Self-Driving Vehicles? Have You Really Thought About It?

I have long held the opinion that our society has become narcissistic and delusional. The driverless car movement has convinced me of that proposition. Those who insist that driverless cars are a good idea, have forgotten the one thing that always accompanies technology like this - hubris. Mankind's ridiculous belief that humans are capable of circumventing the laws of physics and mastering all technological challenges, demonstrates that we have never learned, or have forgotten, what history has to teach us.

The notion that we must pursue technological advances like this is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  Much has been accomplished to improve our lives because of pioneering efforts like this.  But to have autonomous vehicles foisted on us by fiat, leaving the average citizen no choice to decline the invitation (more like a dictate)  reeks of Fascism.  The driverless car movement leaves the realm of benevolent quest and becomes a pathological self-destructive pursuit when it puts many thousands of lives at risk.

Space technology (to cite just one of many risky technologies) has proven that hubris endangers lives, and several of our astronauts have paid the ultimate price.  The difference between that technological risk, and the driverless car risk, is that the astronauts knew what the risk was, and agreed to proceed anyway.  I sincerely doubt if most people who may someday be exposed to driverless car risk would agree to accept that risk if they could opt out.

Because an automobile is such a complex mechanism, it has a myriad of potential points of failure.  The next time you are driving through your city, take a look at the many car-repair shops, and the many vehicles that are being serviced in them.  When you get back home, do an internet search of vehicle recalls.  Your research should lead you to the conclusion that cars are generally poorly built and are constructed with parts that are poorly built.  Parts fail due to shoddy workmanship, insufficient quality control, or poor-grade materials.  Making all of the disparate parts collaborate successfully is another issue.  And I haven’t even touched on the points of failure which are due to a bad design.

The parts that go into our cars are generally built by the lowest bidder.  Catering to low bids to cut costs, definitely does not resonate with quality and reliability. Do you think that part-failure, poor workmanship, and bad design will automatically vanish when we add an inconceivably intricate and complex system to every car?  It will only make vehicle reliability worse.  Consider what happens when a car experiences a major failure when on the road.  It often crashes, and it's not just the vehicle's passengers who are put in danger, but often, the traffic around it is subjected to two tons of metal hurtling out of control.

And have you thought about hacking?  A driverless car will need an internet connection in order to get road and signage updates.  The temptation to take control of someone else’s vehicle may be too enticing for the average teenage whiz-kid to resist.  There will be mischief by young geeks to “count coup” for their peers, and there will also be a criminal and terrorist element who will do as much damage as possible simply because that is their mission.  Today, there is a favorite tactic among computer hackers.  It involves hacking into a personal computer and holding it for ransom.  They will not let you use your computer until you have paid them.  This tactic is bound to migrate to automobile hacking as well.

Most people have never had a forum in which they could raise their objections to autonomous vehices.  Most people don’t have any say in whether or how this technology should move forward.  The industries involved (automotive, taxi, ride-share, etc.) all seem to be in lock-step to make driverless cars our only vehicular option in the not-too-distant future.  If they are successful, we all are at risk of suffering bodily injury (or worse) because of their ill-conceived folly.

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should do it.  Just because a new technology seems really cool doesn’t mean that we should abandon common sense to make it a reality.  There are too many technological issues which need to be remediated in order to make driverless cars safe, practical, and endemic.  But because of humankind’s rapture for technology, and because our hubris, like the little cartoon devil standing on our collective shoulder and whispering in our ear, “Go ahead.  You can do it!” we seem destined to find out the hard way that it ultimately just won’t work.

Hubris and science are incompatible. -- Douglas Preston

Why do I like Donald Trump? Don't get me wrong. Of all the people who have been in the current presidential race, he is not my favorite. And it's not like I am a Republican. I disavowed that party many years ago. I would have to describe myself as either an independent (which means nothing) or a libertarian (which seems wonderful until you realize that its logical end game would be - must be - anarchy).

