Flawed thinking and a repeating argument

A list of the changes is at the bottom of the post. Sorry. :-(

Laurie Penny, in a recent blog post, criticizes Julie Bindel and her magazine article refuting the claim that trans-feminism has anything to offer feminism. Laurie offers a dubious argument for why feminism should embrace trans-feminism. In her post (and article; it was published in a different magazine) Laurie accused feminists such as Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel of lazy thinking; I accused her of equally lazy, if not egregiously lazier, thinking.

First, I should state the argument I dispute: we can't precisely define what a woman is, so we should expand what it means to be a woman to include the biologically male. (This is usually phrased "being what society assumes is a man" or some other nonsense.) Therefore, feminism should embrace the transwoman. This is Laurie's original conclusion; usually, the argument stops at "therefore personal identity is the guide to whether someone is a woman or not."

A summary of Laurie's post. Julie Bindel, in a piece for some magazine, wrote a somewhat confused piece asserting that the transgendered woman is not a "woman". Ms Bindel is a bit of hard-line anti-tranny; I don't think she's against people doing whatever they want, but she definitely does object to men encroaching on a woman's identity. Laurie takes the opposite view. She attempts to prove that a transwoman is a woman, and that the feminist community should embrace the transwoman, using a standard - and deeply flawed - argument.

Germaine Greer deprecatingly stated that transwomen:

[are] people who think they are women, have women's names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody.

Laurie says that feminists such as Ms Greer and Ms Bindel don't understand the transgendered woman. Oh, I think Ms Greer is quite clear in her understanding of the transgendered. What Laurie fails to notice is that Ms Greer, et al, simply don't agree that a person can become a woman via surgery, cosmetics, or claim. It's not whether they fail to understand the transgendered, it's their clear animosity toward the transwoman's claim to be a woman. Rightly, most transwomen dismiss such words; they are, ultimately, notvery important.

But the reasoning behind the animosity, and the refutation of it, cannot be ignored so easily. The animosity is valid - if you've spent your life fighting misogyny, it can be very difficult to perceive that a transwoman as anything but a man claiming a space within what it means to be a woman. To dismiss it with false argument is insulting; to use the standard, lazy, argument in the first place is baffling.

The standard refutation usually starts with something like noting that "femininity is a social construct". Laurie goes one needed step further than others; she argues that the transgender community is not as guilty of promoting the social construct of gender expression as the "cis" community. That'll be the last time you read that deplorable prefix in this post. The simple fact is - the transgender community does insist on precise gender expressions.

(Try turning up at a transgender do in a nice dress and a beard. Heck, I have problems in such groups because my stubble is visible without the assistance of Benjamin Moore household paint. Even then there's an annoying shadow.)

Laurie spends a lot of time on her dislike of both capitalism and the fashion industry. I know Laurie is serious in her dislike of both items, but they're a mainly a distraction. For instance: Laurie asserts that transsexuals know better than anyone that femininity must be purchased. I'd argue it slightly differently: femininity is available to those who want it.

Being feminine has nothing to do with economics. It has a lot to do with how you express yourself. Capitalism comes into it because fashion is an industry. People make things and they want you to buy them, so they do what they can to persuade you to do so. The alternative is the "wise" telling you want you want. I think the fall of the Soviet Union proved that idea doesn't quite work.

Laurie goes off on another tangent: she tries to make the number of people who get gender reassignment surgery versus those who want it an issue. It's irrelevant how many want the surgery; what's relevant is that some go through the process.

And we get to the nitty gritty:

"Not a single person on this planet is born a woman."

Ignoring the semantic issues, I'd say that Laurie has now raised the straw-man she intends to demolish. Interestingly, Laurie doesn't acknowledge Véronique later stating:

I am a woman born transsexual and a feminist, whether feminists want me or not. As you wrote, no one is born a woman.

Véronique (and of T-Central) notes that she was born a woman, but agrees that no one is born a woman. One statement is literal, the other metaphorical. Each statement contradicts the other.

The clarification of "transsexual" is either not relevant, or just confusing. If you're born a woman, regardless of your body - then the statement no one is born a woman is false, or if you're born some important variation of gender, then the assertion that you're not born a woman becomes irrelevant because you're not born with a gender, or ... I'm getting a headache.

If you can't be born a woman, then you can't be born a man. And if you can't be born either of those, then you can't be born between them - because they don't exist. You have to be born something! Even those who are born of indeterminate gender are born as indeterminate of gender! On the other hand, if what Laurie is saying is that you are born without gender, then she's saying ... That gender, in its entirety is a social construct? Huh?

But if you're not born male or female, what are you born as? If it's in between, it leaves open the possibility that you can be born male or female - it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a continuum of human experience will reach extremes. If it's neither, we get to gender being that social construct. Not just gender expression - gender.

If she means gender expression, I'd agree and suggest she needs to rewrite that bit. I've never seen a new-born have any gender expression whatsoever. In my experience, they tend to sleep a lot.

I belabor the point because it's central to the standard argument Laurie uses.

It's impossible to [not] notice that "female" doesn't crop up. What Laurie is trying to say is that gender expression is learned. Young women learn what it is to be a woman. Young men, what it means to be a man. If she had used "female", then her claim would be in serious dispute. But in choosing the vaguer "woman", she is trying to influence the argument in the direction she wants. The only problem? The next bit:

Feminists ... do not get to be the gatekeepers of what is and is not female, what is and is not feminine, any more than patriarchal apologists do. ... If feminists like Greer, Bindel and Jan Raymond truly believe that having a vagina, breasts, curves, a uterus, being fertile or sporting several billion XX chromosomes is what makes a person a woman, it clearly sucks to be one of the significant proportion of women have none of these things.

This, this, is the straw-man. It is designed to be so easily pushed over it needs protection from a slight breeze. Laurie proves she's using the standard argument in the next paragraph:

Excluding the trans population for a moment, there are women all over the world who lack breasts after mastectomy or a quirk of biology; women who are born without vaginas

Hang on a minute - Laurie said no one is born a woman. And yet she's now saying that some women are born without vaginas? Some females are born without vaginas, just as some males are born without testes. Herein lies the laziness of the definitions, and the thinking.

No one has claimed that a woman who has had a radical mastectomy is not a woman. No one claims that a woman born without breasts, or small breasts, is not a woman. It's actually quite insulting as arguments go. It insults the intelligence, frankly. She excludes the group that she's asserting are women, in order to prove that they are women.

Let's put this into logical terms:

Group W is all Women

Group WB consists of women who have breasts (or the "right" chromosomes, or whatever)

Group WOB is all women who do not have breasts

Group TW is all women who are transwomen

For the sake accuracy, we'll discard, as stupid, all those pedantic claims that when a lass says "if I were a man..." as evidence of her transgender feelings.

Okay: we can say that groups WOB and WB are included in the group W.

Here's where it gets funky: Laurie clearly states that group W also contains TW, and that group TW is a member of group WOB. She excluded them from consideration of what a woman is, so... I'm lost. If they are a member of group WOB, but are excluded from what the definition of what group W consists of - that means they... What?

Is group TW included in the definition of group W, or not? Or only when it's convenient?

Is it possible to define a group by excluding those you claim are members of the group, simply to prove that the excluded members really are part of the group you're defining?

No, I didn't think so.

Getting back to the pertinent paragraph, I think I'd tread carefully in calling Germaine Greer, et alia, stupid. Which is what Laurie's list of considerations does. Does she think that Ms Greer, et al have not spent a lot of time thinking about what a woman is? Or does she think that they see a "ghastly parody" and have a fit, subsequently neglecting the aggressive, determined and consistent thinking that made them powerhouses of feminism in the first place? Being female is how they define the whole thing.

Anyway, while Laurie is saying that Ms Bindel, et al, are not the gatekeepers of womanhood, or of femininity, she appoints the transgendered in their place. The metaphorical gate is not left open. It's dismantled and tossed over the nearest wall. Along with the fence.

Laurie does not get back to her main argument. After she turns a low-powered fan onto her straw-man, she fails to explain how the definition of "woman" suddenly got expanded. She neglects to persuade why it should be expanded. Because the transwoman undergoes a lot of anguish? That's not a reason to expand the definition of what a woman is. It is a reason to alleviate their obvious suffering, though.

Essentially, Laurie makes a false claim but then neglects to figure out the other, vital, bit of her argument: if we can't explain what a woman is by physical characteristics, then we have to accept that a claim to gender identity is sufficient. We are forced to accept that gender expression becomes the guiding principle in who is a woman, and who is not. To which I will join Ms Bindel, Ms Greer and a few others: "No it isn't".

What else is there?

