I Think I'd Prefer to Be Taken Over by Giant Space Ants

If I wasn't already concerned about the government's takeover of AIG, Matt Yglesias starts listing things that progressives might do with the implicit ability to take over large financial institutions...

In November, there’s going to be an election. And in January, there’ll be a new President. And in the interim, progressive groups will probably come up with a lot of “ten ways to make everything awesome” proposals. And it’ll take 41 conservative senators to filibuster them all, and so they’ll all be filibustered. But if the government directly controls major financial institutions, that would give the new administration extraordinary leverage over the national economy. Suppose the new CEO of AIG decided he didn’t want to insure assets of companies whose executives make unseemly multiples of the national median income? There are all kinds of crazy things you could do. And of course not all of them woul dbe good ideas. But some of them would! And the smart folks on our side need to be figuring out which ones they are. It seems doubtful to me that a progressive administration would ever be able to get away with this much nationalizing of everything, but what’s done is done and I think it creates a real opportunity for “socially conscious insurance underwriting” or whatever you care to call it.

The model now seems to be that one should build a politically powerful private company that takes all sorts of wild risks, then rely on the taxpayers to bail them out because they're too big to fail. It may not work all of the time, but it will apparently work on occasion (see Bear Stearns and AIG). And liberals see this as a step toward nationalized corporations using their economic power to enact social policy (at least Yglesias seems to realize that some bad stuff might also occur). As Kent Brockman might say, it's time to welcome our new insect overlords.

If I wasn't voting McCain before, I will now. McCain may do some of the crazy crap listed here, but Obama's much more likely to do so, cheered on by people like Yglesias. It's sad that I'm stuck with these choices, but it would be even sadder to live in a world with "socially conscious insurance underwriting."

The Markets, As They Are

Jim Geraghty notes the statements by McCain and Obama about the crisis in the financial markets. He understates it when he calls it "painfully vague" in the headline. Neither one has any specifics, but I'm not sure either could really offer any. The best we're going to see out of either one are effective arguments why the other side is to blame.

By contrast, Megan McArdle lays out a list of ideas that might have helped, along with the downsides and why they weren't considered. As for blame, I think her fundamental point on that is that it's everyone's fault, and it's also irrelevant. If all of this were easily foreseeable, then many people would be making money off the expectation of the housing bubble ending and the ensuing problems.

Obama's Hubris

If this is true, it's disturbing to say the least...

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

I think Obama's allowed his presumption that he would win to overcome good judgment. It's one thing to inform an ally what you plan to do -- it's another to essentially undermine the current Administration's efforts in the foreign policy arena, particularly when dealing with something as crucial as war strategy.

The Obama camp's clarification didn't really help...

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.

"These outright distortions will not changes the facts -- Senator Obama is the only candidate who will safely and responsibly end the war in Iraq and refocus our attention on the real threat: a resurgent Al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border."

Last Tuesday, Bush announced plans to remove 8,000 US troops from Iraq in the coming months and send 4,500 to Afghanistan by January.

Obama said the president was belatedly coming round to his own way of thinking, but also accused Bush of "tinkering around the edges" and "kicking the can down the road to the next president."

(hat tip: Instapundit) First of all, if Obama's claiming Bush came around to his way of thinking on Afghanistan, then it's equally clear he's come around to Bush and McCain's way of thinking on Iraq, where he agrees the surge was a success. Second, Obama's strategy would have been sacrificing a loss in Iraq to win in Afghanistan, whereas Bush and McCain seem intent on winning in both places.

More to the topic of this post, I'm lost as to the difference between what the New York Post reported and what the Obama campaign is saying. Urging the Iraqis not to agree with the U.S. is fundamentally the equivalent of of what Taheri reported, yet Obama's spokesman seems convinced there's a difference.