When I was in college, and for a few years thereafter, I had Democratic Party leanings. But as I became a breadwinner for a young family, I realized that the Democrats with their profligate "something-for-everyone" policies were determined to play Robin Hood with government finances. And they were not just taking from the "rich," they were taking from the middle class, as well.

So what appealing proposition do I see residing in a Trump candidacy?

First and foremost, he is not Hillary Clinton! It boggles my mind that there are so many Hillary supporters! If any of them would take their blinders off and take a good, hard look at her record, they would realize that her record speaks volumes about hypocrisy, greed, lies, and dishonor. How could anyone with a conscience vote for her?

Secondly, he is not Bernie Sanders! Sanders is an admitted socialist! Socialism has always been the "something-for-everyone" philosophy that I detest - on steroids! Socialism won't work simply because the math doesn't add up. Socialism has never worked!

But mainly, the reason I plan to vote for Trump is that he is strongly and vehemently against the New World Order (NWO) espoused by the Globalists and those wealthy "Deep State" individuals who pull the strings on all of the puppets in Washington DC. Donald Trump wants to rain on their parade and so do I.

The elite Deep State have been very successful in subverting the wishes of the voting public and subverting the constitution via Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (and, if she is successful, via Hillary Clinton). The Deep State is why so many voters have come to the conclusion that their vote doesn't matter, and neither does the eventual winner of the presidency: new name, same old result.

Except, now we stand a real chance of getting out from under this playbook of the 1% (actually 0.01%). If Trump is elected, your vote will have made a huge difference in the republic. Yes, I realize that in order to vote for him, one must hold his nose as he is pulling the lever in the voting booth. Trump is not socially refined and sometimes acts like a bratty third grader.

He is not "politically correct," (he says he doesn't aspire to political correctness, so is not bothered by that accusation). He has rough edges on his personality and his philosophies and that grates on the sensibilities of many Americans. He has not yet delivered a comprehensive agenda for his presidency, and doesn't seem to want to release his income taxes. These things bother me, too. But because throwing a monkey wrench into the NWO is so hugely important, on election day, I will be holding my nose.

"No You Can't See My Emails!"

Very telling about the morality of Hillary Clinton, is her own admission that she didn't want “any risk of [her] personal [emails] being accessible.” Yet, she had no qualms about conducting official State Department business on the same personal email server. After withholding 55,000 "personal" emails from the ones turned over to the Inspector General, Clinton said, “No one wants their personal emails made public and I think most people understand that and respect their privacy.” 

Something else that "most people understand," is the inherent need for a secure email server for State Department business. Clinton exhibited a very cavalier attitude toward the security of official State Department emails, yet insisted on ultimate security and privacy for her personal emails.

Since she has, for many years, been less than candid about her actions and motives, one must assume the worst when she basically says, "No you can't see my emails, but you just have to trust me that they don't contain any national security secrets.  You just have to take my word for it that I violated no laws and have no state department secrets in my email."

Yeah, right!

It is quite apparent that Hillary has never had a moral compass. Her guidepost has always been "do what's best for Hillary." She has been caught with her hand in the cookie jar and gotten away with a wink so many times, that she truly cannot understand why some people expect her to abide by the rules like everyone else. Her husband was the same way. There's a good reason why Bill Clinton was known as "Slick Willy" when he was in the White House.

Most Americans really want a government that they can trust and one of which they can be proud. Most understand the ramifications of having dishonest politicians leading the country.

Then there is a large segment of Americans which either doesn't care about morality, or wants a woman in the White House so badly that they put that desire ahead of everything else, including those attributes which should matter the most in a presidential candidate -- honesty and honor. But they fail to ask the one critical question which would disabuse them of any notion that having Hillary as the president would be a good thing.