Failing to make a connection between "female" and "woman" is the least of Laurie's problems. She totally ignores the idea that in her redefining what it means to be a woman, it is basically reduced to the very thing she says it shouldn't be reduced to: appearance! (Aka "expression") Laurie used a straw-man; I will, too. If a heavily bearded chap comes along and says "I'm a woman" you might be forgiven for doubting his claim. If he then says "I wear the beard because society expects men to be hairy, muscular, etc" you are still able to doubt his claim. Now let's assume he shaves the beard off, buys some pretty dresses and heels and, wearing them, says "I am a woman" - by Laurie's argument, you are forced to accept that at its face value. A woman is not, apparently, entitled to say "I doubt that!" Let's assume that this woman has kids; she's not in any doubt about her gender and she's attracted only to guys. Intimacy with women is a big turn-off for her. Let's assume that she's also successful in business. I know a few women that fit this description. Can the guy-who-had-a-beard, or Laurie, tell her that she has no right to dispute the expansion of what it means to her to be a woman? Is she transphobic in arguing that the guy(etc) might not be a man, but he's not the same as her? According to Laurie - yes she is. Because she says the definition of what a woman is" should not be restricted. Fine - but should it be expanded to the point of being meaningless?

(What if he says "I like bearded women, and want to be one?" That's not quite the facetious question it appears to be.)

What this argument does is say that your claim to your gender identity can be expanded without your approval. What it means to be you can be manipulated to suit me. It reduces your claim, and elevates mine: if I say I am a woman, you are not in a position to dispute that because (you're using stereotypical "gendering", etc). (To keep the pedants happy: I do not consider the claim that "you are what your biological gender is" to be ethical, either. That's a claim that their idea of gender is superior to yours. It's also why I don't care what you call yourself. I'm addressing the political, the personal I really don't give a hoot about.)

And if it is to become meaningless, what are the implications for the transgender community? If gender is meaningless, then being transgendered becomes equally meaningless. I agree, wholeheartedly, that how we express ourselves should be meaningless. It should not matter if I choose to wear a pretty dress, or baggy pants and boots. What I do not agree to is the reduction of identity for convenience. I do not agree that gender is irrelevant, meaningless or so plastic it is rendered meaningless. Especially when that argument is made to support a group for whom gender is of vital importance.

You cannot legitimately say "if we exclude this group from the definition of what being a woman is, I have just proven they are women!" The argument Laurie uses is false, and it is lazy. Laurie didn't consider the implications beyond the immediate and convenient; she used the standard argument as it is delivered. It does come across as reasonable; heck, it even seems reasonable on first reading. But it isn't because it makes tow contradictory claims, simultaneously.

Added. Oops. I forgot: Trans-feminism and feminism have some areas of common interest. But they are as often in conflict. Either way, whether feminism is demanding a gender revolution that only trans-feminism can deliver is not relevant to who is, or is not, a woman. I would argue that social changes around gender are pushing a more libertarian view of gender into the forefront; I would not say that there is any substantial or real demand for a gender revolution. Not yet, anyway. I will note that the last time gender was argued as irrelevant, in the late 1960's into the early 1970's, the sentiment didn't last long.

Carolyn Ann

PS It's 4:00AM; I've been at this for about 4 hours. I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Changes: I can pinpoint exactly where I got overly tired. I have struck out the offending paragraphs, and deleted a sentence that should not have made it past the first draft. Somehow it did, but it's gone now. I also put "[not]" into a sentence.

Judging terrorists

I'd hate to be the justice who gets the WTC terror case. They'll probably end up with a life-long protective detail!

It was bad enough when the authorities felt sufficient threat existed that Judge John Jones was provided with police protection, after he ruled against the Dover, PA School District. Can you imagine the hatred that will be directed at whomever gets the case in New York? Even if the judge bends over backwards to ensure a fair trial, some will call it a mockery simply because their guy went to jail.

The Bush Administration could have prevented any of this legal ambiguity by simply following the law as it stood. And by ensuring that America was not associated with torture. But President Bush took the easy way out - and now we have a legal quagmire, with terrorists we can't prosecute, members of the enemy we can't release or keep in detention, and a slew of highly questionable legal opinions. Some of which argue The Constitution doesn't matter!

I don't envy AG Eric Holder his job, either.

Carolyn Ann

Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs or an object

I was a little forthright in a protest against Laurie Penny on her blog, the other day. Here's the start of my comment:

Ms Penny: You demand respect for yourself (I assume?) and for women. I suggest you try and rewrite your piece using "Ms Bindel", instead of "Bindel". ...

This did produce, and is still producing, some comments.

I don't like calling people "Bindel", "Penny", "Greer", "Grant" or what-have-you. It dehumanizes them; turns them into objects. It's easier to deride a person when they're an object.

But it turns out I'm not altogether right about this. Some style manuals say it's okay to not provide the honorific for a person. The NY Times almost always uses the appropriate honorific; I've noticed a few slip-ups, though.

For myself, I prefer to acknowledge someone's title. No matter what, a person is not an object, but a person. A Professor is a Professor; if they use "Dr", then I do. If they don't, I don't. When addressing someone in the military, the use of their rank is appropriate and correct. If you're transgendered, it's appropriate to use "Ms". Unless you're a transman; then "Mr" becomes their title.

Oddly, the one exception is for the President: he can be Mr President, Mr Obama or President Obama. (The British PM doesn't get a title; he remains Mr Brown.)

It's about respecting each other. It's awfully hard to respect an object. It's also more civil. You can be quite cutting, but basic civility should always be maintained. It's like having clean shoes: hardly anyone will notice, but when they do, they know you care about civility. (I do make an exception for my motorcycle boots. Keeping those clean is a futile task.) It's old fashioned, but as I get older, I realize more and more how basic civility doesn't just help, it greases the wheels of interaction.

Carolyn Ann

Antegoogluvian

Antegoogluvian. What a wonderful word. :-)

I don't think you'll find it in any dictionary - Nicholson Baker coins it in a NY Times review of Ken Auletta's "Googled - The End Of The World As We Know It". The sentence is

Because, let me tell you, I remember the old days, the antegoogluvian era. It was O.K. — it wasn’t horrible by any means.

It's now in my dictionary. I wonder if I'll be able to contrive a way of using it? :-D

Carolyn Ann

I love this photo

This photo.

That's a man I can relate to: he's got pictures of his wife and kids on the credenza. He's a chap on the phone.

It's a great picture of a man. Who happens to be the leader of the free world. That's not something we hear about that often, these days. But he is.

Carolyn Ann

Oh, yeah...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! :-)

Carolyn Ann

Capitalism's Bum Rap

Capitalism is coming in for a lot of criticism, these days. Earlier in the year, protesters were more than usually enthusiastic about "the end of capitalism" (the French finance minister didn't exactly help in that regard). The protesters seemed to be quite keen to declare a new world order; problem was: they couldn't figure out what that might be.

I think they settled on something altruistic and vague. And ultimately meaningless.

Meanwhile capitalism did what it does best: continue to generate wealth. A little too gradually for the liking of economies and markets.

Capitalism is a good economic system. It's inherently unfair - it makes no pretension of being fair! - which many dislike. They insist on seeing the bad side of the system. And then they demand to know why it's not a perfect system. It isn't a perfect system, but it is the only viable economic system we can have. Countering abuses, such as child labor, those sweat shops in 3rd world countries and New York City and so on, is an ongoing task. Where money is involved, someone will be criminal, amoral, immoral and/or abusive. That's a given in any economic system that involves the creation and management of wealth.

I'd like to see suggestions from communists and other fantasy-prone ideologues about a new economic system. In order to work, it must be able to move capital around with some efficiency. It must not be centrally planned (that's proven to be unworkable), and it must reward effort and - and - risk. You do not get progress without risk. You don't get to maintain a status quo without risk, either.

Advocating the simpler side of socialist ideas will be a non-starter, too. You can't pay for social services unless the money is available. Ideas about getting rid of money will have to address how, exactly, the entrepreneur and worker, alike, will be rewarded for their efforts. "Altruism" is not going to be considered seriously. Such notions will laughed out of court, actually. Service industries will need to be paid, too. Don't forget that doctors, nurses, teachers and so on also have to live.

So...

Capitalism is not perfect - and anyone trying to come up with a perfect economic system is on a fool's errand. Perhaps we'd better stick with capitalism? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Whew.

Whew. That was a *lot* of writing! It took me about 3 or 4 hours, and I should have cut it into "chapters". Sorry about that. :-)

I was quite flattened at the end, and not a little tired.

It was totally unplanned; I sat down and thought "what shall I write about?" and that floated to the top of the list. I told the Mrs I was going to browse the Internet for half an hour before bed; instead I crawled into bed at some ungodly moment well past 4AM.

