Bill Black is the best financial regulator in recent history, and a voice of sanity in regard to the current banking fiasco.  He was instrumental in resolving the S&L crisis in the '80s and directly responsible for some of the perpetrators of that fraud going to jail.  In a sane world, he would be a lauded figure in the financial industry and his opinions would be sought by the media and politicians.  In the real world, he's been marginalized.

As opposed to the clowns teaching economics at Ivy League schools, Black teaches at the University of Missouri - Kansas City.  Unlike the crooks that advise the President and run the Treasury and the Fed, he has no political influence.  Instead of being sought out by MSM outlets on the very serious and very topical issue of financial fraud, he's writing at the fucking Huffington Post, of all places.  And yes, as dirty as it makes me feel, that's actually a link to the Huffington Post -- it's Black's most recent article there.

While it would be easy to go on a long rant about the government and academia in regard to Black's status among the elite, it would make only a trivial and tired point.  Honest people aren't welcome among politicians, bankers, the MSM, and top educators. Surprise, surprise, yadda yadda yadda.

To me, a much more important point is that Black's status is a clear indictment of the conservative alternate media.  His work should be featured prominently by conservative blogs.  He should be writing articles for National Review (no link, they fucking suck, I'd just as soon read Sullivan).  To their credit, Reason has lots of references to Black, but they're hardly conservative, and Matt Welch is laughingly an Editor in Chief there.  On balance, they're about as good a media outlet as the HuffPo.

Conservatives had best get their heads out of their asses and start taking the financial situation in this country seriously.  While sucking each others cocks over the coming election landslide for the GOP might seem fun, conservatives are setting themselves up to be even more reviled in 2012 than the Dems are now.  If conservatives want to hold power for more than 2 years, if they wish to actually help the USA rather than just play politics, they need to start paying attention to people like Bill Black.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

I believe it's in my blogging contract that I have to weigh in on this, even though the subject's already been written about on every single site in existence.  So rather than state the obvious (no public funds for NPR, etc.), I'll focus on a different idea, one that is more obscure, yet (at least to me) much more interesting.

The biggest problem at NPR seems to be that Williams was also working for Fox.  Apparently, this was a major issue for NPR's listeners as well as its management.  One would think that leftists would appreciate someone trying to espouse and defend their ideas in a conservative arena, so as to convince others of the validity of their ideology.  One would be wrong.

Leftists are so far gone that, not only do they want to live in an echo chamber, they don't want anyone else to know what they are thinking.  This, to me, is the critical point.  They know that their ideology is indefensible, but they don't want to acknowledge it publicly.  The current elections show that, when exposed to the full light of day, their ideology is firmly rejected by most Americans.  Their only option is to retreat into a 'secret society', where not only do they hear solely what they want to hear, nobody else can be privy to their conversations.

Juan Williams was, in part, fired for breaking the leftist echo chamber and acknowledging the real world.  The main reason he was fired, however, was for exposing the bankrupt leftist ideology to others.  That was the truly unforgivable sin.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

While Denninger's latest rant is seriously over the top, I agree with the substance of it to a large extent.

In short, The Tea Party was and is about the the corruption of American Politics and the blatant and outrageous theft from all Americans that has resulted.  It is about personal responsibility and enforcement of the law against those who have robbed, financially ****d and pillaged the nation.

Exactly.  Get the damn social issues out of the equation, please.

The good news is that the 'official' Tea Party organizations and the self-appointed 'leaders' of the Tea Party will rapidly find themselves out in the cold unless they focus on the truly critical issues facing our nation.  If Sarah Palin wants to have any chance of winning the Presidency in 2012 (maybe she does, maybe not, who knows at this point), she better start boning up on economics.

Tea partiers aren't committed to any specific organization and they aren't dedicated to any particular leader.  Any semblance of formal organization is short-term and focused on trying to give us better candidate choices in specific races.  Any organization or leader who thinks they have permanent support is going to be extremely surprised when they find out they have zero support if they don't focus on what really ails us as a nation (I'm looking at you Scott Brown -- later dude -- you served your purpose, now take a hike).