Like a man having an affair with another man's wife, not once do they see the writing on the wall or consider that during the illicit affair, their mistress is being unfaithful to her husband.  And they do not consider, "Since she has been unfaithful to her current husband, why should I believe that she will be faithful to me?"  Neither do Hillary supporters consider, "Since she has been dishonest and deceitful as Secretary of State, why should I believe that she would be any different as president?"

Oh, Slick Hillary! What a tangled web you weaved, when first you started to deceive!

We Have Become a Police State (But You already Knew That)

Exerpted from the Laissez Faire Today newsletter:

The hallmark of a police state is when citizens are stopped arbitrarily and told to show their “papers.” In a free society, citizens aren’t required to identify themselves to the police if they aren’t actively engaging in a crime. It’s none of the police officer’s business.

But oh, how the seasons change.

“On Monday,” the Wall Street Journal reports, “the Supreme Court further weakened the Fourth Amendment by making it even easier for law enforcement to evade its requirement that stops be based on reasonable suspicion. The justices ruled 5 to 3 that a police officer’s illegal stop of a man on the street did not prevent evidence obtained from a search connected to that stop to be used against him.”

Justice Clarence Thomas shrugged the whole thing off. In his words, [Mr. Edward] Striefel was merely a victim of “good-faith mistakes,” and the illegal stop was nothing more than “an isolated instance of negligence.”

Not impressed by the rhetoric, Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot back: “Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language. This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong.

“Two wrongs,” she said, “don’t make a right.”

Indeed.

The House of Representatives Seems to be Just "Playing House"

The sit-in going on in the congressional chambers points out just how incompetent our legislators are! Sit-ins and demonstrations are tactics used by those outside of government to petition those inside the government. The fact that members of The House are resorting to those same tactics reveals just how impotent they are!

How about doing your job - discuss, debate, engage, and legislate rather than "playing house?" How about doing your job instead of pretending? How about making a difference instead of just making a scene?

Diction, Spelling, and Semantics -- Why Do They Matter?

When people post in online forums or in comments on blogs or at Facebook, they fail to realize that when their postings are replete with misspellings, errors in diction, and semantic inconsistencies, they are broadcasting their ignorance.  This makes their viewpoint (regardless of how brilliant and compelling) subject to being immediately discredited and dismissed as the ramblings of an uneducated Bubba.  It is hard to give such muddled and poorly articulated thoughts any credence.  

Spontaneity should be relished, and I realize that people are fond of quickly dashing off a reply or clever repartee as the mood strikes, but it only takes a few seconds to check what you have written before you hit “save” or “send.”  A lack of consideration in this regard, is a lack of consideration for your thoughts.  If you, the writer, do not have respect for your thoughts, why should the reader?  You are shooting yourself (and your innate brilliance) in the foot.

Why does this matter?  Such practice is the root of much, if not most miscommunication and misunderstanding.  It also exhibits a lack of respect for your reader.  I often find brilliant nuggets of insight in blog comments, but frequently not until I have expended much effort in trying to decipher what was actually meant by the writer.  Incoherent writers make it too damned hard to glean their wisdom!

The preponderance of ill-conceived expression in public forums decries the sad state of education and literacy at this juncture in history.  Malformed exposition with malnourished thought is rampant and getting worse.  Writers with no appreciation for the conventions of expository prose seems to be the rule rather than the exception.  If I extrapolate this trend twenty years into the future, I foresee interpersonal communication degenerating into indecipherable grunts, snorts, and grumbles which serve no purpose other than to insult and incite.


I submit that we are better than this, and grant that (ample evidence notwithstanding) many Internet contributors might be intelligent and have interesting observations which could delight and educate.  But if a prospective sage doesn’t learn how to properly present his ideas, no one will benefit from his wit and wisdom.  We owe it to ourselves to strive to recover the language protocols which enable interesting communication and education, so that we don’t do a disservice to our readers – and to ourselves.

An educated man is thoroughly inoculated against humbug, thinks for himself and tries to give his thoughts, in speech or on paper, some style. Alan K. Simpson

Blogging to Resume

Blogging will resume at this site soon. Stay tuned...

