Legal Memo-Random

New Hampshire Debates - Republican and Democratic

Last night was a unique set of debates - first the Republican debate, and then the Democratic debate, in the run up to the 2008 primaries in New Hampshire.

First, the Republican debate.  Romney was terrible.  McCain, who I am not a fan of, shredded him.  Huckabee shredded him.  Pretty much everyone who went after him shredded him.  Its amazing to me how easy and smoothly Romney can give any answer, regardless of its truth.  Its George W. Bush-like.  Frankly, I'd rather not have another president so able to easily lie.  Or, even change his mind as the day requires.  I am obviously not going to vote Republican, but unlike many of my pro-Democratic writers and readers, I found this to be the most enjoyable of the Republican debates.  Guiliani couldn't decide whether he wanted to be president of 9/11 (thank you to the Onion), or Ronald Reagan's son.  Fred Thompson, who in general, is a terrible campaigner, even had a decent debate.  And, I do enjoy Ron Paul (and think that some of what he says makes sense - in a different time and different national circumstance).  I would have to say great night for McCain, very good night for Huckabee (although his conciliatory tone about Obama would probably not win him many votes among chest-thumping Republicans).  Decent night for Thompson (which for him, is a great night - the guy is devoid of any original idea and any compelling way to deliver it).  Guiliani is a one note dead-ender.  His campaign is dead in the water.  As for the Mittster, hard to say, but this wasn't a good night for him at all - especially when the news media is on immediately after showing that your statements are demonstratably wrong.

As for the Democrats, their debate was strange.  The first 1/2 hour or so was painful to watch.  Everyone looked dead-tired, except Edwards, who looked tired, but was able to speak with some passion none-the-less.  Hillary Clinton looked pissed.  Then, they woke up.  Overall, I thought Clinton was pounced on a lot by Obama and Edwards.  She weathered it just fine.  The sad thing is, if this were a male in Clinton's shoes, the story would be that Hillary stood her ground and firmly fought back.  Sadly, because she is a woman, people will think she was being a pissy bitch.  Ahh well.  Either way, its hard for me to understand why Bill Richardson is still on the stage (and I doubt he'll be around after Tuesday in New Hampshire).  Richardson is a terrible speaker, terrible debater, and has a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything.  Worse for him, he will not be a VP candidate - he just doesn't have a good presence.  Overall, I'd say great night for Edwards (considering how tired everyone was, he was the most passionate), good night for Obama, and decent night for Clinton.  Poor night for Richardson.

I still like Edwards.  He is saying things that nobody else is saying - things that have to be said.

It will be fun to see Republicans running on Mittster's type comments about how the 47 million without health insurance simply choose not to have it, and all they need is medical savings accounts.

Bush's Iraq speech

If there ever was a post I could have written a year ago, and just "left alone" as I worked on my day to day life (triathlon, running, work, etc.), this is probably the one.

I watched parts of Bush's speech tonight.  Is there anything new?  Ok, I mean REALLY new - I don't mean CNN fawning over the "troops are coming home next summer" crap - how many times have we heard that troops would be coming home in 6 months (or if you will, one Friedman Unit, or FU - as Atrios likes to refer to it).  This is another meaningless gesture.  Troops may be coming home in 6 or 9 months, but it will be because they simply cannot extend the tours any longer.  There is a limit.  Eventually, Alexander the Great's soldiers wouldn't follow him either, and Bush is certainly no Alexander the Great.  Things are getting better.  The surge is working.  I mean, if you will recall, the last plan was working well, before we had to discard it as a miserable failure (shhhh...don't tell Joe Lieberman - sometimes its dangerous to pop the bubbles that the truly delusional or insane place themselves in).  So goes the surge.  And in 5 months, we'll be trying something new.  AND, when we try something new, Bush will say that the troops could start coming home by November.  CNN at that time will trumpet this as a great new development.  Your so called liberal media hard at work.

I think that Chris Matthews hit it dead on right, when he referred to one of Bush's comments (re: the US is one of 36 nations fighting in Iraq) - its absolutely ludicrous.