One of the reasons I wrote it was to help counter foolish pronouncements from Ron Paul and his son, Rand. He's running for election in Kentucky. The uber-conservatives put their ideology before fiscal prudence; if Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson had done what they wanted, we'd be in the middle of a Depression. Mostly because these conservatives don't think about the role credit markets play in the global economy. The Great Depression started because credit between banks dried up. (Why it dried up is a different story.) And Japan's lost decade was the perfect example of what not to do.

What is starting to be called the Great Recession started over credit, and won't end until the credit markets get going, again. What needs to happen is a new way of thinking about personal debt must be developed; and disclosure laws need to be strengthened. If a lot of those derivatives had been on the books, instead of not, investors might have paused. But the Republicans reduced oversight and regulations, and as a result - greed overtook common sense. Disclosure was seen as socialist or something, and quite a few traders made off with zillion dollar bonuses. (That was a stupid move on the part of the banks.)

A lot has been written and vented about Mr Geithner's refusal to do much about those bonuses. In fact, he didn't have any say in them - legally, he couldn't dispute them. Practically, they weren't thought about when the Four Musketeers were trying to save the US economy. But they made a convenient target; an understandable one, too. Mind you, the idiotic reasoning (we need to pay them to keep the top talent) didn't help: if those were the rocket scientists who got us into this mess, then it's difficult to perceive them as "top talent". They did help get us into this mess, and they're not rocket scientists. Clearly, they're not!

Ah well.

Carolyn Ann

Modern Finance 101

=== I did a quick run through, adding a word here, correcting a grievous spelin error there, and so on. I didn't change the story in any way, though. Which I probably should do... === (Thursday afternoon)

=== Okay, I didn't edit this in any way. Spellin errors will likely abound. Mistypes will be equally plethoric (is that a word?). I also freely admit I lost track of how much money I was conjecturing; not an especially noteworthy failure, considering that everyone else lost track, too. But I sincerely hope I captured the difference between the fantasy land of "some" populist Republicans and what happens in the real world. The sums Wall St and The City deal with are staggering. (It's quite the sight to see someone lose their first million. In one phone call.)

Anyway, modern finance is a complex and messy business. People sell products they don't understand, and others buy them without making any effort to understand what they're buying. And then there's the Chinese. Not mentioned here, but they are part of the reason we're in this mess. ===

I will add: It's LOOONG! Sorry. Modern finance is not a simple subject. No matter what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and their tea-bagger cohorts illuse. (That really isn't a word.)

Here we go...

=========

It seems that the politicians haven't really done a good job explaining why those billions of dollars (and pounds) of bailout were needed. So I'll try to do their job for them.

Ron Paul supporters might want to take note, too. (He's the idiot that would like to do away with the Fed, and return the dollar to the gold standard. Like I said: he's an idiot.)

Before I start, I will also note that capitalism has taken a bit of a beating; people seem to think the problem is capitalism. It's not: it's people who took out loans they couldn't afford. Were the bankers criminal offering those loans? Were the loan officers criminal in forcing them (via the hard sell) onto poor victims? Or did people just believe those who did not have their interest at heart a little too much? It was all of the above. And here is why.

Let's say you have a job at a small firm. You took the job because it sounded interesting, and the boss offered you a decent salary and hours. Things looked stable, so you weren't worried about being paid (besides, your friend told you there were laws that said you had top be paid).

Or you work for a big corporation. Or a municipality or some other government. Any which way you slice it, you want to earn some money.

You take that money, and you put some of it in savings account, the rest you and your spouse use for household expenses. We'll ignore dual income families for the moment; they're irrelevant. We'll concentrate on that wonderful euphemism, the "nuclear family". Leave it to Beaver and all that.

Let's say, for the sake of simplicity (this is nothing if not simplistic), you earn $24,000 a year. Okay, we're talking a long time ago. (Actually, looking at the pay checks I've received from various jobs over the last wee while, it's not that long ago...) Anyway, that's $2,000 a month. Your expenses are:

$270 goes to housing

$500 to car payments and gas

$500 goes to food and clothing

$330 goes to taxes, etc

$150 goes to utilities

That leaves you $250 a month to save. Nice going.

You get a credit card.

You increase your spending. You now save $100 a month. The economists count your credit card payments as "savings", but they don't live in the same world you (or I) do.

Now, your bank is happy to receive your $250 a month; they don't mind that much when you reduce your savings to $100 a month. You got the credit card from them, and they get 2c per dollar on every transaction you make with the credit card. Plus the usually usurious interest rate if you charge more than you can immediately pay back each month. (Ever wonder why they were so generous? Now you know.)

Your bank doesn't actually stash your savings in their vault. Much to the disappointment of bank robbers. While the US was expanding, and stuck to the gold standard (it did make sense, in 1859), the bank held your money in a safe - literally. It would be transferred to a large regional bank, on a train, which led to the creation of train robbers. Assuming it got there, the large bank would take money and put it work.

These days it's a little simpler: your bank branch notes that you have some dollars, and they can use those dollars to fund other stuff. The bank has to keep some money on hand, simply because people insist on using cash for some transactions. You grab a $100 from the ATM, it's not magic money, printed on the spot by the bank. The bank had to put it there. All of this is counted as "capital".

The bank bundles your savings with other responsible family's savings and finds out it has about $1,000,000 coming in each month. By law they have to hold some percentage of actual cash, just in case. So let's say, because laws and regulations are difficult to figure, let's say they have to hold 20% "in reserve". They now have $800,000 they can put to use.

They also have your salary, which is directly deposited into your account. And all those other salaries. Let's say it adds up to a nice round $20,000,000 per week. You live in Levittown or one of those awful estates in Britain - lots of neighbors, all packed so close you feel that Manhattan and Tokyo apartments have too much space between them. So your bank now has (tip tap tip tap) $80,800,000 per month coming in. Would any sensible person just sit on that cash? No. The bank pays interest on savings, and it offers advanced money products like investment opportunities, which also need to paid out. It also has salaries, loans and other stuff it has to pay, just to do business.

Now let's pretend that every person in the neighborhood goes to Costco once a month. Costco is a discount retailer; they take cash, checks and American Express. Let's assume, as in real life, that not everyone has an AmEx card. (If I can't figure out how to pay the next bill, I might not have one, either.) So lots of shoppers pay with checks. Who wants to be bothered with going to the bank and withdrawing lots of cash in anticipation? (Herein lies the foundations of modern finance. By the way.)

So the bank has $20,000,000 per week coming in from salaries, but we can assume some percentage of (15%, for simplicities sake) goes out to Costco. (Anyone wanna open a competitor?) For simplicities sake (I'll be using this phrase a lot), we'll assume 75% of Costco's customers pay by check; 5% by cash and ... 20% with their American Express cards.

Why Amex? Because Amex is unique in that it doesn't let you carry a balance. It's as good as cash, and far more lethal.

So 15% of $80,000,000 (I figured I'd throw you) is $12,000,000. 75% of that is $9,000,000. $3,000,000 is Amex funny money. That's going to be important in a minute. Now the bank doesn't have 80 enormous - it has $68,000,000.

You have a nice house. It's on a nice street, and the bylaws dictate lawn heights and watering schedules. But you had to get a loan to pay for the house. The problem is, houses are complex and expensive products. It costs a lot of money for the materials, which are passed on to the initial purchaser, and it costs quite a bit to maintain one. Traditional mortgages were pegged at 27% of your disposable income. What that actually meant differed; some banks counted your car payments, some didn't. It doesn't matter for our bank because your mortgage is 13.5% of your $2,000 per month income. (I did that so the math worked out.) So your payment to the bank, and we'll assume all your neighbor's payments are 13.5% of $80,000,000: $10,800,000. So... Is that income to the bank?

Sure it is. The hold $80,000,000 per month, but receive $10,800,000 per month from mortgage holders. It's a small world and Jimmy Stuart is the only banker for miles. On the balance sheet it looks a little weird. And this is where, when I discuss this, most people get confused. Let's say that $10,800,000 is some unknown principal payment and some incalculable interest payment. In the aggregate, that's exactly the problem: no one quite knows who has 5 years left on their mortgage (mostly principal) and who's just gotten one (mostly interest). But we're living in that fantasy land of that salad dressing, so we'll make an assumption: 95% is interest. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's a commercial on American TV where "Hidden Ranch" salad dressing shows you a world where children eat vegetables instead of candy and women wear cute dresses. Sigh. I don't care about the kids. The dresses, though? ... Sorry, I got distracted.)

That's one of the issues we'll continually see in modern finance: oops, I got distracted.

So the bank is collecting $10,260,000 in interest payments. Per month. That's a lot of money. What would you do with that? Assuming you couldn't go hold-wild and buy a Kentucky distillery and an Italian sports car. Well, whatever you would do - the bank has some people to pay.

Why?