Quote of the Day

"Pundits talk about 'populist rage' as a way to trivialize the anger and fear coursing through the middle class. But they have it wrong. Families understand with crystalline clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern Wall Street."

-- Elizabeth Warren, the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard and the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

The quote is from an article she wrote, America Without a Middle Class, in the Huffington Post, December 3, 2009.

Who Wins?

A chain-email proclaiming that Obama has created a program to give welfare recipients free cell phones and up to 70 free minutes per month hit my inbox this evening. Whenever something which arrives by email seems unbelievable, it's best to check it out at snopes.com [http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp].

Whereas there is some truth to the free phone claim, the email deliberately paints a distorted and incomplete picture of the program for the sole purpose of fomenting vitriol and riling up partisan, knee-jerk reactions. The legislation which established the decried phone assistance was passed long before Obama took office, and it's not specifically for welfare recipients. For example, Medicaid recipients also qualify.

Government largess and profligacy, whether at the hands of the liberals or conservatives (yes, each side tries to reward their constituency), fails the sniff test on its own and doesn't need half-truths and embellishments to reveal it as half-baked pork. It proclaims itself as such quite well without any help.

Distortions only play into the hands of the political opponents, as they can rightly point out the game-playing by the other side in an attempt to garner political capital. Those ploys never work - for either side. They only cause polarization and an unwillingness to have candid discussions or pursue bi-partisan solutions. Such shenanigans as seen in this disingenuous email guarantee that political dialog will degenerate into name-calling and he-said-she-said bickering.

When you can answer the question, "Who benefits by polarizing the right and the left so that they will never come together to work out real solutions?" then you will know who really is behind such ploys as this email. It wasn't written on behalf of conservatives or republicans. Nor was it written by a liberal or a democrat. The public is being manipulated to ensure that those in power behind the scenes stay in power, and that those with mega-wealth will always control the politics (and the wealth) of the republic. There is only one way to beat them at their game, and that is, don't play the game.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." -Thomas Sowell

If We Knew the Truth, The Economy Would Collapse!

There is an interesting battle taking place between the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (The Fed), and a New York District Court judge. Bloomberg LP (which owns the Bloomberg Financial News Service) has filed a lawsuit against The Fed under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This lawsuit, if successful, would require The Fed to release documents that contain the names of the banks which have received financial aid from The Fed during the current economic crisis, as well as the amount of aid they have received.

A simple, straight-forward request

It would seem to be a straight-forward request and it is hard to imagine a compelling reason why The Fed should not comply with this request. The Fed, however, is adamant that they will not release such documents. This is, perhaps, not surprising. But what is surprising is their most recent argument presented to the judge. As reported at Bloomberg.com today:

The Fed’s board of governors asked Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to delay enforcement of her Aug. 24 decision that the identities of borrowers in 11 lending programs must be made public by Aug. 31. The central bank wants Preska to stay her order until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York can hear the case.

“The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board’s claims of exemption and right of appellate review,” the motion said. “The institutions whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable harm.”

The Fed’s “ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis” would be impaired, according to the motion. It said “significant harms” could befall the U.S. economy as well.

It's that last sentence which is incredible! The Fed is basically saying that if the public knew the truth about what they have been doing with taxpayer money behind the scenes, "significant harm could befall the economy!"

If that statement doesn't cause immediate panic, then the American public is sleepwalking! Their argument as to why they shouldn't release the documents presents a very compelling reason why they should!

Methinks they doth protest too much!

After that declaration, there is little reason why the documents should remain secret. The damage they are trying to prevent (to the economy, to their reputation, etc.) may have already been ordained by their demands of secrecy.

Our economy has already been put in jeopardy by the mere fact that they have admitted that their actions, if made known to the public, would do "significant harm!" Now the public imagination is left to run wild with the possibilities. Could the truth be any more damging than the implications of their argument?