So who among our Senators and congress-critters have the cojones to stand up to the current situation and say basta! with regards to funding the war.  If you fund the war, you are enabling the war, just like a parent who funds their child's drug habit.

Time

Sometimes you have time to post, and sometimes you don't.  Let the bloggheria commence.

Iran...Iran so far away...

Come on..no Flock of Seagull fans around here (uhhh, not that I am one, but anyway...)

Lots of news coverage and talk, and increasing beat towards the concept of war with Iran.  I have already argued that a war with Iran would be a major mistake.  Notwithstanding the fact that we probably do not have the military fighting force ready for a ground war, I still believe any attack on Iran - even a one time missile and bombing strike to take out the nuclear facilities and decapitate the regime, could result in a total mess.

Lest we forget that we have in the area of 150,000 American troops in the neighboring country, bogged down in a war in Iraq.  I still believe that if we attack Iran, even with a bombing campaign, its not unrealistic for us to believe that Iran CAN send 500,000 or more fighters across the border into Iraq to engage our 150,000 troops.  Plus, MANY MANY Shi'ia will turn on us.  We could find our 150,000 soldiers in Iraq surrounded by 1/2 million Persian soldiers, and have millions of Iraqis taking shots at us.  Now, I know the rhetoric...gung ho and all that, we are the greatest army ever.  Black Hawk Down would look like a good outcome.  Its bad now.  But we'd literally have everyone in the neighborhood coming after us, except perhaps the Kuwaitis (and the Saudis, but they fund the Sunni insurgency, so its hard to say that they are a neutral).

Then, of course, there are the freelance militias and terror organizations that Iran allegedly supports...Hizbollah, to name one.  All of whom, I assume, would be set loose to attack American interests.

Attacking Iran would be the best way for all of us to see what the circles of hell in Dante's inferno look like.

Obama v. Howard

I have to admit, I had some ambiguity about supporting Barack Obama...I have a sense that people are heaping praise on him without knowing much about him, as a sort of last great hope or chosen one.  But if he keeps this up, together with some good policies, he'll earn my support (via CNN.Com):

First, Prime Minister Howard, war fanatic from Australia:

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.

Then, Obama smacks Howard down like the lap dog that he and his buddy Blair have shown themselves to be:

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

Then, via Kos, Obama's spokesperson:

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Ouch.  And to Edwards, Hillary, and the rest...show some cajones when dealing with this race.

Presidential politics

The thing that has inspired me to post more frequently again (I haven't posted much in the last year, I admit it), is the upcoming presidential race.  For example...

John Edwards announces he's running, and does so from the devestated 9th Ward in New Orleans.

Hillary Clinton announces, and she does so in a slick internet web video.

Both claim to speak for the people.  Clinton could have and should have done better.  Would Bill Clinton have put on such a half-assed announcement?

(to say nothing of Barrack Obama's free pass in the media).

My current prediction on the '08 race:

From the Democrats, we will see John Edwards.

From the Republicans, we will see someone not named Guilliani, McCain or Romney.  Right now, my prediction is for a dark horse non-candidate like Colin Powell.

Of course, I reserve the right to modify this as the race moves forward and candidates drop in, drop out, and mess up.

Plan B

Nope, not talking about abortion.  Talking about Iraq.  The "surge" as it is called (sounds nice...surging to victory...nobody ever surges to defeat), is in motion.  As much as I dislike Bush, you can't deny that his administration knows how to play things.  No need to go to Congress and ask for permission to increase troop size...just do it.  Congress has a few choices:

(1) Do nothing.

(2) Vote on a non-binding resolution opposing the increase (or, as we also might describe it, "do nothing").

(3) Cut off funding for the war.

Please note that any alleged additional options are either side shows or unconstitutional.  Holding hearings is critical and must be done, and ultimately may lead to something, but it doesn't, in and of itself, do anything.  The proposal being floated, to cap troop levels at 130,000 (I think that this is the Clinton proposal), is laughable, since there is nothing in the Constitution that supports Congress doing this, but everything in the Constitution suggests that Congress can't direct management of the war.

