Saturday, May 24, 2014

Saturday, May 24, 2012

A FOOD CHANNEL STAR AT WORK:  Here's someone called Giada whom I saw making a turkey cheese fried panini sandwich on TV.  Looked mighty good.The Giada turkey, cheese, fried panini panini sandwich is here

AMAZON/BOOK PUBLISHERS FIGHT: This is new technology versus old.

A REBUTTAL TO ABOVE:  There's two sides to this story.

A BIT MORE RE AMAZON/HACHETTE:  This adds a bit to the story.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Friday, May 23, 2014

FOR ANYONE WITH SKIN PROBLEMS.  If only the NYTimes would stick to this kind of reporting.

WEIRD BUT REVEALING:

"Why Our Political System's Screwed, in One Very Basic Chart"

Gawker's Adam Weinstein points to National Journal, which adds more charts to that one above:
That is all.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Wednesday, May 21, 2012

SHOCKINGLY TRUE:  This story must resonate with those in school or in academia during the '60's when the barbarians physically took over administrative offices at elite schools, made their demands for reform, and were rewarded.  Now we have foo-foo courses that even the dumbest of students can earn honors grades (wherever they still exist) and we have graduates entering the workforce without writing or cognitive skills.  No wonder we have a stagnating economy.

The Age of Academic Ruin

Now that we can see through a glass more clearly, which of us can deny that the American Academy surrendered without a shot to its barbarous and intellectually unwashed, following a rough descent into slavish cultural Deconstruction?  As such, the old guard’s aptitude for disinterested inquiry was seized and corrupted via a balkanized identity politics and a postmodern worldview that has wildly succeeded at dividing society into alienated warring camps.
As a witness to that bloodless capitulation, I found that this new progeniture of professorial triumphalists were markedly inferior in both erudition and gravitas to their predecessors and that the ranks of these Young Turks were generously constituted with perpetually dissatisfied utopians. In fact, these tin-plated revolutionaries were little more than partisan shills with an ax to grind and a seething animus against the gods of the greater culture. Consequently, there should have been little surprise when they denounced their detached search for objective truth and embraced liberalism’s political jihad to remake the world in Humanism’s feeble image.
As the crowning result of the Left’s long march through the academic institutions of the Humanities, the dinosaurs of the ancient regime fled into retirement or were unceremoniously purged as the earth’s ideological poles reversed. With the forces of “reaction” spent, the academy’s once august positions were filled by a more dogmatic, less intellectually tolerant species -- whose ends were no longer the assault of ignorance or in moving from opinion to knowledge, but as a brood of carnal monastics dedicated towards the advocacy of the One True Path.
Any student who has had the misfortune of enduring these insufferable Jacobins knows intimately of what I speak.  For the crime of slandering liberal orthodoxy, one could be called out or relegated to the outer darkness by the effortless rolling of eyes, the condescending grin or the boisterous laugh -- followed shortly by the dry expressionless question: designed not towards engaging in dialogue, but to firmly put you in your place. And if shyness or the possession of a nonconfrontational nature did not therein quiet you, one could always count upon the True Believers amongst your brethren who possessed the selfsame pack mentality as the famished coyote. These lockstep drones intuitively understood the court etiquette of ideological tyrants, and knew well that the act of hectoring and humiliating the Master’s cowed and cornered prey could only enhance one’s academic standing.