I harken back to my post of April 24, 2009 (Spin, a Double-Edged Sword) which now seems astutely prophetic. In it I wrote:

"It now appears that the stress test was merely a ploy to properly spin the financial condition of the 19 largest banks, so that the public won't panic, the economy won't crater further, and the government sycophants and their programs remain credible."

"Everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his acts are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it." --Harry Browne

This Would Be Funny Except That...

It Hurts So Much!

It is becoming painfully obvious that, as I suggested in a previous post, there is a double standard in place which forces the hard-working citizens of this country to pay their taxes so that the wealthy scofflaws and indiscreet bureaucrats don't have to pay theirs.  Wall street tycoons can continue to get their high salaries and huge bonuses, and live high on the hog, by being carried on the backs of those of us with no connections and no special privileges.  

We simple folk, however, are not entirely left out.  We have been granted the privilege of paying exorbitant taxes to support the folly of banks and bankers so that they can receive a get-out-of-jail free card.  Doesn't that awareness just give you goosebumps?

Those miscreants are responsible for burying the world's economy through unethical and downright illegal practices, and are rewarded by bailouts and winks from their cohorts in Washington.  They know that the poor, powerless proletariat have no choice but to ante up.

Need Proof?

Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's pick for Secretary of Health is the latest example of this inequity.  She joins three other Obama nominees in a hall of shame for failure to pay income taxes.  This is becoming de rigeur and almost seems to be a prerequisite for entry into the federal government (a.k.a. The Washington Country Club).  

I thought that this type of thing was only found in street gangs.  Just as a young gang prospect has to  perform flagrant and incorrigible acts of violence to prove he is worthy of gang membership, perhaps there is a similar rite of passage for Washington insiders.  Only after having proven arrogant contempt for the laws of the land is one allowed to join the gang and enter the club.

For years I suspected that the game of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was rigged in favor of the wealthy so that they could remain wealthy, and the middle class could remain faithfully committed to supporting their wealth.  That proposition is no longer just a suspicion.  It is quickly becoming a published protocol.

Out of Hardship is Born Opportunity!

All of this leads me to the idea that there might be an opportunity lurking here.  A couple of opportunities, actually.

First I would like to propose a simple way to eliminate the Federal budget deficit.  I believe that if the IRS were to audit all of the members of federal, state, and local governments, as well as all of the officers and board members of banks and Wall Street firms, they would uncover a windfall!  This would surely provide a sum of hidden monies substantial enough to pay off the deficit.

Save Your Applause, There's More!

Secondly, I see the opportunity for we simple folk to join the game.  If we all start cheating on our taxes, the magnitude of this peaceful demonstration would overwhelm the ability of the IRS to keep score.  That would surely help to establish a de facto egalitarian society.  We are, in fact, obligated to do this.  It is our patriotic duty to demonstrate our support for Washington and Wall Street by emulating their recommended best practices!  Rather than vote the bums out, we should all become bums!  Group hug anyone?

But Wait!  There's More!

It has been rumored that Timothy Geithner, who cheated on his taxes to the tune of $50,000.00, also was granted immunity from penalties and interest on those back-taxes.  This, if true, is a great precedent!  For those of you who try my second opportunity above, if you get caught, you, too, will have to be granted immunity from penalties and interest!  All you have to do is claim the Geithner Defense (a.k.a. the "What's good for the goose" defense).

Ok, now you can applaud!

Thank you, thank you.

The entire essence of America is the hope to first make money -- then make money with money -- then make lots of money with lots of money. -- Paul Erdman

Quote of the Day

“I don’t think that Tim Geithner was motivated by anything other than concern to get the financial system working again. But I think that mindsets can be shaped by people you associate with, and you come to think that what’s good for Wall Street is good for America . . . [This] led to a bailout that was designed to try to get a lot of money to Wall Street, to share the largesse with other market participants, but that had deeply obvious flaws in that it put at risk the American taxpayer unnecessarily.” -Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel-winning economist at Columbia

Comment by Barry Ritholtz:

The assumption referenced by the Columbia Prof and Nobel winner, is that the unusually close relationship between Geithner when he was NY Fed President and the C-level execs of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions has put him in the mindset of Wall Street, and not the taxpayers. That was my very same argument about Larry Summers earlier this month.