Congress will never cut off funding for the war.  We have three potential scenarios:

First, we muddle along, in which Congress will never cut off funding (that will draw some responsibility to Congress for this failed war).  I think that there is a 90% chance that this happens.  Our troops will not lose battles (or at least, many concerted battles...Somalia showed us that given the wrong situations, even the best equiped and trained troops can lose a fight, and that is the only way one can describe the situation in Mogadishu way back in the early 90's), but the insurgents and civil war combatants do not need to win - they simply need to survive and collect.  Outlast American bullets, and collect documentation of every atrocity, real or perceived, and use it to increase their ranks and public sympathy.

Second option is things go well and we actually wipe out the insurgency and stop the civil war in which case Bush is vindicated (I'm not saying its going to happen...its just a possibility).  I say that there is a 1% chance this happens.  First, we are not technically fighting the civil war combatants, so there is no reason to think that we will stop it.  Second, Bush is in charge, which is probably the biggest inhibitor to us prevailing in Iraq.  While the body count is high now for America, I think its fairly clear that if we take on the civil war combatants, we are in for a world of hurt.  If we take a side (say, the Shi'a side), it will only boost the insurgency and support for sunni forces.  If we don't take a side, there is no reason to think that the civil war combatants will not put aside grievances to fight against us together - which is a good description of what Moqtada al-Sadr did when we attacked Sunni insurgents a couple of years ago in Fallujah.  They hate each other, and they hate us.  Each side thinks that they can beat each other, but nobody thinks that they can withstand a fight againt the US alone WHILE simultaneously fighting the other civil war combatant (so, I think that taking on the civil war combatants would exact a high toll on our forces).

Final option isthings go desperately wrong, like someone sets off a nuclear weapon in Iraq, Iran steamrolls across the border, etc.  I give this a 9% chance of happening.  This is the most interesting scenario, if you ask me.  First, anything like this will likely BOOST American support for the war.  Worst case scenarios do that sometimes.  Setting off a nuclear or other WMD weapon in Iraq would allow war hawks to say "see, I told you so" and make many Americans re-think their opposition...."oh, so THIS is what we are fighting for..."  Iran steaming across the border would also create the same kind of attitude in the US...we need to check Iranian influence...see?  They just want to interfere and no foreign power should be interfering in Iraq (except, of course, us).

What will happen?  I don't know, but I think that we can safely bet that Joe Lieberman will go to his grave supporting this war, no matter how badly it turns out and no matter how wrong he is proven.  Go get 'em holy Joe.

What to do about Israel-Lebanon

At the risk of bringing a world of idiotic comments upon my blog, the Israel - Hezballah problem is vexing in that it escapes easy solution.  There is usually a point in litigation where both parties have expended so much money, the stakes of trial become diminished by comparison.  Much is invested, financially and emotionally, and it becomes easier to follow through to a trial rather than step back from the brink.  A sort of point-of-no-return.  In Lebanon, that point has been reached.  Its not as simple as "return the two soldiers" or "leave Lebanon and retreat to the blue line."  Neither side is able to, philosophically or politically, just walk away.

I hate that Hezballah hides among civilians.  First, it necessitates military operations in civilian areas.  But, I also understand that when the military match is so disproportionate, guerrillas do what they have to do, and this is not an unusual or new tactic.  Soldier for soldier, Israel would beat Hezballah.  But, using guerrilla tactics, Hezballah can bleed Israel, just as the insurgency in Iraq bleeds American by killing 1 to 2 soldiers per day.

On the other hand, I hate that Israel exacts collective punishment against the people of Lebanon.  Its one thing to take out the runways at the Beirut Airport and block major arteries in and out of Lebanon.  When you are fighting an enemy and you have the chance to cut off its supply route (and remember, Hezballah does get its weapons from abroad), you can't just sit idly by and not make that move.  Its another thing to strike neighborhoods and destroy building after building.  Like the people in Israel who are suffering from indiscriminate Katyusha rockets strikes, people in Lebanon are suffering from not-so-precision bombing.  The biggest difference is scale.  Israel simple has the ability to bring a lot more damage on an opponent than vice versa.

