss.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Columbia Journalism Review, Iraq, The media, Tom RIcks, Warfighting, Washington Post, writers

In a landmark expansion of civil rights for individuals with disabilities, a Minnesota panel upholds the basic human right of children with autism to dress like common street whores.

Labels: children, disabilities, Humor, law

Kabul turns down offer to become "sister city" with Washington D.C. ...

Obama's plan to 'have a beer' with nation's fourth graders hits unexpected legal snag ...

Length of Obama speech draws comparisons to Beslan ...

Hyannisport Police: number of women date raped at Kennedy wake "surprisingly low ..."

Diageo stock plummets after news of Sen. Kennedy's passing ...

With Lion of the Senate" gone, "Jackal" and "Hyena" of the Senate assume leadership of Congressional Democrats ...

Obama Administration moves to "reallocate" professional baseball scores ...
"The time is now for the Cubs to get their fair share"

Labels: Countercolumn News Ticker, Humor

For bonus points, the music for the first three minutes is played by Curfa, made up of a bunch of my close friends down here in South Florida.

Labels: fun, Ireland, Music, personal

For those so inclined.

This study explores the nature of the insurgency in Afghanistan, the key challenges and successes of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign, and the capabilities necessary to wage effective counterinsurgency operations. By examining the key lessons from all insurgencies since World War II, it finds that most policymakers repeatedly underestimate the importance of indigenous actors to counterinsurgency efforts. The U.S. should focus its resources on helping improve the capacity of the indigenous government and indigenous security forces to wage counterinsurgency. It has not always done this well. The U.S. military-along with U.S. civilian agencies and other coalition partners-is more likely to be successful in counterinsurgency warfare the more capable and legitimate the indigenous security forces (especially the police), the better the governance capacity of the local state, and the less external support that insurgents receive.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, infantry, Intelligence, Warfighting

Radical Islam Facebook page calls for the murder of a 17 year-old Florida girl.

Reagan remixed. Based on a speech from 1961.

Labels: health care, medicine, Politics, Reagan, socialism

Dateline, AP. 2:06 AM on a sunday, eastern time, on labor day weekend. Likely after the print deadlines for the sunday papers, at least on the east coast.

President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

So it's not a matter of news delay. The most transparent administration in history didn't even announce it until sometime after midnight.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Obama, Politics, public relations, Van Jones

These contracts are abortions, and I'd like to personally adjust the actuarial outlook for any of these Wall Street scumwads trying to push these.

After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.

The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

Why? Well, we have insurable interest laws for a reason. Do you really want a sociopath like Bernie Madoff owning a substantial interest in wanting you dead?

But let's put aside the obvious perversity in granting Wall Street a windfall when they kill you. Let's just look at the math- the math the New York Times misses:

The primary purpose of life insurance is death benefits. DEATH BENEFITS. Why? To protect widows, orphans, and business partners. That's it.

When an insurance company sets its premiums on a block of business, they have to take into account the expected lapse rate. A certain percentage of all life insurance contracts will never pay a death benefit - because they either lapse or get cashed in well prior to the death benefit. Indeed, term insurance is DESIGNED to lapse without paying a claim. This is part of why term is so cheap... the premiums are well below the expected mortality for any given age group. Because of lapse rates. This is part of why young families and small businesses can afford the protection they need.

When you have third parties buying up life insurance... parties whose primary interest in the insured is identical to that of a corpse-eating zombie - they will keep policies in force that would otherwise have lapsed or surrendered. Lapse rates will fall. Premiums will rise. Life insurance will become less affordable. And families and small business will have to make do with less protection. Dividends fall on par whole life contracts. further raising premiums neccessary for a given level of protection. Seniors will have to pay longer before dividends offset premiums. Some won't be able to. And we will have forgotten why we have life insurance to begin with: To protect future widows, orphans, and dependents of small business owners from unexpected financial catastrophe due to death.

This is one asset class we can definitely do without.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Crime, finance, insurance, investing

As if to underscore the notion that liberals can't even cover the smallest subjects without lying about them, here's Talking Points Memo on the photography of US dead and dying soldiers and marines in the War on Terror:

Yesterday, War Department Secretary Gates excoriated the Associated Press for publishing a photo the the dying Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard in Afghanistan (above left). WTF! For those of you with short memories or who were not alive in 1968, I can tell you that photos of dying American soldiers in Vietnam were a regular part of the day's news.

Here's the photo TPM's writer, John Taplin, runs to illustrate his point.



The photograph, taken in 1965 or 1966, I believe, by Time Life's Larry Burrows, was one of the most famous photos of the war. Here's the lie: No one in the photograph was dying.