Quote of the Day

"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell." -- Elizabeth Warren, chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel.

Watch Part 1 and Part 2 of an incredibly revealing, interesting, and entertaining interview of Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show.

"Spin" - A Double-Edged Sword (that only cuts one way)

In the past twelve months, there have been many attempts by government officials and agencies to put just the right interpretation on events and actions such that we ignorant members of the populace will be properly influenced to hold "correct" opinions. From Paulson to Geithner to Bernanke, a common set of "rules of engagement" have been utilized to obfuscate by omission, and obscure by subterfuge (remember Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? Merrill Lynch? TARP?).

It seems, therefore, that these charlatans must be incredibly dull-witted or obstinately incorrigible to keep repeating the same mistakes. Spin rarely succeeds - it is almost always revealed for what it is - a dishonest attempt to divert attention away from the truth. To continue with the parade of spin, the charade of spin, when any astute sixth-grader can tell the difference between facts and wishful thinking, seems unbelievably absurd.

The problem with spin is that, though it often has a brief life span of credibility, it's viability is soon exhausted. When the embers of indisputable truths ignite the veil of deception, the spin and the spinner are left standing naked before their intended victims. Like the emperor's new clothes, the spin reveals far more than was intended.

When spin is discovered, it invariably produces precisely the opposite effect to that which spin-doctors desired. It always begs the question, "If they went to this much effort to cast this bad situation in a positive light, how much worse is it than we realized?" At this point the imagination goes wild with speculation of how incredibly horrible things must be.

The Federal Reserve's Banking Stress Test seems to be the latest well-spun deception. The methodology of the stress test was released in a white paper this afternoon. Already several bloggers have tried to find rigor and meaningful testing described in this document (which might actually help determine the viability of the banks) but have come up empty. It appears at first glance that the so-called "stress test" had very little stress and not much in the way of meaningful tests.

Based on this admittedly cursory analysis, it now appears that the stress test was merely a ploy to properly spin the financial condition of the 19 largest banks, so that the public won't panic, the economy won't crater further, and the government sycophants and their programs remain credible.

The actual results of the stress test will be released on May 4th. If the majority of the banks which underwent the testing are shown to be quite healthy, based on tests that an illiterate child could pass, I'm afraid that we are in for some very rough times ahead. The public knows when the court jesters are in control.

Thank God for the solitary voice of reason crying in the government's wilderness - Elizabeth Warren!

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. -H. L. Mencken

Wall Street Bankers: Domestic Terrorists?

Ever since 911 our sense of safety and security have been forever altered. Since then, like a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs, we have been looking for all of the ways that al Qaeda could wreak havoc on our cities, our citizens, and our lifestyle. Little did we expect our economy and perhaps even our way of life would face a far greater threat from sources within our own borders, within our established institutions and sanctioned business practices.

Far more damage has been done to our economic infrastructure by CDS (credit default swaps) and MBS (mortgage-backed securities) than al Qaeda and the Taliban could have ever hoped to do with their terrorist tactics.

Let me remind you that credit is the lifeblood of business, the lifeblood of prices and jobs. --Herbert Hoover

An Extraordinary Notice

We live in Internet time and are inundated with information which comes at us from many sources at all hours of the day. So perhaps we can be excused for developing a "news bite" focus on the world.

Yesterday's news is so passe. Our attention span is relegated to the current day, the current hour, the current minute. How can we be expected to maintain an awareness of something that happened months ago, touched our lives for a few days, and then seemingly went away.