Because it doesn't have the wherewithal to fund every mortgage application from the deposits. Let's assume that the average house is $100,000 and every owner put down the required 10%: so each and every one needs a loan of $90,000. (I will note that the $270 per month payment will not cover a ninety grand mortgage. Play with me on this one.)

Let's also assume that you can't afford to pay cash for your $20,000 car. So you need an auto-loan for that. You could afford to buy an old banger, but in a neighborhood that demands your grass be cut to 3", that might not be the most exciting thing you could purchase.Plus, you're not exactly mechanically inclined and you'd prefer something reliable to get to work.

Plus the bank has to pay out all those checks to Costco, the car maintenance guy, the phone company and so on. You write them, but the money has to come from your account. Which might be a problem...

Remember: the bank is not obliged to keep all your deposits on hand. If you have a savings account that pays interest, you're not going to get any of that interest if the bank simply leaves your money sitting in its vault.

Interest, in short, is the cost of borrowing money. If I lend you $5 I won't charge you. I'll expect it back (although experience has shown that's usually a futile expectation), but I won't tell you you have to pay me back $5.50. If you borrow $90,000 from me - I will charge you interest. I will also demand the right to investigate you, to see if you have a track record of borrowing and paying back. If you have a record of "often" paying back, I might just say "okay, I'll lend you the money you need, but to guard against the risk of you not paying me back, I'll charge you more interest." And then I'll proceed to see if you can, theoretically, sustain those payments. (That's one of the quirks of the system.)

Now, Jimmy's bank is sitting on a few million dollars of interest payments per month. A few hundred thousand go out in interest payments on savings accounts. That still leaves millions of dollars sitting doing nothing. Gathering dust, perhaps, but this is not the New York Fed. What can the prudent bank manager do with all that money?

Well, as it happens she runs a business. It's called a bank. She can lend you some of that money. Which, as it happens, is a really good thing for that business your employed by. Let's say that the business is wonderfully run, but that sometimes the calendar for paying wages and collecting payments doesn't quite line up. The boss needs a few hundred thousand to pay his wages, but business has been good, but the payments aren't going to start until next week. Can he ask his employees to hold off on receiving their salary checks? Unless you're a Republican boss: No. You agree to work for $2,000 per month; the people you owe money to won't be sympathetic if you're a little late in payment because of your boss's inability to manage a calendar.

So, the boss has two options: a mutiny. Or get a loan. He gets a short term loan. Not a lot of interest, he's proven he can pay the bank back next week, but the bank is not a charity. It wants to be paid for its loan, so it charges some interest.

Now, adding it all up - and the bank realizes it can't quite pay all those checks people have written, or fulfill all those loans it has promised. It knows that it can do so by the end of business, tomorrow, but not "right now". So it asks its competitors if they can loan it some money, overnight. One or two say "yes". But how much to pay? Well, as it happens, this is an important detail of banking: everyone seems to go by the London banks inter-bank loan rate. It's published in the paper, and you know exactly how much such and such a loan will cost you. As a bank manager you don't mind paying the interest: you charge some percentage for your "long term" and "short term" loans, and the overnight interest rate is always lower. So you can still make money. You're a business, remember.

You're a little concerned about a local business that just won a major job. To do the job, they need a large quantity of cash. Let's say they've won the State contract to build 1,000 miles of Interstate. They need new machines, more guys to do the work, more asphalt and so on. They need money. A lot of it. You promised some of it to them, but not all of it.

So they go looking for someone to fund the bit you can't. Let's say they need $100,000,000 over 5 years. The project might stretch beyond that, but the initial projections are thus. You are no longer the only mortgage broker in town; Humphrey Bogart just opened an office down the street. He's tough, and he seems to have an endless supply of money. No wonder - he's persuaded foreign investors and big banks that he knows the local market, and can make them lots of money. And this is where it gets complicated.

I lost Sarah Palin awhile back. I hope you have more fortitude. :-)

Well, it's actually pretty simple. Mr Bogart figured out how to make money from the difference in payments between what you actually pay and what the bank collects as interest. Remember, a mortgage is principal and interest. Additionally, he told home buyers that they didn't need the conditions your bank forced upon them. They could buy a house, at 10% down. He'd arrange the loan for the 10%. Gradually he lowers the barriers even further; eventually he's got dealers hanging outside of school yards. If a kid gets pocket money, never mind an allowance, they can get a mortgage on a beautiful McMansion. Sign here, sir.

He also figured out that if he bundles mortgages, he can sell the entire lot to someone else. So he takes all of these mortgages and refinancings and he puts them into bunches; a 100 here, a 100 there. Each bundle represents, say, $250,000,000 in home values, and $600,000,000 of mortgage payments. If, if everyone carried their mortgages to "term", ie final payment. But the important thing to note is the home values: $250,000,000. As long as home prices keep climbing, the bunches of mortgages will make money. Supposedly.

People trip over themselves to buy Mr Bogart's offerings. He explains that they could make 5% on the investment, and that its a sure thing. People take a long, hard look at the loans, Mr Bogart's history, and the history of bundled loans and mortgage defaults.

You're paying your $270 a month mortgage, happy as can be. You work for your small company, and life is good.

But then someone notices that the bundles Mr Bogart is selling can't be quantified. They seem to be contain a lot of loans that people are having trouble paying back. The riches are not rolling in. They are not even slouching in after a wild night out. So these lenders look at who owns the mortgages; they can't figure that out.

The big banks, meanwhile, have been funding Mr Bogart to the hilt. And some of his competitors. Those guys stood outside of kindergartens. But they made sales. They persuaded people that they could afford a mortgage that was actually greater than their take home pay. And they bundled the mortgages they sold, and passed them on.

All of the money for those mortgages had to come from somewhere. When we sold our house in Brooklyn, I wasn't content with a "we'll owe you". I wanted a large number on my bank statement. The buyer's bank had to tell our bank that our account had just acquired a sum of money. Our bank was happy to record the transaction as long as the paying bank reduced their capital by the appropriate amount.

Think it was complicated before? Well...

Remember "capital" - the amount of money a bank had to have "on hand", by law? Well, it turns out you don't need to hold your capital in gold deposits. You can hold it in other "instruments". The safest instrument in the world happens to be US Treasury bonds. The United States has the same problem banks have: they might, on any given day, need to pay out more than they collect. So they need to borrow money. It's actually one of the ways the Federal Reserve controls inflation, but we'll ignore that. For now.

(I'm getting tired. I didn't realize I was writing a damn text book.)

So the bank buys Treasury bonds. These can be converted to cash pretty quickly, and are safe. Meaning "there's a better chance it will snow in hell" than you not get paid back, with interest, on your loan to the US Treasury. A bond, I should explain, is a loan with a coupon (an interim payment) and a final payment. You give the US Treasury a $10,000,000 and they will pay you back that money plus interest. Plus some payments in the meantime if the bond is long term (30 years, perhaps.) A 30 year bond of $1,000,000 might be worth $990,000 to someone who needs $950,000 right now.

But some clever folk come along. They're called "quants" and they do complicated things with money that they are supposed to understand, but don't. They tell you, and Mr Bogart, that they can make you more money than you ever dreamed of - if you will accept that they don't really understand what they're selling. So you say "sure, here's $25 a week". They promise to turn it into $1,000 within a month. They're selling "derivatives". The essential nature of these beasts is not a concern; but to put it lightly, a conman would have a hard time flogging these things.

Did it suddenly get complicated? Well, it's about to get surreal, too.

Remember those bundled mortgages? Remember how "you" (okay, I'm mixing some identities up. Sue me. Which is probably not a good thing to suggest in a post such as this) checked on the creditworthiness of those who borrow money from you? Well, your bank checked to make sure you had a track record of paying your loans back. Remember that? Well, as it happens - that check wasn't always done.

Loosened regulations meant it didn't have to be done. If you're in the business of selling mortgages, and checking that someone can pay it back is additional cost to you, but you don't have to do it... Would you? Just to add spice, you're not actually holding the mortgages more than 3 months. Those home owners make the first 3 payments (you know they can, because you lent them enough money to make the first 4 payments) and you are free and clear. You bundle the mortgage in with other such mortgages - and sell it to the guy who gave you the money in the first place. You get the interest payments on the first few payments, and someone got clever and divvied up the remaining interest payments. They got the money they gave you, as mortgage lender, from people who wanted to lend it. If you didn't promise stellar returns (high interest), your money supply dried up. And Stan Laurel, opening a mortgage shop a little further down the street, got the money instead.

But... As a mortgage maker, you need money on a day to day basis. It's no good waiting for your bundle to sell - those house buyers need their mortgage now. So you tap the interbank loan market. You know: the overnight loan business. And then some. You go to the guy who's promised you zillions of dollars, and he gives it to you. You're sitting on a pile of cash. A small bank in Omaha needs a million by midnight; you'll get the few thousand interest payment and the million back by end of business, tomorrow. No problem. You offer loans on the interbank circus. Erm, circuit.