More importantly, Obama's insistence that Congress review any commitments by the Bush Administration is weird. The President has the foreign policy authority to enter into an agreement with Iraq, but anything such as a treaty that would obtain the force of law would require Senate consent and approval. An agreement and framework for withdrawal and/or permanent U.S. stations should be in the hands of the President, but Congress has a voice at the table, because it must provide the funding for troop operations. I have no objection to the President consulting with Congress, but if that's what Obama wants, why not simply call for Bush to consult with Congressional leaders to get their views? And I'm not sure why Obama, who wants to review NAFTA, thinks his hands would be tied in Iraq -- he could always reverse the policy once he took office.

Lastly, I love the dichotomy. Obama claims Bush is kicking the can down the road to the next President regarding Afghanistan... yet Obama wants him to kick the can down the road regarding Iraq. Yeah, that makes sense.

It Can Still Be Funny

Loyal reader KS spots this video, which proves that (a) the media has a tough job, and (b) our economic woes haven't affected our nation's sense of humor.

ICYMI - CNN - 2 Guys making-out in front of Lehman Bros. during Live Broadcast @ Yahoo! Video

Irrelevant Unsolved Mystery of the Day

Bringing you the questions that don't matter, except they get stuck in your head and make you wonder...

Would Mr. Miyagi's training methods from The Karate Kid work in real life? Could you really learn karate by waxing cars, sanding a deck and painting a house? And why not?

Keep it Up

Cool. American hackers (allegedly) prevented Al-Qaeda from issuing a 9/11 celebration tape this year. Or not. Whatever -- just keep it up. If you can get their forums to post pictures of Osama engaged in illicit acts with circus animals, we have no objection.

Actually, that's not fair to the animals. They have more taste than that.

More Shenanigans

Senator Obama launches a silly attack on the GOP for the problems on Wall Street. Here's part of Obama's statement...

The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.

Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.

Megan McArdle calls shenanigans...

This is high-test hooey. This was not some criminal activity that the Bush administration should have been investigating more thoroughly; it was a thorough, massive, systemic mispricing of the risk attendant on lending to people with bad credit. (These are, mind you, the same people that five years ago the Democrats wanted to help enjoy the many booms of homeownership.) Lehman, Bear, Merrill and so forth did not sneakily lend these people money in the hope of putting one over on the American taxpayer while ruining their shareholders and getting the senior executives fired. They got it wrong. Badly wrong. So did everyone else.

What, specifically, should the Bush administration have done, Senator? Don't tell me they should have beefed up SEC enforcement, since this is not a criminal problem (aside from minor lies by Bear execs after the damage was already done). Perhaps he should not have reappointed Greenspan, or appointed Ben Bernanke? Both moves were widely hailed at the time.

... Indeed, I ask the Senator to name one significant thing that Bush has done to create this crisis that couldn't also be laid at the feet of St. William of Little Rock. If Democratic policy is so good at protecting the little guy from asset price bubbles, how come the stock market crashed in 2000?

Ouch. The grandstanding by Obama is appropriate politics, but it's not very helpful. I think it's smart to try and tie McCain to the struggling economy, but this is a scattershot attempt that illustrates either a lack of understanding of the problem or just "a throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks" approach. It's particularly problematic when you're a big recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as Obama is.

Was It Over When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor?

My feelings on the Presidential race with seven weeks left are nicely summed up by Tigerhawk...

First, there is a long way to go, and plenty of opportunities for such a well-financed campaign as Barack Obama's to right itself and storm to victory. The debates are still in front of us, and there are gaffe and scandal opportunities aplenty between now and November 4. Some of them will hurt the Republicans. Unless of course the Democrats and the press spend the next two months taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin, in which case McCain will win 40 states. Unfortunately, if Nancy Pelosi's sudden reticence hints at a new strategy then the Democrats are finally getting a clue. Let's hope it takes the media a few more days to digest the new orders.

Second, if the Democrats really are "panicking" this early in the game is it any wonder that they have such a hard time winning the White House? I mean, who wants to be governed by people who panic 50 days before the actual election?