Unfortunately for some, it didn't go away. A news brief that crossed my desk this afternoon poignantly reminded me of that.

As reported by News 8 Austin, March 2, 2009:

"A boil water advisory in effect since shortly after Hurricane Ike hit Bolivar Peninsula has been lifted as supply lines return service to normal.

A statement from the Bolivar Peninsula Special Utility District said customers are no longer required to boil water prior to consumption."

Yes, Hurricane Ike touched our minds and hearts last September, and for a few days we sent donations, we kept the victims in our prayers, and we gasped in amazement at the images which came from the Texas coast. And then we got back in our groove and moved on. We assumed that all that could be done was done, and that Galveston and the Bolivar Peninsula would soon be back to normal.

We were sadly wrong.

"Choice of attention - to pay attention to this and ignore that - is to the inner life what choice of action is to the outer. In both cases, a man is responsible for his choice and must accept the consequences, whatever they may be." --W. H. Auden

Is it as bad as all this?

"The idea of letting AIG (AIG) go, or Citi go -- I mean, come on. Does anyone know what happens if we do that? We will simply shut down as an economy. There will be lockdowns and lockouts and mass closings and mass unemployment and no credit for cars or for schools or for homes. There will simply be an economy run by the state. That's what it is. That's all. Nothing else. Is that what we want? It is hurtling toward what we are going to get." -- Jim Cramer, The Street, March 2, 2009

Two More Bank Failures This Week

The FDIC reports that two more banks failed this week - Security Savings Bank, Henderson, NV, and Heritage Community Bank, Glenwood, IL. That brings the total failures this year to 16. There were 25 bank failures in 2008. Looks like we are well on are way to surpassing that.

Mistakes, scandals, and failures no longer signal catastrophe. The crucial thing is that they be made credible, and that the public be made aware of the efforts being expended in that direction. The ''marketing'' immunity of governments is similar to that of the major brands of washing powder. --Jean Baudrillard

Are You Feeling Disenfranchised?

The economy continues to get worse. The headlines give little cause for optimism, let alone hope. Didn't President Obama get elected because his platform was one of reform and hope? Why, then, am I not able to conjure up any enthusiasm for his pledges and programs?

There is a rumbling in grass-root America and it is growing ever louder. Many American are feeling disenchanted, dispirited, and disenfranchised. In the early days of this economic crisis, there were a predictable few malcontents who blogged about an approaching Armageddon. but in the last couple of weeks, this has been echoed in the main-stream media. Reputable TV journalists have recently started talking about class warfare and insurrection with no hint of hyperbole and no wink of irony.

I did not vote for President Obama, but neither did I despair when he was elected. In fact, in the first few days of his presidency, I started to feel hopeful and optimistic. These feelings, however, are now starting to fade and appear to have been misplaced. Instead of bold new programs we are getting bigger doses of the same old ones. Instead of an inspired bi-partisan stimulus package which would turn the economy around and engender a new optimism, we have been treated to ill-conceived programs and uni-partisan pork.

Obama has squandered his hard-won mandate and surrendered his political capital to an out-of-control democratic congress and the Queen of Pork, Nancy Pelosi. It's very clear who really has the power in Washington, and it is not Obama!

A financial analyst whom I greatly respect and admire, Mitch "Mish" Shedlock, had a wonderful post on his blog this morning which perfectly captured the betrayal I have been feeling. He says everything that I could hope to say on the subject. Read, Dear Mr. President, With All Due Respect... for some critical insights.

"Oft expectation fails, and most oft there

Where most it promises; and oft it hits

Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits."

--William Shakespeare

Quote of the Day

"This too-big-to-fail problem has now become an even-bigger-to-fail problem as the current approach has lead weak banks to take over even weaker banks. Merging two zombie banks is like hav[ing] two drunks trying to help each other to stand up. " -- Nouriel Roubini in an article, It Is Time to Nationalize Insolvent Banking Systems