Being a Conservative in the belly of the Social Science beast is a thing to behold, like a Dante descending into Hell’s circles of torment. Within the orthodox confines of graduate seminars, one could not find more “accommodating” intellects -- apt pupils who would have fit in quite nicely as guardians of Soviet re-education camps. One could not find a duller and less introspective brute, especially in the lairs of any courses involving Identity politics. Within this arena, progressives had by far the lowest possible cumulative GPAs and were constantly speaking in the brogue of justice and emotion. All discourse was tainted with the same illiterate Marxian/Materialist thread of analysis that permeated even the most apolitical of discussions. The pursuit of respect through power seemed to be an obsession with the True Believer. Moreover, this sham of Identity Politics allowed for a maximization of political posturing with a minimum of work and collectively created an ideological echo chamber of closed circular minds fed on a diet of bitterness against a backdrop of grievance. Nevertheless, what could never be fully articulated was the nascent understanding that their Leftist project was purely personal and that these types of courses fundamentally embraced an affirmative action clientele whose talents were near universally shallow and subpar.
Today, the content of these memories, against a backdrop of so many years, have not abated like a bad dream. nor has reason reasserted itself in the Academy. Indeed, students within the humanities are measurably less literate and more propagandized -- although the indoctrination they suffer from has not been so much a function of undergraduate education, but flows from the subtleties of a squalid elementary classroom.  In truth, the contemporary mind has been incrementally inoculated against the foils of God and Reason, and the culprit is not so much the wild-eyed Leninist professor who spewed lies and vitriol to the educationally unbalanced neophyte, but the smiling 3rd grade teachers who exuded “nice” and whose vacant philosophies demanded that the world, by definition, should be a place of puppy dogs, rainbows, and equal outcomes. With such effeminate tools are today’s socialists made Indoctrination no longer requires the blunt cunning of force or fraud: for the 10,000 little subliminal lessons attained from the schoolhouse are enough to ensure that the young human mind is waylaid and bound for its lifetime to the hive. And this parched catechism of ignoble half-truths, along with the gargantuan power of the media, will guarantee that few will ever escape, except by way of the unyielding recitations that accompany the knock-out punch of nature and reality.
How perilous the minefield of public education has become since the days ofMcGuffey’s Reader. Although information has increased exponentially, humanity is all the more stupid in things that truly count, while the conceptions of truth and value have fallen by the wayside -- leaving the entire enterprise of education in doubt.  Knowledge thus becomes an instrumentality to a temporal end and is as divorced from the classical search for the Good Life as it is of moral excellence or Man’s metaphysical ends.  Against all earthly prudence, the pursuit of truth and the First Things of being have been sacrificed in the service to ideology and those sworn to the service of education have becoming little more than the State’s High Priests of Orthodoxy with each passing generation.
Soon, with the benediction of the Common Core, or whatever pedagogical shakedown is offered from our Centralized Masters, a great homogenization will flow across the land. We shall not see an increase in understanding, but a narrow leveling of vision and wisdom that renders the farm boy in the Bible Belt and the bastard child of the ghetto as interchangeable as bolts on a Chevy. As such, America will have finally gotten what the Progressive’s have dreamed of: a substantive equality of result: not only in economics, but of the mind.  Without the impediments of a thousand competing voices pleading for their share of the human soul, the State will finally have the monopoly of hearts and minds it needs for attaining its quest of the Universal Homogenous State.  Having firmly dispensed with Socrates’ “Unexamined Life,” that great tower of Nimrod can once again be attempted:
One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them…….
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.  He welcomes your correspondence at arete5000@dslextreme.com He can be followed atwww.stubbornthings.org 