But that stupid someone has done some investigation. They've discovered that you don't actually check if people can pay their mortgages. All you've done is ensure they can pay the first three months. And some, some unknown number, of people have mortgage payments that exceed their monthly income. All those riches? Oh, they just vanished.

Fortunately, someone else holds the deeds to those mortgages. Big Wall St firms. Not to worry, they can weather the storm.

So you look at your overnight lending.

And you notice that the banks that you lend to might have some problems. Better not lend to them. They might not pay you back.

And then the true horror starts to appear. Your neighbors, in their lust for money and your ability to sell it, have taken on far too much debt. They stop buying houses. They stop renovating them. They can't afford the payments. They put off buying a new car until next year. They turn around and instead of accumulating debt, they either start to pay off their loans, or go bankrupt. Both scenarios are bad, and they're happening. Right now.

You're in charge. What do you see?

Banks, all of sudden aren't lending to each other overnight. They're worried the other bank won't be around at close of business, tomorrow. And that is the disaster that caused the Depression.

(I did say accuracy wasn't in this post. That statement about interbank lending? That's accurate.)

All of a sudden banks, big and small, can't pay the interest on savings. They can't make loans, because they can't get the money to make the loan.

And then an evil financial player, hidden until now, raises its ugly noggin'. It's the consumer loan business. Car loans, refrigerator loans, credit card loans (remember those Amex payments? They have to be funded, somehow. Costco is not going to be happy with a "we'll pay you when we get paid!" What if you don't get paid?) and so on. Small companies go to the bank expecting, because they have a good credit record, to get a loan and are told "sorry, we can't get the money to give you a loan!" But the bank is looking hard at its partners, and they're all sitting on piles of cash. But because no one knows who can pay a loan back, no one is willing to lend. And then there's the capital rules.

This is where Sarah Palin's head explodes.

A big bank can be sitting on a vast pool of capital. If it's an investment bank, all it needs is the ability to cover most of a day's trades. ... Oops. If that capital is made of mortgages no one can actually figure the value of - because no one knows how many of those mortgages will ever be repaid - what the bank thought was trillions of dollars of capital - suddenly isn't. It actually becomes worthless.

But we also have the problem of small business loans. They're not happening. They're warm sunny days in Siberia. In winter. Companies can't pay people; construction companies suddenly find they're facing cancellations. Money dries up. Car companies can't get the money they need to fund car purchases. Besides which, fewer people are entering the showrooms. So less money is needed, but that's simply fuel for the fire: if you're not selling as many cars, how can I (as lender) know you're going to repay me? Never mind the interest payments, how about actually pay me back what I gave to you? (This is the zero interest nightmare the Fed entered into at the beginning of 2009).

So I have trillions of dollars of money. What do I do with it? I park it in super safe Treasury bills. I know the US Treasury will pay me back. (Why this is known is a different problem altogether. Contrary to popular opinion, the Treasury does not print the money. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks do that. And they are independent of the Treasury. Something budding democracies and Argentina might be wise to take note of.) I should note that Britain's Bank of England plays a similar role; it's just not as independent as you might think it is, or want it to be. (Actually, most people don't like independent central banks. But I think that's because they're the guy that points out that doing that will invite the cops to the party.)

After all that - you're no longer making $2,000 per month. You got laid off. You're getting unemployment and are having trouble making your payments. Health insurance? Forget it. (Oops. There goes another economic factor.) Your mortgage? You'll take it as comes. A new car? You can't afford Christmas or Hannukah presents for the kids. You're not going to get a new car. You dreamed of a fast boat. Well, it's going to be a dream for awhile longer.

And that is the end of Modern Finance 101.

Don't act, don't pour money into the banks (who decided to pour the money into super-safe Treasury bills... Defeating the entire purpose of the fiscal injection) and you end up with a depression. How do we know? Because the only difference between 1929 and 2008/9 was the quantity of money involved.

The banks were given a trillion dollars to lend to small businesses. What was not foreseen was that they didn't do that at the level they should have. Everyone blames Obama, but it's really the banks. And the consumers.

So when a Republican asserts that regulations caused the Great Recession, look at them askance. Point them in this direction and ask them to explain how reduced regulation could help when it actually precipitated the crash.

Whatever you do, don't ask Glenn Beck or his boss Sarah Palin. Their heads will explode.

Carolyn Ann

Going through That Purity Pledge

The Republican Purity Pledge, like all Purity Pledges, is a meaningless bit of drivel. But the Republicans are hoping to raise an effective opposition to the Democrats with this bit of nonsense. They also seem to think it might help them in next year's mid-terms. Yeah, well...

Anyway, I've decided to go through it, bit by miserable bit.

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Let me see: the global economy imploded under George Bush's "hands off" approach to governing. If the stimulus hadn't passed (the first effort of which was under Bush, by the way), we'd be at the start of a depression. It would be a long depression, too. The stimulus is needed because the alternative would be a dereliction of duty and fiscal responsibility.

The powers that be haven't done a very good job explaining why we'd fall into a global depression, but that's no reason to oppose sensible, if inadequate, measures to prevent a depression. Which would destroy business' quicker than the Republicans could find a microphone to whine into.

The only possible conclusion is that the Republicans no longer understand business, or fiscal responsibility. They also don't understand that sometimes you need to apply a tourniquet, which hurts like hell, but often does save what it's supposed to.

====

2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

I'd dispute this, but it doesn't even make sense. The Republican health care proposal was, essentially, written by the lobbyists representing the insurance companies. It was a shot in the foot. They're ignoring their complete lack of meaningful contribution to what is a crisis.

The Republicans know that Medicare is the most popular government program out there. They also know that people like the government providing a safety net: it's what killed conservative Social Security "reform". People also hate, not distrust, not dislike but hate their insurance companies. They also know that premiums have gone up, coverage has gone down and that insurance company profits have gone through the roof.

This isn't about "Obama's government run health care", it's about protecting the competitive nature of American business and it's about giving people a fair break. The Republicans claim to be doing that, but hypocritically, they aren't doing a thing about any of it. They're protecting a narrow, but very wealthy, interest group. Hypocrisy might not win votes, but they're going to try it, anyway.

===

3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Translation: We don't believe in global warming.

If you fill a bath tub of water with drops of red dye, eventually the water turns red. It's a fairly simple process - at some point the quantity of red dye becomes predominant. It's the same with the atmosphere: pour enough junk into it, and at some point that junk will overwhelm all else. The problem is that we don't know where that point is. But the Republicans are willing to find out.

===

4. We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

What are they? Communists all of sudden?

This isn't even worth a mention! What they actually propose is yet another meaningless assault on unions. You know, the people who brought you the forty hour week, weekends, and paid vacation. (For those lucky enough to have those.)

===

5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses" But only if we like them?

Racism dressed in pretty clothes. That's all this is.

As a purely practical matter, if Americans were willing to work the hours, for the pathetic pay checks, that many illegal immigrants work - this wouldn't be a debate. Instead, the Republicans pick on a group that can't defend itself. The upshot is that any non-white immigrant becomes the target of hateful vitriol. Especially if they can't speak English very well.

Racism dressed in pretty clothes. It's a staple of populist outrage. The Republicans aren't even trying with this one - they're pandering to the likes of the Michigan Militia, the Arizona Minutemen, the closet racists (plenty of those around) and those who think America should be white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant.

===

6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

No they don't. The Republicans can't even define what "victory" means in those places.

Interestingly, they support "military recommended" troop surges. Never mind the cost to the troops, their families, and the Treasury. This is in direct confrontation with their first point about fiscal responsibility. If their Republican President had refrained from a meaningless war in Iraq, we'd be a lot better off. If the Republicans hadn't poisoned the debate over Iraq, all the while ignoring Afghanistan, we'd be a lot better off.

This one is almost meaningless, and where meaning does exist, it's a contradiction of their historical stance, and of their first point. It also reminds me that, happily, America is a nation where the military is led by civilians. When the military get what they want, every time, we end up with the problematic military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The Republicans clearly support this idea; perhaps they'd prefer America to be a very powerful banana nation?

===

7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Absolutely meaningless. The Republicans deplore talking to these nations, never mind trying to eliminate their nuclear threat! This is fantasy, pure fantasy.

===

8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

We're all for smaller government, less government and keeping the government out of people's lives, but only when you're not icky, or a woman trying to get health care. Yup, that works...

Equal rights for all is not a shorthand for "equal rights for you, you, you and you, but not you or you".

===

9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

I'd try to decipher this one, but I don't have that many years in front of me.