But again, this is the beauty of an energized electorate.  The 'throw the bums out' movement is here to stay, regardless of anyone who might try to co-opt it for their own purposes.  Fuck the Tea Party.  Long live tea partiers.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Perusing the web, I've come across a lot of complaining about the choice for CA Governor.  A lot of people who sat out Obama / McCain (as I did) are threatening to sit this one out too.  Although I agree she's not a wonderful candidate, I still think one should vote for Whitman.

If we're going to throw the bums out, we have to give newcomers a chance, even if they seem less than ideal.  Whitman is all over the place on her campaign statements, but I give little weight to the words of politicians.  I look at their prior history.  With a newcomer, you simply don't have that prior history.

As a GOP-leaning independent, I wanted a new choice for Governer.  I got that -- I may not love the exact person the GOP picked, but I have to acknowledge that I got an outsider.  I'm not going to be a libertarian douchebag and whine that Whitman's not exactly what I wanted.  I'm going to vote for her and hope for the best.  If she sucks (and she probably will), I'll be looking to throw her out on her ass the next time around, but she at least deserves a chance.

Contrast this to Obama / McCain.  McCain is a known political shithead.  He has a long history of being a shithead.  I had very good reasons to sit that election out (and no I'm not looking to go into it all again).  If I want my vote to be considered at all, however, I must be willing to compromise and vote for the GOP candidate when I get enough of what I ask for.

I get it.  Meg Whitman is a mush-brained dodohead who is likely to just try to muddle through the current fiscal disaster.  But she's a new mush-brained dodohead who might actually accomplish something if given a chance.  I still intend to vote for her.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm just about through with calling myself a libertarian.  I've tried putting various descriptors on the term: 'small-l libertarian', 'conservative libertarian', 'non-doctrinaire libertarian', 'practical libertarian', etc., but they neither satisfy nor roll off the tongue nicely.  I'm at the point where I have no idea what to call my ideological bent.

Melissa Clouthier has written a very good piece about how libertarians have completely marginalized themselves.  I'm having difficulty finding a short part to excerpt, so RTWT.  It's not very long.  The point of the article is that, in a year when the Tea Party has had a huge impact, and there is a real choice to be made at the polls in many races, the libertarians are still whining and refusing to vote.

Now, I'm a firm believer in not voting for the lesser of two evils, but one can take this much too far.  One must have some sense of priorities and not let 'the perfect be the enemy of the good'.  I hate that fucking phrase as it's used all the time by people as a way to say, "sure we suck, but we're slightly less sucky, so vote for us," but in this case it's appropriate.  The key is that you need some good, which is why I'm willing to sit out if needed, but you don't need all good, or you'll never vote.  To recognize 'some good', you have to have priorities.

And that's the big problem with libertarians.  Their priorities are completely fucked up.  They deserve the mocking they get as a bunch of stoners, because legalizing pot should be a very low priority item, given everything else that's going on in the country.  In theory, I'm all for legalizing pot, but relative to getting entitlements and government pensions under control, the war on drugs is a fucking drop in the bucket.  If that's your hill to die on, your issue that you're willing to sit out for (or worse, cast a vote for a socialist), you're a fucking asshole.

This is why Ron Paul is such a joke.  He's got all kinds of shady associations.  He's out there talking about a return to the gold standard, when to even get to the point where it could be considered, a zillion other more important things would have to happen first.  Priorities, asshole.  Then, when he proposes important, practical legislation like an audit of the Fed, he has trouble getting taken seriously because he's out there in la-la-libertarian-land so often.

Maybe I should continue to call myself a libertarian, and just call fucktards like Matt Welch something else -- like fucktard.  The problem is that they and others will continue to call them libertarians.  So, I'm kind of stuck at the moment.  I'll just have to keep myself on a practical, prioritized course of action while I come up with a new ideological term.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 07:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Iowahawk is well-known as one of the best humorists on the right, which makes him one of the best humorists in politics, as everyone knows the left has no sense of humor whatsoever.

As with any great humorist, his work is uneven, from screamingly funny and on-point to meh.  His latest piece, using an old-school text computer game to satirize Obama's time as President, is one of the single best things he's ever written.

Why are you here? Go read it before it's linked by every single right-leaning blog in existence (which it will be).

