warren · j. · dew

Much of the U.S. press seems to be painting the protests in Iran as a genuine, popular uprising against an autocratic, religiously fundamentalist regime.

It's true that the Iranian government is autocratic and religiously fundamentalist. However, it's also true that that government has the support of a large majority of its people, who mostly live in the rural countryside and small towns, and who are, by and large, religiously fundamentalist. While there may have been some voting fraud in some districts, it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of the population supported their current President.

The protesters are largely urban: college students and young urban professionals. While such populations might be typical in the U.S., they are not typical of Iran as a whole; they constitute a small minority of the population there. They're sufficiently atypical of Iran that they're not even well represented by "their" candidate, Mousavi, who is more typical of the Iranian governmental establishment.

The truth is, the protests in Iran are largely the protests of a minority that is being oppressed by a government supported by a large majority of the people there. They are in no way a popular uprising, and absent an externally planned and funded coup, have no chance of significantly affecting the government.

Sonia Sotomayor, based on reading a few of her opinions and summaries of dozens more, appears to apply the law as strictly and logically as possible. This is of course exactly what the Republicans always claim to want: supreme court justices who will strictly apply the law. It is no surprise that the Republicans have already decided not to attempt a filibuster.

Unfortunately, like all other recent nominees, she seems willing to be a lot more cavalier about the constitution. While she's ardently championed the first amendment in some cases, she's quite willing to dismiss the second amendment as not being "fundamental", even in the face of a recent clear supreme court ruling to the contrary. I guess she's never lived in a country that became a dictatorship.

I wish that one of these years, we'd get a nominee that was willing to strictly interpret the constitution, as well as the law.

You may have heard of the banking industry "stress tests" - "what if" scenarios to see how the government thinks banks would fare under a variety of economic scenarios. The most stressful case is an assumption that the current recession gets even worse, deepening and continuing past the end of the year.

The result is government pressure for banks to increase their equity ratio significantly beyond what is required by regulations. ( There are two ways to achieve this. )

Either way, it seems the government's analysis of a "worst case" recession could become something of a self fulfilling prophecy. We're currently set to come out of the recession this summer, but the government's preparing for it to continue through next winter may cause just that to happen.

Articles, one listing the results, the others discussing them:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2009/05/04/daily44.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050704257.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124172137962697121.html

With Chrysler finally in bankruptcy, the spotlight in the auto industry shifts to GM. And with the government using the Chrysler creditors as a scapegoat, the spotlight is now squarely on the GM creditors.

Evidently the GM creditors realize this. ( They've provided a counteroffer that makes more business sense - but may be less acceptable politically - than the government's offer. )

The effects of government profligacy are beginning to show. The government managed to run up a bigger deficit in the first six months of this fiscal year - $956,800 million - than in all twelve months of the previous fiscal year - $454,800 million - which itself was a record. The runaway deficit is partly because tax receipts are down, by about 15%, but mostly because the spending rate has nearly doubled from last year. If things keep going this way, we'll manage to top the previous record deficit by a factor of four.

There's a limit to how long we can get away with this. While the recession continues, it may hide the inflationary effects of the extra spending; however, when we do pull out of the recession, we may quickly go to stagflation and not to a long term healthy economy.

One source for more specific numbers:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090410-704541.html

Today's big news on U.S. auto makers is that Ford, which refused Federal bailout funds, today retired $9,900 million in debt - 38% of their outstanding debt - for $2,400 million in cash plus about a 20% equity stake. Evidently capital availability is not as bad as it has been made out to be.

Meanwhile, GM, which borrowed $13,000 million from the government, still needs to borrow $16,000 million more, and is talking about bankruptcy anyway. One of the problems there seems to be that administration pressure to go harder on some groups and softer on others is interfering with a deal.

Just a little lesson about government interference with the economy.

Links, first on Ford, then on GM:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/04/ford_slashes_debt_stays_ahead.html?hpid=moreheadlines
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/04/06/daily4.html

Ever posted something to the web in haste, then found that what you posted was the opposite of what you meant?

Well, you're not alone. In the PDF version of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Rivera v Illinois, the syllabus (summary) says:

"The Illinois Supreme Court ... held that the denial of Rivera's peremptory challenge was not a structural error requiring automatic reversal. Nor, the court found, was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

Huh? If the error was not harmless, shouldn't Rivera get a new trial or something? But the opinion says:

"The Supreme Court of Illinois ... further held that the error was harmless and therefore did not warrant reversal of Rivera's conviction."

Okay, that makes more sense. At least the actual justices are careful about what they are writing. Let's just hope lawyers and the lower courts are as careful when they read the decision.

Amidst the continuing bad economic news dominating the headlines, there was some good news this week: home sales were up about 5% in February, contrary to predictions, and durable goods sales were also up more than expected. The reason is simple: prices are down, in the case of homes by about 15-20% from a year ago. As with any product, when there is a pricing bubble, people usually figure it out eventually and stop buying; when the bubble bursts, people start buying again.

Now if the government would just quit interfering, we might see the rest of the economy recover, too.

Links:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/25/us-homes-new-orders.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123781706899814483.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/existing-home-sales--february/

A few days ago, I went out to a restaurant for lunch with a friend from work. I haven't gone out for lunch for a few months - usually I get something and bring it back to the office - and it struck me that there were only perhaps half as many people in the restaurant as usual. ( why encouraging savings might be as good as encouraging spending for preventing this )

I see bonuses at financial services companies are in the news again. I was going to comment on bank bonuses last time around, but procrastinated too long, so I'll take the opportunity now.

