Joie de Vivre in bad times.

The joy of living this particular life...

"They are the architects of greatness, their vision lies within their souls, they peer beyond the veils and mists of doubt and pierce the walls of unborn Time. Makers of Empire, they have fought for bigger things than crowns and higher seats than thrones. Your homes are set upon the land a dreamer found. The pictures on its walls are visions from a dreamer's soul. They are the chosen few - the blazers of the way. Walls crumble and Empires fall, the tidal wave sweeps from the sea and tears a fortress from its rocks. The rotting nations drop off from Time's bough, and only things the dreamers make live on." ~ Herbert Kaufman, American Writer, 1878-1947

The best of all possible worlds.

If you believe in windmills, smart cars, elevated trains, election financing reform, cap and trade, balanced budgets, tort reform and Santa Claus, you will love the idea that health care reform will pay for more deficit spending. It is too absurd to waste time stating what should be obvious. It will not happen.

I have come to the conclusion that General Motors is the model for the US government. The government, as is GM, simply cannot reform itself. As GM will need to be dismantled with large parts of it liquidated, the same will be true for the government. It will take longer, be more painful and come with many unexpected consequences. The corrupted system has proven itself incapable of sensible and planned reform. Too many lobbyists. Too many lawyers. Too many alliances. Two many voters that do not pay federal taxes. All in all, too bad.

Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and pushed it up to $1.8 trillion. The best is yet to come.

______________________

May 15, 2009

Fiscal Suicide Ahead

By DAVID BROOKS NY Times

Barack Obama came to office with a theory. He believed that the country was in desperate need of new investments in education, energy and many other areas. He also saw that the nation faced a long-term fiscal crisis caused by rising health care and entitlement costs. His theory was that he could spend now and save later. He could fund his agenda with debt now and then solve the long-term fiscal crisis by controlling health care and entitlement costs later on.

In essence, health care became the bank out of which he could fund the bulk of his agenda. By squeezing inefficiencies out of the health care system, he could have his New New Deal and also restore the nation to long-term fiscal balance.

This theory justified the tremendous ramp-up of spending we’ve seen over the last several months. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and has quickly pushed it up to $1.8 trillion, a whopping 13 percent of G.D.P. The new debt will continue to mount after the economy recovers. The national debt will nearly double over the next decade. Annual deficits will still hover around 5 percent or 6 percent of G.D.P. in 2019. By that year, interest payments alone on the debt are projected to be $806 billion annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Obama believes these deficit levels are tolerable if he can fix the long-term fiscal situation, but he hasn’t been happy about them. He’s been prowling around the White House prodding his staff to find budget cuts. Some of the ideas they have produced have been significant (Medicare reforms), some have been purely political (asking cabinet secretaries to cut $100 million in waste, fraud and abuse), and many have been gutted on Capitol Hill (cap and trade, proposed changes in charitable deductions, proposed changes to the estate tax).

In any case, these stabs at fiscal discipline haven’t come close to keeping up with the explosion in spending. The government now borrows $1 for every $2 it spends. A Treasury bond auction earlier this month went poorly, suggesting the world’s hunger for U.S. debt is not limitless. President Obama has been thrown back on his original theory. If he is going to sustain his agenda, if he is going to prevent national insolvency, he has to control health care costs. Health care costs are now the crucial issue of his whole presidency.

Obama and his aides seem to understand this. They have gone out of their way to emphasize the importance of restraining costs. The president has held headline-grabbing summits with business and union leaders. Unlike just about every other Democrat on the planet, he emphasizes cost control as much as expanding health coverage.

So what exactly is the president proposing to help him realize hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings?

Obama aides talk about “game-changers.” These include improving health information technology, expanding wellness programs, expanding preventive medicine, changing reimbursement policies so hospitals are penalized for poor outcomes and instituting comparative effectiveness measures.

Nearly everybody believes these are good ideas. The first problem is that most experts, with a notable exception of David Cutler of Harvard, don’t believe they will produce much in the way of cost savings over the next 10 years. They are expensive to set up and even if they work, it would take a long time for cumulative efficiencies to have much effect. That means that from today until the time President Obama is, say, 60, the U.S. will get no fiscal relief.