One commenter, Ripper McChord, has it about right:

A Marine's life belongs to the country. His death is his own. I've interviewed th parents of dead servicemen and this is a personal grief that only Gold Star families know.

A right to watch his last minutes?

No. certainly not. Perhaps a privilege--if he or his parents so allowed, but they directly asked for privacy.

A duty to watch his death? Only if your a voyeuristic moron who's never seen a car accident or watched "Saving Private Ryan." Can anyone really say that encroaching on the sacred sacrifice this young man made actually shows them something they haven't seen in a thousand horror movies or enlightens the public debate one iota? Like hell. If that's your argument, you're just mirroring the anti-abortion activists who put photos of bloody fetuses on billboards for shock value and politics.

Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was a human being who volunteered to serve you and me. His life and death deserve more consideration than crass political sport.

That said, I do not support a blanket ban, imposed by our government, on publishing images of dead and dying troops. Such images have been a part of war reporting since the camera appeared on the battlefield, and unpleasant and gruesome as they are, I believe that the images taken of dead soldiers at Gettysburg, Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and later and famously, the photos of American dead on the beach at Buna should be part of the record.

The SecDef should confine his efforts to the pursuit of war, not telling journalists what they may or may not publish. There should be narrow exceptions made in order to protect operational security and to protect the integrity of the family notification process.

I think the final call should be made by the fallen service member's family, and by the enlisted members of the fallen service member's unit. NOT by the media outlet, and not by the Secretary of Defense

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Media, soldiers' issues, the fallen, The media

If Obama and his Administration gave a good god-damn about retirement security, they could start by reigning in obscene spending so we won't have to inflate American's retirement savings into oblivion, or tax the bejeezus out of distributions from 401(k)s, 403(b)s IRAs, SEPs, and annuities, in order to have a prayer of paying off our debt.

Instead, our Dear Spender proposes replacing cash refunds with taking on even MORE government debt.

If he really wanted to help people, he would push for waiving the 10% withdrawal penalty on 401ks and IRAs for people under 59 1/2 who are unemployed, or for the purpose of starting a new business (and hiring!). All that's needed is to expand the definition of qualified hardship withdrawals to include unemployment income.

But he won't.

Instead, he screws around the edges. Unused vacation pay?? Sounds like an idea only someone who's had his head so far up the Union's ass for years would love.

He wants to put long term retirement savings in government savings bonds, of all places? With interest rates at historic lows???? If he were in private practice, he'd get sued nine ways from Sunday.

And then, Dear Leader wants to send the paper savings bonds directly to the workers? So they can stuff them in a drawer somewhere? No third party administration? No transfer agent to keep track of beneficiaries? This sounds like a banana republic plan.

I'm all for having a default 'opt-in' for retirement plan participation. That's been a good idea for a long time - though there are a lot of details to work out, including figuring out a reasonable 'safe-harbor' solution for plan sponsors who don't want liability for taking either too much risk or too little risk with the money. There are ERISA headaches when a plan sponsor's executive class gets a 6% return over years because of a reasonable allocation to equities, while the worker bees get 2% returns because the worker bee assets were deposited into money markets. Lots of companies have declined to offer retirement plans precisely BECAUSE of this kind of ERISA liability.

(Incidentally, an automatic opt-in provision helps executives, who can't max out their own plans, under "top hat" rules, unless they meet participation requirements among the rank and file.)

The plan to issue savings bonds instead of tax refunds? It's a massive screwing of the working and middle class. With interest rates low, massive spending and inflationary expectations, such a deal is a very bad one for workers (and a great one for the IRS!).

It's also a massive redirection of spending power from main street USA to K Street, Washington. All it does is ensure government bureaucrats once again take the first cut of any tax refund checks.

(What gets me is that libtards will, if pressed, and in the same breath, argue at once that we need increased participation in 401(k)s but we shouldn't partially privatize Social Security because equities are too risky to rely on for retirement savings.)

All in all, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Obama's proposal.

Why the Hell is he wasting bandwidth on this garbage, anyway? He ought to be pressing the case for his abortion of a health care reform package, or mustering up public sentiment to fight and win in Afghanistan. (That's the one he thought was important, remember?)

Instead, he's blowing political capital on these distractions, impaling himself against the Republican pikes over health care reform, and letting the Afghanistan war effort shrivel and die for lack of rhetorical oxygen and leadership from the President.

The likely result is that Obama will fail at all three initiatives.

I want him to fail on health care reform. Utterly. I do NOT want him to fail to win in Afghanistan.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, finance, investing, Obama, Politics, retirement