The largest educational aspect of the Lebanon conflict is this though.  We all knew that Hezballah had weapons. We know that guerrillas all over the world are fairly well armed to some extent or another.  I think it was quite a different story to learn that a group we consider to be a terrorist organization actually has not just hundreds, not just thousands, but apparently over 10,000 missiles in its arsenal and can reign down this level of destruction.  Remember - Al Qaeda used our own planes as missiles on  9/11, but was limited in size and scope by the number of hijackers.  Hezballah has been firing between 100 and 200 missiles at Israel.  Per day.

The biggest mistake Israel makes, besides when targeting civilians, is that it targets the Lebanese army.  Without proof of collusion, what is the point?  The US and Israel say that Lebanon must control its borders.  Why attack the only force that has that capability?

That said, there must be a solution.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what it is.  In the current world climate, I fear that cooler heads will not prevail.

That said also, I don't think any other nation in the world would be expected to tolerate a private non-governmental-organization (NGO) such as Hezballah, sitting on its border, with the capability to nearly sink a warship, fire hundreds of missiles a day, and destroy parts of a city from 100 miles away.

quiet for a long time

Admittedly, I've been very quiet of late.  Its not that there is not a lot going on in the world.  There is.  The middle east remains a mess (a bigger one than the last time I posted)...but the primary season is upon us in the mid-terms, and let me just say:

Go Ned Go!

I'm not paid by Ned Lamont, nor am I in any way affiliated with Ned Lamont.  My dislike of Lieberman is not just limited to "anti-war" ramblings that we hear in the media, but Lieberman's insistence on being close to Bush and selling out the Democrats on FoxNews.  I can handle conservative democrats.  But there are conservative democrats who are conservative without always handing the other side the rope that we hang ourselves with.  Lieberman is handing the rope to the Republicans.  Its time for Ned Lamont to cut Lieberman loose.  Once Lieberman is smacked out of the primary, the pressure will be on him to bow out.  The Republicans will not save Lieberman.

I look forward to seeing him depart.

A bad idea

Sy Hersh levels the "bomb"shell (so to speak) story of the week (via Ned Lamont's blog):

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

...The former intelligence officials depicts planning as “enormous,” “hectic” and “operational,” Hersh writes.

...In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

First, I wonder who the Democrat is...could it be...well....I mean...Lieberman?  Bush's favoritest Democrat?

This is so bafflingly stupid, one almost thinks that it must be designed to really throw the world into chaos.  Want a prediction for the worst case scenario of what happens if we do this?

First, Iran declares an embargo on oil and launches an all out war on gulf oil tanker shipping.  Iran also, for those not following the news, has (A) tested a new sea missile, and (B) has submarines of some kind - we may be able to bomb their navy, but I doubt we can just shut it down completely.  Think "unrestricted submarine warfare" like WWII, on a smaller scale.

Second, Iran unleashes its lackies in Islamic Jihad and other terrorists in the middle east who will launch a new wave of attacks in Israel, Iraq, and eventually, Europe and the US.

Third, Iran has an enormous army (not a great army, but a large army, with some modern weapons...we've seen in Iraq that you don't have to be a good army, just a smart army to fight against the big dogs)....I bet Iran sends part of its army into Iraq.  We currently have 150,000 troops bogged down in a grind with the insurgency.  Whether these troops come across in tanks or are snuck across to join the Mahdi Army and a second front in the insurgency.  Can you picture what would happen if 150,000 US troops are trapped and bled out of Iraq?  Can you say "evacuation from the US embassy in Vietnam"???