The second problem is that nobody is sure that they will ever produce significant savings. The Congressional Budget Office can’t really project savings because there’s no hard evidence they will produce any and no way to measure how much. Some experts believe they will work, but John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care policy research company, speaks for many others. He likes the ideas but adds, “There’s nothing that does much to control costs.”

If you read the C.B.O. testimony and talk to enough experts, you come away with a stark conclusion: There are deep structural forces, both in Medicare and the private insurance market, that have driven the explosion in health costs. It is nearly impossible to put together a majority coalition for a bill that challenges those essential structures. Therefore, the leading proposals on Capitol Hill do not directly address the structural problems. They are a collection of worthy but speculative ideas designed to possibly mitigate their effects.

The likely outcome of this year’s health care push is that we will get a medium-size bill that expands coverage to some groups but does relatively little to control costs. In normal conditions, that would be a legislative achievement.

But Obama needs those cuts for his whole strategy to work. Right now, his spending plans are concrete and certain. But his health care savings, which make those spending plans affordable, are distant, amorphous and uncertain. Without serious health cost cuts, this burst of activism will hasten fiscal suicide.

Nancy Pelosi, for it before against it.

The undying narcissism of Farrah Fawcett and the boomers.

Sorry baby, but we are all going to die.

Farrah Fawcett video details cancer struggle
.

A documentary that details Farrah Fawcett's cancer struggle drew applause and tears from an audience that included Ryan O'Neal.

The boomers started off never trusting anyone over thirty. They were after all the first generation of humanoids ever to discover sex, and we had to hear about it in graphic detail.

It has always been all about them.

They entered stage left with a self importance of mission and with the glaring benefit of an explosion of media. Finally there is an end in sight. They are dying off. However, and there is always a however, the Hollywood boomers truly believe that they need to educate the world about the simple and natural human act of dying. No quiet dignity please. And how fitting that the dying and filming comes complete with a lawsuit. They cannot even die without a lawyer.

____________________________

"Farrah's Story," a candid account of her medical treatments and efforts to maintain her dignity, was shown in Beverly Hills on Wednesday night. Telegraph

Fawcett's friend Alana Stewart called it "truly Farrah's evening".

The former "Charlie's Angel" star wasn't well enough to attend. Fawcett was diagnosed in 2006 with anal cancer that has spread to her liver.

Stewart was a producer on "Farrah's Story," which airs Friday on NBC.

O'Neal, who remains close to Fawcett although their long romance ended in the 1990s, said he plans to watch the film with her.

However, a producer who collaborated with Fawcett is suing over the documentary.
Craig Nevius filed a lawsuit in Santa Monica on Wednesday – the same day "Farrah's Story" was screened for friends and reporters.

His lawsuit states he is seeking to regain creative control over the documentary and unspecified damages against several of the project's key players.

The lawsuit does not name Fawcett as a defendant, nor seeks to block NBC's prime-time airing of "Farrah's Story," scheduled for Friday.

Instead, the suit claims Fawcett's former boyfriend, Ryan O'Neal, his business manager and longtime friend Alana Stewart interfered with his role in the documentary. He also claims O'Neal physically threatened him.

How did Obama come to be President of The United States?

Obama in 2003

Doug said...

"Obama wisely changed his mind about releasing them. That in itself differentiated himself from the inflexible and sometime stubbornness of George Bush. Obama has been persuaded by argument and logic. That is hopeful. Next."----
Panetta, the Military, CIA, and etc no doubt forcefully expressed their opinion.

I find it bizarre to credit him for taking a position that only a hateful, self-centered, immature and inexperienced jerk would take to start with, because he then reversed himself when he became convinced it would be harmful to his popularity ratings.

Like crediting someone who planned on raping a 14 year old child, but then thought better of it when he noticed a police car down the block, for acting like an upstanding moral agent.

Thu May 14, 07:31:00 AM EDT

President Obama acting presidential.