===

10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

This can be translated as "we support the 2nd Amendment and the NRA", with the footnote "but we're not so sure about the 1st or the ACLU". If you doubt that, just consider this entire list: you have to support eight of the ten points to be considered a conservative, or a Republican. That's not free speech, that's towing a party line.

===

Overall, this "purity pledge" is a bit of meaningless, reactionary drivel. Unfortunately, it seems to be a line of thinking that is endemic on both the left and the right: you have to support these things, otherwise you can't be whatever it is someone assumes you want to be a part of.

I didn't go into the basic principles behind it, nor did I explore how each of its points have consistency; I didn't need to, because there is no basic consistency behind it. It's fairly anti-American: ensuring that all are not equal is not exactly an American ideal. It doesn't matter what the reason is (although religion does rear its ugly head), America has, as a guiding and first principle, the "pursuit of happiness". Look, it's here:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Right in the Declaration of Independence.

The Republicans basically say "you can't pursue happiness as we straight people can, because you're gay! Yuk." They also assert that the insurance companies and their shareholders have more rights on governing your health care and financial future than you do. And women can't be equal to men because the rights they enjoy over their bodies are meaningless.

A good amount of this nonsense appeals to American Exceptionalism; instead of acknowledging that being a super-power is not a zero sum game, this pledge asserts that not only is it such, but that if we keep on deluding ourselves, America will always be the top dog! The world is entering a period of history that is full of turmoil; it's going to get worse before it gets better. By pretending that America is immune from these changes, the Republicans ensure that America gets ignored, and left behind in them. Instead of taking action, and protecting American interests as they exist in the world today, these idiots want to protect, well, I have to admit I'm not entirely sure. Big business? It does seem they want a return to the days of the Robber Barons.

This Purity Pledge will be a shot in the foot for the Republicans. It will appeal to their more reactionary base, but it will be distasteful to those the independent voter. American voters have a habit of rejecting hard line candidates - and this pledge ensures only the hard liners will get the money and support of the Republican National Committee. Let's hope the Republicans have the sense to discard this ridiculous nonsense and start to become an intelligent opposition. So far, this proves they are merely the Party of No. They probably believe this will be a shot in the arm. It's not: it's a rather large shotgun they are pointing at their boots. I wonder if they will pull the trigger?

Carolyn Ann

The Republican Purity Pledge

You now have to take a pledge to be a Republican. If you disagree with 3 things on the list, you're not allowed to be a Republican. In other words: "don't think for yourself, we've done it for you".

Here's the list:

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

4. We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Oh, you could go through it point by point, refuting this, that or some other aspect - but it hardly seems worth the effort. The whole thing contradicts itself. It's basically a "not" list; it's a paean to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. It's anti-American, and you can't mount an opposition with it, never mind propose how you can govern from it!

Whatever happened to the Republican Party, this is not the cure. What ails them could never be fixed with a meaningless list; it needs a fundamental restructuring away from reactionary platitudes. It needs to regain the intellectual honesty of William F. Buckley.

Okay, it is worth going through the thing, one point at a time. That's the next post. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Labour's Electoral Message

As a prior member of the Labour Party, I feel a need to help them out their current fix. They need a slogan. They desperately need a slogan. After all, they don't seem to have anything else.

So here are some suggestions:

Labour - we're not Maggie lovers

Vote Labour! God knows we need you to

If we get rid of Gordon, will you vote Labour?

Labour! You labour, we don't. (Erm, that one didn't quite work out)

Labour! You used to, and we still don't! (Nope, that's not going to do it)

Vive Le Labour! (Damn furriners.)

Vote Gordon! Erm, we mean Labour!

Labour: We don't have David!

Labour! Screwing you for years!

Labour! We screw you less than the Tories! <-- This one has some promise

Labour! What do we stand for? Vote now!

Let's take a look at Obama's "Change you can believe in":

Labour: Were no change!

The Tories aren't a change!

Vote Labour! We promise change! (tuppence here, penny there.)

David doesn't even change his underpants! <-- This one, perhaps?

Hmm. Just some ideas they might want to mull over.

Carolyn Ann

A big bit of it

David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, is arguing that within 50 days of taking office he will implement an austerity budget. Because the budget deficit Britain is currently running, about £20 billion ($32 billion, give or take), is so high - the British government might have to cut back.

Oh. My. God.

Or. Not.

The recession is ending, cutting spending will bring about a double-dip recession. Especially as there's no real sign that British employers are adding employees. (Unemployment currently stands at about 7.8%; far better than the US 10+%)

If, as is assumed, Mr Cameron gets the PM spot, the only financial cuts he can really make are in social services, the NHS and the military. The rest is pledged and can't be touched. Youth unemployment would be worse, soldiers won't be buying their own boots, but they might be funding the rest of their war kit, and the NHS is one of the most inefficient organizations in the world. It could do with a few less admin types, and a bit more accountability.

Overall, David Cameron is successfully producing a crisis when there isn't one. Labour, on the other hand, are not exactly "masters of the message". It would help if they had one.

Carolyn Ann

Well, the cheek of them!

A couple in Britain want to be civil unionized. Is that a decent term? It's the only one I can think of.

Sodding indecent of them, if you ask me.

I mean: fancy pointing out the idiocy of this newly invented, entirely fanciful and absolutely nightmarish institution: the civil union. They should get married. Like any other straight couple that wants to get married. :-)

What do they think they are? Gay?

Carolyn Ann

The lack of posting

It seems customary to excuse oneself upon the event of not posting as frequently as one usually does. So, I will furnish the expected explanation:

I'm busy. Whaddya want?

Channeling Dick Cheney,

Carolyn Ann

Ideal Christmas Gift

Unfortunately this isn't available for motorcycles. :-(

However, it would make the perfect Christmas gift. :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS Make sure you check out the endorsements!

Murdoch and Microsoft take on Google

In my previous post, I pretty much dismissed Rupert Murdoch's efforts to change how Internet users get their news stories. I didn't address his reportedly forthcoming deal with Microsoft.

Apparently Microsoft is willing to pay Mr Murdoch a small stipend for his content. Considering the valuation of his Google dealings are south of $12 million a year, Microsoft is probably not paying very much at all.

It's a vague effort to make Microsoft's search engine, Bing, relevant.

It's going to take a heck of lot more than that, too. Google is not staying still, and it has grown organically. Despite its monopolistic position and practices, being a verb infers far too many advantages. I do with Microsoft would stop being so stuffy-corporation and old-school, and started thinking about the Internet as something other than a playground they need to consume. Google really could do with some viable, energetic competition. We'd benefit - the consumer always does when firms compete for their attention.

As it is, any Microsoft-Murdoch marriage will be as irrelevant as a shotgun at a virgin's wedding.

Carolyn Ann

Murdoch v Google

If this were a pair of pugilists, duking it out, the card would be a little empty.

Rupert Murdoch, owner of much of the western world's news reporters, is arguing that Google is "stealing" his content. He wants them to pay for it. The newspaper industry is fascinated because Mr Murdoch might be onto something: a way of generating revenue with the Internet.

According to John Gapper, Google probably delivers about $12 million per year to the Wall St Journal. So Mr Murdoch look at the data and decided it didn't make sense to continue. He's even threatened the MySpace/Google deal, which is a fairly meaningless gesture. The biggest problem with such threats: who uses MySpace anymore?

I can't help but think that the pundits have it wrong - content doesn't want to be free, but people really don't like paying for something if they don't have to. The Internet has bred a cultural expectation that content will be free. How much was paid for this post, for example?(You were overcharged! Demand a refund! :-) ) Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, websites, and so on, are all free. The NY Times, the Guardian and so on are free, and littered with ads. r Murdoch has not said how his new paid-subscription system would work; it's safe to assume advertising will be a part of it.

The one subscription that might work, Yahoo's premium email service ($19.95/year) works. The Flickr subscription model wouldn't work for the Wall St Journal: you pay to upload content, and for some valuable features, but looking at the pictures remains free. Mr Murdoch is probably looking at the "traditional" business model for inspiration; it's what he knows, after all. You pay for the content, and he supplies it. The only difference is that the cost of distribution is shared, and his material costs are lower. If you want that article on paper, you pay for it; he has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure it could work. Readership would go down, and then likely as not bounce up a bit. People will pay for content that is valuable; heck, I'd pay about $20 a year for the NY Times. I expect the Huffington Post to pay me if its decline into tabloid nonsense continues.

Which raises an interesting point: aggregators, such as the Huffington Post, have not been considered by Mr Murdoch. At least it seems that way; he's not made any mention of them. They drive traffic to the newspapers, simply because so many people prefer to look at the Huffington Post and let them decide what is interesting, or not. Considering the number of Wall St Journal articles the Huffington Post finds interesting, I'm not sure it's worth considering aggregators. That's definitely a mistake - aggregators are just starting to figure out their business models. Digg, Delicious, Facebook, Huffington Post and so on - all slightly different aggregation models, but all posing a silent threat to any pay-for newspaper business model. If aggregators don't point to your articles, do they actually exist? Essentially, no they don't.