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

It's time to evaluate my choices and make my decisions about the coming elections.  Being in inland Southern California, my primary choices will be in my local House race (Issa / Who Cares), Governor (Whitman / Moonbeam), and US Senator (Fiorina / Ma'am).  In theory, I'm perfectly willing to vote for either party; in practice, in California, voting for a Dem is the same as showering in hydrochloric acid -- incredibly painful, disfiguring, and ultimately fatal.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, so my choice is either to vote for the GOP candidate or sit it out / cast a protest vote.  I would only consider both candidates if they were both good candidates and I had to make a decision about which was better.  As 'good candidate' and 'California Democrat' are mutually incompatible terms, I'll simply evaluate each GOP candidate on their own merits and decide whether they're worth a vote or not.

The House race:  It's always good to be able to get off to an easy start.  Issa is one of the single best House members.  I'd like to see him be even more focused on fiscal issues, have more of a public presence, and bring out the big guns on some major bad actors.  He's on the right path for this, and I have high hopes for his long-term prospects.  Returning Issa to the House is as easy a decision as anyone can ever have in politics.

The race for Governor:  Whitman is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal.   The state of California's finances is so bad, however, that her range of potential action is going to be extremely limited.  To her credit, she's attempting to get out in front of certain issues such as public service pensions, and I think she'll be reasonably proactive in trying to deal with fiscal matters.  I'm not thrilled, but I think she's good enough to get my vote.

The Senate race:  Fiorina is an enigma.  Her tenure at HP was stormy, to say the least, and there are as many opinions on her performance as there are opinionators.  Unlike many, I'm not going to fault her for HP's stock price performance, as her tenure coincided with the collapse of the tech bubble.  She has real fiscal chops; the question is whether she will use them for good (reform) or evil (obfuscation / status quo).  She has the potential to be a brilliant Senator.  She could also be a flop of epic proportions.  Being GOP, she'll be thrown out on her ass in 6 years unless she is brilliant, so I'm going to vote for her and hope for the best.

So there you have it -- GOP votes across the board.  Note that I'm giving no consideration whatsoever to social issues.  This is because I don't give two shits about them.  On the margins, as a libertarian, I'd go for someone who is socially liberal, but at this time social issues are completely dwarfed by fiscal ones.  As none of these candidates have any draconian social positions, my evaluation of them is based strictly on their likely fiscal performance.

I think I'll be 3/3 this year, but it's possible I could be 1/3.  Issa is a sure thing.  Is anyone even running against him?  I didn't bother checking, as I'd vote for Issa over the ghost of Hayek -- that's just how much I like the guy.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 3 kb.

I have a dream of a situation that highlights just how fucked up the US Senate is.  A situation that shows that almost every single sitting Senator is hopelessly corrupt.  A situation in which each vote is important and Senators find it nearly impossible to hide their back-door dealings.  A situation which also forces the administration to get involved and fully reveal the bankrupt policies of Obama.  A situation of such utter gridlock that legislation, except that which is truly popular and needed, would have no chance of passing.

I have a dream of a 50-50 Senate.

If the House is a circus, the Senate is the sewer below the circus into which all the elephant shit and other waste drains.  The only sitting Senator for which I have any admiration is DeMint.  A 50-50 Senate would give him a much bigger platform from which to spread his reformist policies.

A 50-50 Senate would force Joe 'the village idiot' Biden into the spotlight as a possible tiebreaker.  Biden, the clueless dipshit that he is, would bask in the spotlight and do irreparable harm to the Obama administration.

The GOP would prefer to flip the Senate.  I say that this would do far more harm than good, especially in consideration of the 2012 elections.  A 50-50 split would be much more likely to drain the sewer that is the US Senate, keeping the pressure on individual Senators, rather than on the GOP as a whole.

A 50-50 Senate is a very real possibility this year.  I have a dream.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

In order to try to break up the beltway gang that's selling this country down the river, more people seem to be in favor of term limits these days.  Yet I, a huge supporter of 'throw the bums out', think the idea is completely idiotic.  Why?

First, it's lazy -- a direct deriliction of our duty as voters.  If we're willing to throw the bums out, we don't need term limits.