Obama clearly is a work in action undergoing the metamorphosis from a college professor to being POTUS. This is a good thing for several reasons.

I was stunned when he speculated about releasing photos in the first place. There was no news about the existence of the photos, nor the questionable practice of humiliating prisoners of war.

In my book, being humiliated is preferable to being shot. The military was idiotic in allowing soldiers to have cameras and taking photos inside US military prisons. The officers that permitted that should have been fired. All of them. The NCO's and enlisted men involved should have had torn threads on sleeves where stripes were once posted.

Published photos would be inflammatory  and problematic for the US military and grist for America's enemies.

Obama wisely changed his mind about releasing them. That in itself differentiated himself from the inflexible and sometime stubbornness of George Bush. Obama has been persuaded by argument and logic. That is hopeful. Next.

___________________________

Reasons behind Obama's U-turn
By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington
The word "U-turn" may be unfamiliar in Barack Obama's White House, but the practice is not.

One week, the US president signals that the Pentagon will release photographs showing more abuse of American detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a new era of transparency.

The next he has announces that the White House will block their release and defend that decision in court - this time it is all about the vital importance of national security.

When a politician is caught red-handed doing a U-turn, the first question to ask is why?

This time it is not hard to find an answer. Just cast your mind back to those graphic images of US abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail.

Remember the hooded detainee standing on top of a box, as if about to be electrocuted? Or the faces of the US soldiers enjoying the humiliation? Or the fear of a detainee inches away from the teeth of a snarling dog?

“ President Obama has clearly concluded that - in this instance - national security trumps transparency ”
And then it is worth recalling the response and outrage right around the world.

America's image was more than tarnished. The photos became a recruiting tool for extremists.

Barack Obama says these new pictures are not as "sensational" as those of Abu Ghraib. But they are clearly bad enough for his generals to raise objections.

The current US commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan - Gens Odierno, and McKiernan - both told their commander-in-chief that publication would endanger the lives of US troops.

The president has apparently been persuaded by the power of that argument.

'Double standards'

It is perhaps harder to understand why Mr Obama thought it was a good idea to release the photos in the first place.

True, it was not his idea. It was the American Civil Liberties Union that took this issue to court, claiming it was in the public interest and would prove there had been a culture of abuse.

But the president seemed persuaded by the need for transparency. Openness has been a leitmotif of this administration - but easier to promise than practice.

There may have been other reasons that made it initially seem appealing. Releasing the photos would help break with the past - this after all did not happen on Barack Obama's watch.

The second question when examining a U-turn is what will be the political fallout?

President Obama has clearly concluded that - in this instance - national security trumps transparency.

There is no doubt that President Obama will have disappointed some of his supporters - and, let us be honest, they are those on the left.

But he will have reassured many more that his prime concern is the nation's security and the lives of US troops.

You do not have to be a political genius to work out where the sympathies of the mainstream lie.

America is hardly crying out for the release of more photographs that detail the abuse of detainees. It has still not recovered from the last lot.

This decision will inevitably bring with it charges of double standards.

After all the president was happy to release classified documents detailing interrogation techniques - the so-called "torture memos".

Pragmatic decision?

But the publication of the memos brought a firestorm of criticism. Most notably from Dick Cheney - who has never spent so much time in front of the cameras.

The former vice-president is touring TV studios, accusing his nemesis of making America less safe.

The publication of the photos would make that charge seem more convincing. Not publishing them, and the accusation is less likely to stick.

Barack Obama once again seems to have made a pragmatic decision. He can be accused of compromising his principles.

But this time most Americans will believe that its for the greater good.

As for his supporters on the left, it looks as though there will be more heartbreak ahead.

Hopes that the president would completely abandon the controversial military commissions to try terrorist suspects are slowly fading. An announcement may be made later this week.

This is not the last time that we will be hearing the word "U-turn" in connection with the Obama White House.

"You can't swing a cat without hitting a barrel of crude."