Third, I seriously doubt that Democrats who count are actually panicking. This spate of stories may well mean that they are already finding their balance. If I were Barack Obama, I would be hoping that the Republicans get cocky right about now. These panic stories are just what the doctor ordered.

McCain has thrown Obama off his game, and the press has responded by trying to do everything possible to destroy Sarah Palin, but instead annihilating their own credibility. And Obama's silly ad regarding McCain's alleged e-illiteracy is an embarassing output of being rattled...

In a single not-very-compelling ad calling McCain a clueless geezer who can't even send email, the Obama campaign managed to draw attention to his war injuries again, to show that it doesn't even know that the 2000 McCain campaign actually pioneered the insurgent Web tactics that Obama used in the 2008 primary, and to produce an ad that seems tailor-made to alienate voters more than a few years older than Obama, all without providing any actual reason to, you know, vote for Obama. That's a combination of cluelessness, sloppiness, and narcissism -- it's clear they can't conceive that McCain could have pioneered anything on the Web, and they're probably too young to actually remember the 2000 election -- that seems emblematic of where that campaign has been lately. Hubris coupled with poor execution is not a recipe for success.

Jake Tapper provided us with the context for what Instapundit referenced...

Assuredly McCain isn't comfortable talking about this -- and the McCain campaign discouraged me from writing about this -- but the reason the aged Arizonan doesn't use a computer or send email is because of his war wounds.

I realize some of the nastier liberals in the blogosphere will see this as McCain once again "playing the POW card," but it's simply a fact: typing on a regular keyboard for any sustained period of time bothers McCain physically.

He can type, he occasionally does type, but in general the injuries he sustained as a POW -- ones that make it impossible for him to raise his arms high enough to comb his hair -- mean that small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise.

Again, it's not that he can't type, he just by habit avoids when he can repetitive exercise involving his arms. He does if he has to, as with handshaking or autographs.

It's certainly possible that the Obama campaign did not know this, since McCain makes it sound in interviews as if this is a matter of choice, not discomfort because of his war wounds.

In the last two weeks, Obama's media supporters have hounded Sarah Palin to "prove" that her youngest son (born with Downs synrome) is really hers, and Joe Biden made the innocent mistake of asking a Democratic official in a wheelchair to "stand up" at a rally. Now, the Obama campaign makes a commercial mocking McCain's inability to do something that occurred because of his war wounds. At this rate, I'm wondering if Obama's staff plans to show up and heckle at fall Special Olympics events.

This is the sign of a campaign in serious trouble. The GOP should not rely on this to continue, but you have to wonder if Obama's emphasis on his effectiveness in running a campaign as an example of his abilities as an executive is a good idea.

Another Idea on Energy?

Gregg Easterbrook wrote this in last week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback (which is generally must-reading for NFL fans, if you have 30 minutes or so, but in this case we're recommending the post for his idea on energy policy)...

Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …" Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

Even as a quasi-liberatarian, this argument does seem appealing to me as a way to help (say it together) "end America's dependance on foreign oil." With that being said, it will never be a very appealing political argument. But please notice that easterbrook makes the argument in favor of the policy without belittling the other side -- this will likely not happen, if an when this topic gets taken up by Congress someday.

Fly, Eagles, Fly

In advance of tonight's Eagles-Cowboys Monday Night Football brawl, John Gonzalez lists a few more reasons to dislike Dallas...

Statue of Jefferson Davis: Right next to the convention center stands a giant likeness of the former president of the Confederacy. I have no idea where they hide the Pol Pot statue.

Texadelphia: The Southwest's version of a cheesesteak joint. Texans love it. It offers your choice of sauces - from "mustard blend" to "classic ranch spicy." I'm not making that up. They're savages.

The Cowboys' soon-to-be completed mega-stadium: Happiness is knowing Cowboys fans have to watch games at rundown Texas Stadium. They don't deserve an upgrade.

I can only add that America is a better place when Cowboy fans are depressed. So if you don't root for the Eagles tonight, you're un-American.

E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!