Second, and much more importantly, you get the worst of both worlds.  People who are good public servants get termed out, while those who are willing to whore themselves out have no reason not to.  If a dishonest pol is going to be out, no matter what, after a fixed time, he's going to be completely unrestrained in selling himself.

Lastly, term limits ignore one of the biggest problems in government -- the entrenched bureaucracy.  A good pol that gets termed out has no real chance to cut the huge fat in government.  The bureaucracy can just wait him out, something they're experts at.

Term limits remove incentives for good politicians while doing little to nothing to restrain the bad ones.  They're a terrible idea.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

It turns out that Paladino never actually said the specific remarks that started the whole firestorm over at DPUD.  So, by attempting to frame the debate dishonestly, IVD has just made himself look like a complete and utter tool.

This whole fiasco is a perfect example of why one should frame their points honestly.  Then, when new information comes to light, you can still have a valid argument, rather than a smoking crater where your credibility used to be.

Even though Paladino didn't say those specific words, the facts remain that: (1) He was reading the prepared comments of a third party, and in such a way that they could be misconstrued as his own comments, and (2) He's discussing a very divisive social issue in an election where one should be able to run solely on fiscal issues.  Both of these show extremely bad judgment, at the very least.

If you can't win this year when running against a long-term political insider by focusing on just fiscal issues, you weren't going to win under any circumstances.  Whether or not Paladino is homophobic may be back up in the air, but there's no doubt he's a dipshit and a lousy candidate, which brings us right back to the issue of candidate vetting.

If this debate had been framed honestly from the start, this revelation about what Paladino actually said wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 06:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

One last note on the issue of candidate vetting.  In the aforementioned DPUD post, IVD finally gets around to saying this:

I get the nation's mood. Throw the bums out, all that.  Perfectly fine. I love the idea of new blood and strong primary challenges so that incumbents are either (1) thrown out for a better option or (2) scared into believing that they're not invincible. 

HOWEVER.....

I would prefer that candidates be vetted.  Would it be so much to find candidates who don't think homosexuality is a social disease or identity disorder? Or someone who's had a job in the past 10 years that didn't revolve around suing people? I really don't think that makes me an establishment RINO, but if it does, I'll gladly be one.

Now this is the way to approach the issue.  In fact, if IVD had used this as his original post, I would have mostly agreed with him and the discussion could then have revolved around the best way to get candidates vetted in the current environment.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

This post at dpud, and some of the comments, really bother me.  Not because there is disagreement on the issue of whackjob Tea Party candidates, but because the 'establishment types' seem to think it's fine to mischaracterize (to the point of outright lying about) their opponents' positions.

Look, if I want to listen to a bunch of lies about my positions, I'll read the NYT or watch MSNBC.  I don't need that bullshit on an otherwise excellent blog.

The real issue:  The situation within the GOP is so chaotic that the Tea Party has gotten a few shady characters nominated.  There is a legitimate debate to be had on the vetting of candidates, and whether the 'throw the bums out' movement has gone too far.  I'm all for having this debate and would be willing to do so in a respectful fashion if only those on the other side of the issue would stop lying about my position.

Attempting to use Paladino's homophobic comments to tarnish  the Tea Party as anti-gay is incredibly dishonest.  Making an outright assertion that Chris Christie would never have gotten elected in this environment is a bald-faced lie.  Saying that (paraphrasing) 'if the GOP had vetted candidates better it would have been viewed as a power move'  is complete crap.

Those who believe in a more cohesive, top-down approach to GOP candidates need to start making their points honestly, or I (and many others like me) are going to lump them in with the MSM and tune them right the fuck out.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama has used a pocket veto on HR 3808.  For those not familiar with this issue, see this post at Denninger's place.  Read the comments too, as Denninger has one of the best forum communities going.

Given the huge pending problem with the way in which mortgage titles have been recorded, this veto was incredibly important.  Hell, even the statement at whitehouse.gov sounds Presidential:

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives.  The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents.  As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

I feel like I'm in Bizzaro-World, with a real President or something.  Knowing Obama, this will last all of about 15 minutes, but at least he got a very big one right.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 04:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.