To understand the issue regarding banking bonuses, one has to understand how banks operate. ( A lot of those 'bonuses' are part of the ordinary pay package for ordinary employees, like overtime is for auto workers. )

Finally, it's to be noted that the total amount of the AIG bonuses in question is only about 1/1000th the amount that the government is spending on bailing out AIG (165 million vs 171 Billion - 171,000 million - which itself is small compared to recent federal bailout spending). If these bonuses are profligate, the government is being 1000 times as profligate by doing the bailout in the first place.

If anyone needs to commit seppuku, maybe it's Sen. Grassley, Barney Frank, and the rest of the "bailout congress".

There are a lot of reasons to breast feed infants. Most people who have kids are exposed to some standard ones:

- Breast fed infants are healthier, as their immature immune systems are boosted by antibodies and antiviral agents in the breast milk.

- Breast fed kids grow up with various advantages, for example being smarter by an average of 7 IQ points.

- Breast feeding is cheaper, in that the extra food needed by the mother is much less expensive than formula for the infant.

There are other advantages of breast feeding that don't seem to be widely advertised, though:

- You can leave pumped breast milk out basically all day without it going bad, as opposed to an hour or two for formula. This can be a big win for those of us who are too lazy to put a half finished bottle back in the refrigerator - and for those of us who don't bother to sterilize the bottles after washing them.

- Babies who are exclusively breast fed have poop that doesn't stink. Believe it or not, their poop just has a mild, slightly sweet smell. This makes diaper changing a lot less annoying.

- Breast milk itself doesn't stink. Okay, formula doesn't stink when it's fresh, but by the end of the day when you're washing the bottles, it often does. Bottles from pumped breast milk don't stink even after a couple days.

I think if more people knew about the nonstinky poop and the fact that you can be lax about bottle cleaning with breast milk, more people would breast feed.

We've heard a lot about government bailouts in the past few months. So what exactly are these bailouts? After hearing some more griping about one of them - the part of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that was devoted to stable banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America - I decided to read up on some of the details.

( it turns out it's as much the banks bailing out the government as the government bailing out the banks. )

Bush entered office at the start of an economic downturn. His solution was record deficits. The record won't last long, though. Obama, also entering office during an economic downturn, has the same solution: even bigger record deficits.

Meanwhile, the one thing Obama does agree with the Republicans on is continuing to prohibit Medicaid spending for family planning programs. Honestly, the religious right ought to have been happy with a provision leaving that decision up to individual states, given a Democratic government which could easily have required all states to have such programs. Instead, the religious right gets to continue to dictate a morality that encourages people have unwanted kids, paying for them with money taken away from people who have kids they really want.

Now, Bush did make some good decisions too. I just hope Obama does also.

A few days ago, a U.N. aid convoy in Gaza reported being shelled by the Israeli Defense Force, despite staying in contact with the IDF and keeping them informed of its location. More recently, the IDF shelled the U.N. relief headquarters in Gaza, for which the Israeli defense minister has apologized, calling it a "grave mistake".

In the wake of these attacks, the U.N. temporarily suspended relief efforts in Gaza. That worked to put more pressure on Hamas to accept a cease fire on terms favorable to the Israelis. Conspiracy theorists might think assume that the actions were not as much of a mistake as Barak has said.

Generally, though, it makes sense not to blame malevolence where incompetence may be the cause. Lower level Israeli commanders might have thought the U.N. compound was a Hamas building, given the 700 refugees collected there. It's quite possible that the artillery unit involved in the earlier incident was just not communicating with the people talking to the U.N. convoy. It's even possible that some IDF soldiers don't know the difference between the high explosive shells normally used on buildings and the white phosphorus smoke shells said to have been used on the U.N. compound in violation of international law. Such things happen in every war.

Still, that's a mistake every few days - compared to, for example, U.S. forces in Iraq, who only made mistakes like that once every few years. Three decades ago, the IDF was one of the most vaunted and feared armies in the world. Have they lost their touch?

Links to articles:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE50E2XK20090115
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055830.html

The end of the Israel-Hamas cease fire and the subsequent fallout has led to a lot of discussion about what Israel can or should do, and why it's doing what it is. There's speculation about what the other Middle Eastern states' official and unofficial positions are, and about what Europe, the U.S., and the rest of the world should do and why.

What I haven't seen is any discussion about Hamas' point of view. They seem to be regarded only as a pawn or a random actor. Surely they have motivations?

I think understanding Hamas is simple. Their goal is the betterment of the Palestinian people in the face of an Israeli economic blockade. To achieve that goal, they have only two tools:

(1) rocket attacks on Israel that, while not being capable of doing real military damage, can exert some pressure and is a tool that can be used repeatedly;

(2) recognition of Israel, a tool which can be used only once.

Given that recognition of Israel can only be done once, doing it early would be foolish: it should only be done after Hamas has gained confidence that it will result in a permanent and satisfactory peace agreement. That leaves the rocket attacks.

Previous rocket attacks resulted in the recently expired six month cease fire. Hamas no doubt saw the cease fire as the first step towards a more permanent armistice. Hamas had an opportunity to demonstrate sufficient control to cut off the attacks when promised, which they largely did, as the first step towards future easing of the economic blockade.

Unfortunately for Hamas, Israel apparently saw the cease fire as just a way to procrastinate for six months, and all they offered was a renewal on the same terms. While living without adequate food, fuel, and medicine for six months might have been acceptable to Hamas, doing so forever is not.

Thus the present situation.