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

HIGH FINANCE

Geithner is trying to rewrite history in new book

What’s wrong with this picture?
Tim Geithner, the former US Treasury secretary and one-time head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, wants to be seen as one of the guys who got the financial system out of trouble.
It wasn’t easy, he admits.
And it wasn’t always neat. In fact, you might even call it messy. And — oh, my! — Geithner suffered for his efforts. He’s still suffering today. And you’ll understand this more fully if you cough up $25 for his new book.
Tradition dictates that I give the book’s title and the publisher at this point. But I’m not going to. I don’t want to be responsible for even one extra copy of this book being sold.
So here’s what is wrong with the picture that Geithner is trying to sell: He doesn’t show his other face, the one that helped get America into all that trouble.
I have to admit that I haven’t read Geithner’s (Title Omitted), and I’m not planning to. It’s bad enough when people in public office try to rewrite history. But it is worse when they try to make money while torturing the public record.
New York has a Son of Sam Law that prevents criminals from benefiting financially from their misdeeds. Shouldn’t there be a moral code that restricts people — especially public officials like Geithner — from trying to benefit from their mistakes?
Even though I haven’t read (Title Omitted), Geithner was all over the place in the last few days giving interviews about his book and defending his record.
“People think we gave the banks this free gift of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, using the taxpayers’ money that we would never see again. People thought we would lose $2 trillion on our financial rescue,” Geithner told a group of Harvard students.
The quote was picked up in a cover story in the Sunday New York Times magazine that has a photo of the “naturally boyish” Geithner on the cover. (Giggle, giggle.) “He looked hardly older than the teaching assistants in the front row,” cooed the Times.
Geithner’s point was that the US government made money on its deal with the banks — a couple hundred billion dollars. Wow! Why didn’t we give them more money?
But there’s something Geithner isn’t telling you. The risk-to-reward ratio of those bank deals was skewed tremendously to the risk side. And just to make sure the banks did okay, the Federal Reserve — through hook and quantitative easing — had to make sure interest rates remained infinitesimal.
In other words, the deal Geithner is now lauding required that interest rates remain unnaturally low for six years and counting. And those low rates cost American savers many, many times the amount of money the government made on its bank deals.
In short, American savers ended up subsidizing those bailouts through what was — and continues to be — a secret tax on their assets. Speak to that, Mr. Geithner and I’ll buy your lousy book!
But that’s not my only problem with Geithner, who concedes in the Times interview that even he felt ill-equipped for some of the jobs that were thrust upon him.
Geithner’s bio shows the progress of a guy who was in convenient jobs when big people — let’s call them Wall Streeters — needed a dupe.
He worked under five Treasury secretaries in all — both Democrats and Republicans. So Geithner was, in essence, an equal opportunity patsy.
In 2003, he became president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The president of that bank is a permanent voting member of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, which makes policy.
So Geithner is as guilty as anyone else — Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke included — for keeping interest rates so low that a housing bubble developed when millions of unqualified buyers suddenly found their home loans approved.
Geithner wasn’t just cleaning up a mess after the financial crisis, he was cleaning up a mess that he helped make. It’s like BP wanting credit for getting all that goo out of the Gulf of Mexico after the spill.
You made the mess, now clean it up without bitching (or selling your story.)
The New York Fed is unique for another reason. It has the desk from which the Fed does all its trades. If the Fed wants to change the value of the US dollar compared with other currencies, the NY Fed does the job.
When Treasury wants to drain liquidity from the banking system, the NY Fed is on the case. Make liquidity more prevalent? You guess it, the NY Fed.
In other words, Geithner’s operation had to work very closely with Wall Street firms that were also trading. So it’s no wonder that Geithner once declared to Congress that he’d never been a regulator “for better or worse.”
Well, the NY Fed’s other job was to keep an eye on banks — to regulate them. That Geithner didn’t know this is even scarier than the fact that he got caught filing false tax returns and still eventually got the job as Treasury secretary.
All that trading experience came in handywhen Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his pals on Wall Street needed to rig the stock market in 2007-08. Geithner at the time was still heading the NY Fed and a year from taking over for Paulson.
In one five-hour period that started before the market opened on Sept. 18, 2008, for instance, Geithner either called or was called by Paulson six times. During the same time period, Paulson was also speed-dialing the heads of a number of well-connected Wall Street firms.
Geithner once admitted that during the financial crisis that Washington “was forced to do extraordinary things and, frankly, offensive things to help save the economy.”
I’ll give Geithner 25 bucks if he’ll spill on the “offensive things.” But I still won’t buy his book.

HOW CONFUSION OF LANGUAGE CAN LEAD US ASTRAY:  We know, for example, that the Communists, and other hard leftists, co-opted terms and words  in order to further their own ends. This article from Mises.org sheds some light on this phenomenon.


Monday, May 12, 2014

Monday, May 12, 2014

A BIT MORE INSIGHT INTO HOW THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM WORKS THESE DAYS:

Book Review: 'Stress Test' by Timothy F. Geithner

Geithner admits that he didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it occurred.

May 11, 2014 5:43 p.m. ET
Timothy Geithner, the former Treasury secretary (2009-13), believes in the forceful application of U.S. tax dollars when financial institutions are in crisis. It's a belief he holds proudly. In "Stress Test," Mr. Geithner makes a persuasive case that he is the man most responsible for the federal bailouts of 2008.
Some prefer to credit his Treasury predecessor, former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Others focus on the role of former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But Mr. Geithner insists that, time and again as the crises flared in 2008, he was the most consistent and tireless advocate for government aid to struggling firms. His core principle is that, during a crisis, the creditors of large financial institutions should not suffer any losses.
In 2008, Mr. Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,BK +1.58% and the first big test of his thinking was the March rescue of the investment house Bear Stearns. The firm, which was heavily exposed to subprime mortgages, had been planning to file for bankruptcy protection, and its regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission were prepared to protect customer brokerage accounts. This was standard practice when securities firms failed. But Mr. Geithner intervened to give the firm short-term liquidity and arranged a sale to J.P. Morgan, a move that put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for some of Bear's risky mortgage paper. And so the taxpayer safety net was stretched to cover not just commercial banks but Wall Street investment houses as well.
In "Stress Test," Mr. Geithner argues that, though he understood that Bear "was not that big—only the 17th largest U.S. financial institution at the time"—its failure could have been catastrophic because "there were too many other firms that looked like Bear in terms of their leverage" and had similar exposure to devastating housing losses.