Fourth, Oil hits $175 a barrel.  You will lovingly look back on the days of $3.00/gallon gasoline.  Our economy would literally grind to a halt, bankruptcies would surge, and the American consumer wouldn't be pinched - they'd be screwed, and over an (oil) barrel because our society is simply not geared to handle oil shocks anymore (read Jim Kunstler, who predicts that one way or another, we are heading to that long dark period since we are probably at or near global peak oil anyway).

New experience tomorrow

In my attempt to become more involved and connected with politics, I'll be attending and participating in Colorado's Democratic Caucus tomorrow.  I'll report in the next few days what I saw, how it went, and what happened.

Oh, and go see this too.

Via Atrios:  http://www.snakesonaplanemovie.com - best. idea. for. a. movie. ever.  In the history of ever.

V for Go See This Movie.

Went to see V for Vendetta last night.  I always thought the graphic novel was a classic, and was eager to see the movie version.  It didn't let me down.  If you are left of center, you should go see it.  If you are right of center, you still should go see it.

Many right wingers who have never read V for Vendetta or seen the movie have and will continue to pan it, because of the idea of a guy who is more or less a terrorist is portrayed as a hero.

Of course, the England in V for Vendetta is not the England or US of today.  But can anyone say that if our nation became an intolerable tyranny, that the proper remedy wouldn't be revolution?  V for Vendetta advocates a drastic solution to a drastic problem.

When did the idea of radical remedy to a tyrannical government become such a non-starter in this country?  During the Clinton years, all I could do is hear gun-rights advocates saying how we'll take guns from their cold dead hands, and quoting the founding fathers, who basically believed that when government ceases to be the agent of justice and rightness, and drifts into tyranny, that the only solution - the virtual duty of every patriotic citizen - is to remove that government, by force if necessary.  Look at the quotes from the most revered Americans and founders:

Thomas Jefferson: 

"[If] the King can model the constitution at will... his government is a pure despotism. The question then arising is, whether a pure despotism in a single head, or one which is divided among a king, nobles, priesthood, and numerous magistracy, is the least bad. I should be puzzled to decide." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.

And what was Thomas Jefferson's solution to such a government?

"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done."

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

(source: various)

Paine.  Adams.  Franklin.  In later years, Thoreau, who argued that if the law required that you be an agent of injustice against another, then you should break the law (as opposed to being that agent of injustice).  These men who were so freely quoted during the Clinton years have gone into remission, it seems.

But the character of V is just such a person.  A person who believes that society has drifted into tyrannical despotism (which, in the novel and movie, it has).  And his solution is a drastic remedy, designed to do one thing - not to kill innocents, but to set forth the dominoes in motion of popular revolt and revolution.

And if our society gets to that point, it undeniably would be a good thing.

For now, we still have the ability to make change. Sure, the law requires us to be agents of injustice against one another, even in the realm of social justice, where gay and lesbian neighbors are deprived of the same rights because a bunch of people who think the world is about 6,000 years old have an unverified and unverifiable text that they have perverted into meaning that gays and lesbians are committing sin and their marriages must be stopped...  The wheels of social injustice and economic depravity may be in motion, but the reality is, we can stop them whenever we want.  The biggest question is, why don't we want to?

Many people, sadly, do not understand where they fit in the game.  Thus, we have people who are poor - dirt poor - living in trailer parks and barely getting by, arguing in favor of repealing the inheritance tax.  We've got college republicans going to state subsidized universities, using state subsidized computers and federal tuition aid, arguing that government shouldn't be in THAT business.  We've got the middle class who isn't really a middle class anymore, when you look at net asset balance (ie, sure, you've got niceties, but you are now in debt that you will never pay off).  We've got a populace that has been tricked into this "if you have nothing to hide, then you will not mind a search..." mentality - never mind the fact that the constitution protects the innocent with the guilty.  Maybe I don't want you looking through my stuff because I simply do not want you looking through my stuff, invading my privacy, and rummaging through my life for your fishing expedition?  When this country turns a blind eye to torture, economic and social malaise and constitutional give-aways, it does so because it doesn't think that these things will affect them.  Bad news, fellas.  It will.  It does.  You just don't know it yet.  But when your ARM mortgage kicks in and ratchets your mortgage payments, or as gas drifts back to $3.00 a gallon, and your credit card payments exceed your ability to pay, maybe you will wake up and wonder how you got there.