I see nothing wrong with paying a subscription fee to the NY Times, or the Guardian. Like I said, about $20 a year, each, would be a reasonable price. But I would expect a lot of their articles to be freely available, as well. I'm not sure where the paid/free divide would be, but it wouldn't take too long to find out. If the difference was a NY Times or none, I'd definitely get out my wallet.

Mr Murdoch seems to be confused about the difference between certain print products, which people happily pay for, and Internet-delivered news reporting. Which people are not so willing to continually pay for. What I do expect is that Mr Murdoch will botch this "experiment". He's too beholden to his old business models of discount and overwhelming volume. Oddly, that doesn't work on the Internet.

Carolyn Ann

Comparisons to the Holocaust

I was thinking about the comparison "Queen" Emily made in her latest bit of rhetorical nonsense: she equates the random murders of transgendered individuals with the systematic destruction of between 6 million and 9 million individuals

Oh, she goes some way to saying "I'm not saying, but..." Any which way you pour it, it comes out as rancid.

How, exactly, do you get away with such a comparison?

The murder of anyone is a tragedy, but it's not the state-sponsored, society-condoned murder of people. The transgendered are not packed into cattle cars, some dying before they get to their concentration camp destinations.

Such comparisons go far beyond Godwin's inane law - they insult history. And they confuse a very real problem with a despicable fantasy.

I believe Ms Emily owes an apology to the transgender community, and to the survivors of the Holocaust.

Carolyn Ann

Hmm.

I tried to tell the Mrs about a fascinating topic, today. She wasn't very interested. The topic? Reduced air pressure in the crankcase of an engine.

There's a fascinating article about it in the latest Racecar Engineering.

I can't think why she wasn't interested. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Rewriting Sarah

Sarah Palin is being reconsidered: she's no longer a bimbo. She's now a bimbo with power. Sort of. She's still claiming to speak for America, but she hasn't noticed that she's speaking only to those who like her. And Glenn Beck.

The pundits are starting to notice that her lack of policy understanding is what appeals to many. Her fans are not big on intellectual debates or nuanced policy understanding; they prefer the promise of George Bush - but won't mention him because they blame him for the economic collapse, the lack of their religion in the public sphere and a few other issues. But even that's going away - voters are starting to blame Obama for the recession! Admittedly, he's not exactly helping himself at this point.

The knee-jerk reactionaries have found in their two idols, Sarah and Glenn, the perfect antidote to, ... erm, yeah. I'm not exactly sure! I doubt they know either, considering the schizophrenic protest signs we see at Tea Parties. I think they're actually protesting a rapidly changing world. Banal, confused Luddite protestations seem to be kindling for Glenn Beck. Interestingly, Mrs Palin seems to be the leader; Mr Beck is definitely the second fiddle. Even the ignorant rhinoceros of the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh, has been swept to the aside. It seems that the conservatives need to latch onto Sarah if they're going to be heeded.

The conservatism being espoused is not intellectual; it's not even thoughtful. It's blind, hateful and fearful. It's certainly not optimistic. Ronald Reagan's facetious superficially shiny beacon is the goal; fortunately for all, so to speak, what that might be is never defined beyond a few meaningless platitudes.

The rewriting of American ideals is astonishing, but to be expected, considering the changes we're seeing in the world. It's a continuation of the reactionary, racist fear-mongering of Father Coughlin and coupled with the cynicism of Richard Nixon and the false individuality of Ronald Reagan. Just as the conservatives seek to rewrite American history and their opponents' views, so they are rewriting themselves. What's particularly egregious is their rewriting, restructuring, of what America stands for.

"Misunderestimating" Sarah is likely to be as painful as underestimating George Bush's capacity for hubris. She's not going away, and she will be whatever her audience wants her to be. She's capable of leading it, and she is not really aware that she is also defined by it. (If she is, it's at a very superficial level.) Her audience looks at the massive social changes happening, and they're told to believe that equality is a zero-sum game. While Glenn Beck stokes their fears, she steps in and offers a solution - just don't go looking for it. It's as ephemeral as the feared thing. In dictating to their acolytes, these two dread-mongers offer nothing - a whimsy of a time that never existed, an America that is not recognizably American, and a zealotry that can't withstand a breeze of dissent.

Mrs Palin will be around for awhile; if she's wise, she won't run in 2012. However, she's not wise, but she's not foolish, either. She has a lot of support, but it's not a powerhouse. Her audience is narrowly defined, and she is uninterested in expanding it or herself. She doesn't have the capacity to trust her audience. And that will be her downfall.

Carolyn Ann

Just to be clear

Just to be clear, Ms Emily:

If you say you're a woman, and you defend a two-time rapist because he can't get a sex change on the taxpayers' dime: you're a fool.

The man was given furlough after his first rape. Why, I have no idea. He then proceeded to rape another woman. Violently. Very violently. And then he claims he's really a woman... And you trust him in that claim? What are you? Naive and stupid or just stupid?

If you place his claim to gender treatment above his crimes, you're a sentimental twit. If you place his gender claims outside of his crimes - you're a naive fool.

How the hell do you trust a rapist with his history?

How the hell do you claim you're supporting women? You place claimed gender above actual gender, and you dismiss the crimes of a violent rapist? How, exactly, does that work?

I'd like to know. Because I don't think a man who lied his way into furlough, so he could rape again (almost killing his victim, I should add), can be trusted to tell you if the sky is blue on a cloudless day. I also have a hard time figuring out how its supporting anyone to say it's "misgendering" when the rapists motives can be cast in such a light!

Listen up, dear, I've had a little more than a fracas or two with bigots. If you still feel a need to poke fun at me because I've been raped, you go right ahead. I'll wait while you do. You clearly don't think rape victims deserve a fair hearing - how misogynist of you! You obviously value the trans bit of transgender more than you do anything else. You're as bigoted as the people you purport to criticize.

Are you really so shallow, so naive, so unthinking?

Carolyn Ann

Offense is taken

Somebody left a comment on Jessica Who's blog, where "that" was a reference to a wife. Offended, I offered: "I so desperately want to say “whom”. Not “that”! She’s not an object. She’s a person: a whom, a who."

But I won’t. Did.

Someone else offered, in a different forum: "Who is being mourned is the most important question of all." Whom might be mourned, indeed? How pathetic: not only does Queen Emily need to explain her reference (her audience being, clearly, too stupid to understand), but she needs to explain what everyone's task is! Survival, if you have a doubt.

Oh, she's not comparing the murder of transgendered individuals to the Holocaust. No siree. She's just invoking the comparison. It's up to the reader to make the connections.

Note to Queen Emily: I do not count myself under your umbrella for the purposes of you invoking some sentimental clap-trap.

I take offense, on a linguistic level, at this:

he murder of trans people, which horrific, is not institutionally organised towards genocide in quite the same way

It's "while", dear. While horrific.

So you are comparing the Holocaust to the murder of the transgendered? If you weren't, you wouldn't write such a sentence. As a person, I take grave offense at the analogy. Sod Godwin's playful little "law": what you, Queen Emily, are saying is that there's a systematic extermination of the transgendered!

I did write an direct refutation, but I've been far too profane of late.

My offense, as a person, to such words I will not note. I will note that horror is best conveyed with grammatically correct sentences.

The defender of a violent two-time rapist whom wants a sex-change (at taxpayer expense, of course) is not exactly holding the moral high ground in this debate. Especially when she also writes about the crimes against the transgendered. Whom is the more important? The violent rapist, or the transgendered murder victim? To whom are we to feel more sorrow for? The violent rapist who can't get a sex change, or the murder victim, murdered because she was transgendered? Does the rapist get a pass because he wants to become a woman? His violence was because he couldn't be a woman, and this is what? Meaningless? You betray your own prejudice, Queen Emily. And your cohorts in the bastard's defense do too.

Hypocrisy is not a desirable character flaw.

How do you argue the transgendered deserve a fair chance, when you defend a violent rapist?

How?

Carolyn Ann

Hey Lilly

Hey Lilly ran out in the road

Hey Lilly ran out in the road

She wanted to see

what it was like

and Hey Lilly ran out in the road

(It's unfinished)

Carolyn Ann

Midnight mutterings

I feel I've been off my game, lately. Sudden distractions can have that affect, I guess. Ah well, life goes on.

I'm working on a couple of other ideas; I don't know when they'll be released, but I think they've got some use. I was reading a book about mobile systems development; why doesn't everyone just call it what it is: "developing for the iPhone"? As Ms MacKenzie points out - the competition isn't exactly catching up with the device. Which essentially leaves the iPhone.