Stress Test

By Timothy F. Geithner
(Crown, 580 pages, $35)
But that's not what he was saying at the time, according to transcripts of the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee. At a meeting on March 18, 2008, a few days after the Bear rescue, Fed governor Kevin Warsh said that financial institutions were undercapitalized. In other words, they had too much leverage and too much exposure to potential losses. Mr. Geithner objected, saying: "It is very hard to make the judgment now that the financial system as a whole or the banking system as a whole is undercapitalized. . . . But based on everything we know today, if you look at very pessimistic estimates of the scale of losses across the financial system, on average relative to capital, they do not justify that concern."
Regardless of the story Mr. Geithner is telling now, there remains the question of why exactly America couldn't survive without a firm like Bear Stearns, which held no taxpayer-insured deposits. Mr. Geithner tells the story of Warren Buffett approaching him at a conference shortly after the rescue to offer congratulations. "I was sort of hoping you wouldn't do it, because then everything would have crashed and I would have been first in line to buy," said Mr. Buffett, according to the book. "It would have been terrible for the country, but I would've made a lot more money." A scenario in which Mr. Buffett is snapping up bargains doesn't sound like Armageddon.
One of the themes in "Stress Test" is Mr. Geithner's difficulty in understanding the health of large financial firms. He admits that he didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it appeared. He didn't require that the banks he was overseeing raise more capital because his staff's analysis couldn't foresee a downturn as bad as the one that occurred.
None of this is particularly surprising in a man who, at the time he became president of the New York Fed, had never worked in finance or in any type of business—unless one counts a short stint in Henry Kissinger's consulting shop. At Dartmouth, Mr. Geithner "took just one economics class and found it especially dreary." After three years at Kissinger Associates, he spent 13 years at the Treasury Department, becoming close to both Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, and then worked at the government-supported International Monetary Fund. Messrs. Rubin and Summers recommended him to run the New York Fed. "I felt intimidated by how much I had to learn," he writes of taking up the job in 2003.
Mr. Geithner's New York Fed was the primary regulator for Citigroup+0.62% where Mr. Rubin was a director. Although a former senior executive at the bank had warned Mr. Geithner that Citigroup was "out of control," and the staff at the New York Fed "always considered [Citigroup] a laggard in risk management," Mr. Geithner figured it wasn't as risky as many of the non-banks that didn't hold insured deposits. Looking back now, he concludes that "Bob Rubin's presence at Citi surely tempered my skepticism, and he probably gave Citi an undeserved aura of competence in my mind." Citigroup would require a series of taxpayer bailouts after it had been allowed to hide more than $1 trillion in risky assets outside its balance sheet. Mr. Geithner admits that "it wasn't as well capitalized as we thought."
Mr. Geithner was perhaps a natural choice to be Barack Obama's Treasury secretary, given how many Rubin and Summers associates were populating the administration. In his new job, he continued to promote his no-haircuts-for-creditors principle and even helped codify a plan for the largest firms to avoid bankruptcy if regulators believed their failure could be damaging to the financial system.
Mr. Geithner scoffs at what he calls the "moral hazard fundamentalists" and "Old Testament" types who worry that bailing out financial firms will encourage even riskier behavior. He says that the financial rescue programs enacted in the crisis years were a success because the alternative—which no one can ever know—would have been far worse. What we do know is that, six years later, the economy is suffering through a historically weak recovery and the emergency programs haven't ended. The Federal Reserve is still providing easy credit for banks and for the U.S. government, which has racked up more than $8 trillion in additional debt since the end of 2007.
Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Friday, May 9, 2014

BENGHAZI WILL NOT GO AWAY:  Mark Steyn in just a few paragraphs articulates what any honest, clear-thinking person feels about the Benghazi events.  This tragic event will not leave the consciousness of honest Americans because they know the tragedy was avoidable, and worst of all, exploited by crass politicians for political purposes.  The stain of this outrage should tarnish, nay, ruin what's left of the reputations of any and all those who had a hand in any circumstances involving the tragedy, very much including the reputations of all the media types who have been covering for the administration's spokespersons and actors since the very beginning.  There are hardly words to describe the outrage normal people have, or should have,  for those responsible for Benghazi cover up participants who allowed four Americans to needlessly lose their lives defending the United States.

Send