How dead is the world's economy? From Singapore, here's another illustration:

SINGAPORE — To go out in a small boat along Singapore’s coast now is to feel like a mouse tiptoeing through an endless herd of slumbering elephants.

One of the largest fleets of ships ever gathered idles here just outside one of the world’s busiest port, marooned by the receding tide of global trade. There may be tentative signs of economic recovery in spots around the globe, but few here.

Hundreds of cargo ships — 100,000 to 300,000 tons each, with the larger ones weighing more than the entire 130-ship Spanish Armada — bob so empty that they seem to perch on top of the water rather than in it, their red rudders and bulbous noses, submerged when the vessels are loaded, sticking a dozen feet out of the water.

According to the author, the actual number of cargo ships bobbing at anchor is 735. He reports that eight container shipping companies have gone bankrupt in the last year and another large company is in imminent danger.

Earlier this month, it was reported that there is no excess crude oil storage capacity. Every available container is full and US refineries are operating at 85% capacity.

Revenue reports show that, thanks to the $4.00 per gallon pump prices, the American public seems to have permanently changed its driving habits and gas tax receipts are trending downward. State transportation budgets are taking huge hits and everyone is scrambling to find new taxing options such as taxing you for the miles you have driven instead of the number of gallons of gas you pump.

So, in light of the current economic conditions, why is crude oil heading towards the $60 per barrel range? The simple answer might be found in this article, Energy prices fall before crude
storage report.

Dour economic reports have outweighed the positive for months, however, and part of the reason energy prices have been sustained at the current level is the weak dollar. Crude is priced in dollars, which makes it cheaper to buy when the dollar falls.

The U.S. currency has been weakened by the massive government bailout of banks and automakers.

The dollar fell less than a penny against the euro Tuesday, but is down about 6 cents compared with the beginning of the year.

“Maybe it as simple as the fact that oil has more dollar value in a world where the U.S. government is running up a debt of historic proportions,” analyst Phil Flynn said in a client note.

That would go a long way to explain why energy prices are not falling even further.

Economic chaos reigns in a whirled gone topsy turvy. Nothing is certain in the wake of a spectacular seismic economic event. Confidence in the US as the whirled's economic engine has gone up in the smoke of the flameout. Remember the comment of our well educated, young Asian visitor, Wobbly Guy? He has decided to cast his lot with the Chinese instead of looking in our direction. That tells the story.

Go east young man.

Obama will not cede a strong defense to the Republicans

General George B. McClellan, fired by a previous President from Illinois.

Brits beware: Obama means business in Afghanistan
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 12, 2009 telegraph

Con Coughlin opines about the firing of General David McKiernan as a warning to the Western Alliance. It is also a warning to the Republican party that Obama will not be seen as weak on defense. We live in interesting times.

_______________________________

The summary dismissal of General David McKiernan, the American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, by American President Barack Obama will send shock waves throughout the entire Western alliance.

Gen McKiernan was removed from his post after Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, concluded that American forces based in the country "can and must do better".

Mr Obama's decision to dismiss Gen McKiernan is a bold move, and suggests that the new American president is determined to make a success of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

If Iraq was President George W. Bush's war, Afghanistan is Obama's war, and the U.S. president is clearly determined that this military campaign does not suffer the same setbacks as American forces experienced in Iraq.

By the time next year's mid-term elections are held Mr Obama wants to be in a position to demonstrate that tangible progress is being made.

The timing of Gen McKiernan's removal is also significant, for a number of reasons. Mr Obama has already given his approval to a mini-surge strategy aimed at finally destroying the threat posed by the Taliban to Afghanistan's slow and painful transition to democratic government.

It will also send a warning to Downing Street, which has just refused to approve a request by British commanders to send extra combat troops to bolster the British force in Helmand province. Gordon Brown's failure to provide British commanders with the forces they need to do the job properly in Helmand means that they will now have to rely on the Americans to help them out, which will not exactly help to improve the transatlantic alliance.

There's no point Downing Street making a song and dance about being Washington's closest ally in the global campaign against Islamist terrorism if it does not deliver on its commitments, which now appears to be the case in Afghanistan.