The book, an O'Reilly offering, told me the mobile market is worth about one trillion dollars, annually and globally. I'm not so sure. I think it's probably closer to about a quarter of that. Why? Because a trillion dollar industry doesn't escape attention. And the comparisons in the book were a little dubious; the entire beverage industry was projected at about half a trillion; the last figure I read was about $386B. A small difference, perhaps?

So I'm ignoring the mobile market. Well, perhaps I'm not. I will, of course tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a blog that has an unknown number of readers. Will someone please define each instance of truth (or "truth") in the relevant sentence?

Speaking of which, you might have noticed that I actually did switch Google Analytics "on". I was having a problem with an "Anonymous" coward, and I figured it was a good way to start figuring out whom it was. I was, erm, wrong. There isn't enough information. I'm not going to switch the thing off, but instead I'm just going to ignore it. Unless my troll comes back - in which case they might be surprised to know that I did figure out how to use Analytics to figure out who they might be.

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out this "following" thing. I noticed I follow some blogs; I'm not at all sure how that happened. At least they're decent reads! :-)

Onto other subjects.

I nearly slammed into an idiot on an ATV the other night. There's me, doing my usual, normal velocity, and all of a sudden some kid on a small ATV appears in front of me! His vehicle has lights, but he must have thought they would attract attention because his lighting source was a flashlight. It might as well have been a candle. Outside its glass jar. There's a reason you have to know how to swerve on a bike. There's also a reason I love Brembo brakes - especially the dual-rotor ones on the Ducati. :-) He shot out of a junction, doing twists and pirouettes, and I couldn't see him, or hear him. Idiot. He nearly took both of us out because he didn't want to attract attention. (Meanwhile, he's trying to be a vehicular Nureyev. Go figure.) There's a time for harsh words: fucking idiot. My apologies. He's a sodding idiot.

Oh - I nearly took out an SUV. A cat ran in front of me and I braked for it. The woman in the SUV behind me didn't know what the left pedal was for. She did avoid me, though. Whew. She did a little off-roading and the cat and I were fine. :-) (I once nearly did a topsider* to avoid a rabbit. But no one was around to see it, so I'm not sure it happened... :-D )

Other than that, life is full of excitement. I resolved the whole issue that "upset" me the other night. It's a bump in the road, and opportunity I will pursue, but not right now. There could be a zillion competitors in the field and it wouldn't make much difference. There won't be, so I might be able to make a difference.

The Mrs had a spot of bother at work; someone wasn't where they were supposed to be, so they claimed she wasn't. They forgot she has proof of being where she was supposed to be, and they didn't. I'll be glad when she's goes back to her primary profession. Actually, it reminds me of a time when I had two incompetent managers in my office, demanding to know why such-and such was being purchased. They both decided I was at fault. I'd started keeping electronic notes, so I was able to say "at 2:36 in the meeting John said [XYZ] and you weren't there, Richard. So that's what I ordered." Oh dear. :-)

For some reason I always remember the exact time; I had this IBM pen thing, and it recorded the time you started writing. And I knew that. What I especially remember is the look on their faces; one was "oh crap" and the other was "oh crap". Because I immediately forwarded the minutes to all interested parties, including their boss. (Lesson for the day: don't play politics with the guy taking the minutes of the meeting. I was honest; I've known some less than honest minute takers.)

Life is just too exciting right now. Yawn. Heck, the highlight was watching "Shooter" on the telly. It's not a bad movie, it's just not one I'd call good. I did watch "What a Girl Wants" the other night, so I guess the yin-yang new-age-y thing is balanced.

Ah well. Bedtime. I've got a busy few days leading up to Thanksgiving, so I need to get my beauty sleep. (If that's all it took, I'd be well in; unfortunately "beauty" and I don't exactly have much in common. C'est la vie.)

Carolyn Ann

*A topsider is when you flip over the handlebars. I'm told it's really painful and can have detrimental affects on your future.

The Art of Politics

The Voting Public (and non-voting public) always demand the unreasonable from their elected officials. They demand their politicians be both consistent and as pure as freshly fallen snow. And are consistently surprised and angered when it turns out they aren't.

They're also consistently angered when their politician puts ideological consistency ahead of them.

Politics is the art of the possible. It is the art of the possible as managed by a bunch of pontificating idiots. These days, it is increasingly the art of disruption and the crass and coarse. It is also, on the right anyway, the profession chosen by those who can't put a sequence of sentences into proper order. If diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in a way that they look forward to the journey, the far right confuses it with a barroom brawl.

Good politicians know that nuance and persuasion are important tools of the trade. They know that principles, in principle [sic :-) ], can be manipulated a little for the greater good. They persuade the other side, and their side, to support their ideas with a clever mix of the straightforward and the misdirected. It's not a place for the high-minded bigot, fixated on his or her principles to the exclusion of all else.

In other words, it's not a profession for Sarah Palin. :-)

The problem is that the public think their representatives should actually represent them. What they should do, according to extremists on both the left and the right, is adhere to a core set of principles, dictated by some mysterious combination of highly interested groups. In other words: the high-minded idealist gets the support of the interested, and forgets who elected them, and why, in the first place. Instead of realizing that they're their because no one liked their opponent, they assume people like them. Obama and Clinton are the only two Presidents in recent history who got elected because people actually like them!

[Sidebar: I wasn't in the US for Reagan's election, but it seems he got elected because people hated Carter's inept responses to crisis, and despised the Democratic candidates after that. In other words: he won because voters didn't like his opponents. Gordon Brown faces the strong possibility that he'll lose next years election not because no one likes David Cameron - it's that they dislike him more. ]

Politics has always been about talking. It can't be anything else - if it were, it would be a practical trade, and it could be taught in a community college. It isn't a practical trade; it's the trade of charlatans, fools and idealists. The voters prefer someone who can persuade them they don't need to be involved. They prefer short answers and digestible solutions. They prefer grand promises; the careful politician makes sure a mediocre performance matches the grand proclamations. Increasingly, political campaigning has become more about the making "the other" hated; not about actually offering solutions to some very real societal problems. It's easy to vilify your opponent; Bush and Karl Rove demonstrated how effective this really can be. In such an poisoned atmosphere, you are best not offering any suggestions for how things could be better. Maintaining the discredited status quo is more than enough. Politics becomes the art of wallowing in the mud and persuading everyone that you're not dirty.

Politicians will always claim to have public support; very few of them have any name recognition. They're unknown, and yet they claim vast wells of public support. They might have the support of partizan groups, who can supply seemingly endless quantities of money and platitudes, but the support of public? All they do is confuse apathy and active hatred with support for their set-in-concrete ideas.

Politics becomes the art of persuading everyone you're doing your job, when in fact you're doing nothing of the sort. Instead of politics being the art of the possible, it becomes the art of ensuring the impossible. Change is stymied, even when it's desperately needed. Maintaining the status quo, or some idealized version of it, becomes the art of not appearing to be corrupt.

Carolyn Ann

It's time to can Geithner

Now that Tim Geithner's role almost gutless role in the just about gutless bailout of Wall St is becoming apparent - I have to agree with Republican Kevin Brady: it's time Mr Geithner resigned.

The bailout seemed to be a bold move when it was made, but the banks definitely got the better deal. The taxpayer got thoroughly shafted, and it really has become "heads the banks win, tails the bank wins and the taxpayer loses". The mediocre performance of leading public figures stems back to the Bush bailout; that it was carried on is not surprising; Bush, after all, was good for big business. It now looks like a big mistake for Obama to have kept the same people on.

The greed of the banks to the bailout and the schizophrenic response of Congress have both contributed to a perceived failure of the bailouts. Not helping was the tepidness of the White House. Change is not visible in the Wall St bailout.

Unfortunately, the time to do anything about any of it has long past. The Republicans seem to have developed an unfortunate amount of power in Congress, and will happily reflect, and shape, the contradictory public opinion. They'll even be hypocritical about it. They'll continue to demand someone do something about the excessive pay of the Wall St CEO's, while simultaneously saying that the government has no role in such matters. They'll cry about the deficit, and demand looser regulations on Wall St. And Obama and the Democrats will continue to squander the very real public support they had this time last year.

However, keeping Geithner in his job is a sure-fire way of losing public support. The man should be fired; Bernanke should be looking over his shoulder, too.

Carolyn Ann

How quickly winter comes

I'm staring absent-mindedly out of the window, listening to some Pink Floyd, thinking about the events of the past day. The sky has taken on that winter grey, the trees are empty; small clusters of dead leaves riffle in the breeze. It's not cold out there, but it sure looks like it is.

Winter sure has arrived quickly, this year. Time, I think, for some sunshine. :-)

Carolyn Ann