Wake up, America - November is coming soon.  And that's your first chance to make change (assuming the Democrats can do any better).

Instapudding speaks, and with his allegedly libertarian megaphone, says:

The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media.

Perhaps a lot of really stupid people might blame the media.

There is a cartoon that was published called Heartfield Versus Hitler, which chronicles the photomontages of an artist named Heartfield (first name escapes me right now) who did a brilliant set of anti-Nazi propoganda pieces.

One of the photomontages was a picture of a cartoonish character called "Mike the German" and he's screaming 'Help!  I'm Surrounded!'  Of course, Mike the German was surrounded in the photomontage - by rings of soldiers, tanks, guns, etc - ALL facing outwards.

This is the similar cry of pseudo-libertarians (ie, conservatives - since a true libertarian would never have supported the Iraqi invasion - at least, not a libertarian who knows anything about libertarianism).

Instapundit's Republican party controls the presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court (more or less), a majority of governorships, via its control of the presidency, it controls the US military and indeed has had plenty-o-time to put together their own military vision, plan and strategy.

Yet somehow, as fucked up as Iraq is, none of that is their fault.  Its the media.  There wasn't an ill-conceived invasion, or a piss poor plan to occupy Iraq afterwards (actually, this is probably true in that there was probably no plan at all).  Flowers, chocolates, and then we're home free.  But when the Iraqis fight back, its the media's fault, as if they're just preening for the cameras like a modern day Lance Ito.

So maybe a lot of people will blame the media...a lot of really stupid people.

This argument from a so-called intellectual and voice of the right is so odd, that it defies a response.  Did you stop beating your wife?  Yes.   Yes, I did.  How do you address a claim such as 'people are gonna blame the media if we lose the war.'  No they're not?   Uhh, why would anyone blame the media.  This is surely addressed in Instapundit's comments...oh, wait, no they're not, because he doesn't have any.

Iraq.

Medicare Drug Plan debacle.

Rising poverty, income disparity, etc.

Rising levels of uninsured.

Katrina.

I didn't do it man.

Don't have a cow.

3 more years 'til we get the Bart Simpson president out of the White House.

The consumer is toast

If you harken back to late 2005, all we heard were repeated stories about how businesses were expecting healthy increases in holiday Christmas spending (forget for a moment that media outlets are all owned by commercial conglomerates - ie, they have a financial interest in you going out to spend money...so everywhere is a sale, and the stores are running out of stuff - so go - NOW!).

Today we get the news that economic growth in the fourth quarter of '05 was a paltry 1.1%.  By itself, this doesn't seem like a reason for alarm...perhaps a reason to cock your eyebrows and take notice, but there are several reasons to think that its a bump in the road, or not a true indicator of economic performance to come.  An freak of nature, if you will.

After all, if we look back on the last quarter of 2005, while we did have Christmas shopping, we are talking about October through December.  There was a pall over the country in October.  Not only was the country mired in Iraq (unlike now, where it is, well, mired in Iraq), but the full effects of Hurricane Katrina were coming to light, Hurricane Rita was coming ashore in late September, threatening to devestate the oil and gas producing regions in Texas on the gulf coast near Galveston.  Then in October, we got the amazing Hurricane Wilma, which ultimately broke all the rules about hurricane formation - not only was it the third category 5 storm of the year, but the pressure drop, both in terms of overall barometric pressure (882 mb) and the rate of decrease in pressure were unprecedented.  It sat over the Yucatan for days dropping something like 60 inches of rain, and then made a bee line for florida, regaining to a category 3.  So gas prices were through the roof.  The mix of unstable oil/gas prices and anxiety over the continuing war in Iraq was not a good lead in for the holidays.

But, the government did call hearings, and like magic, oil and gas prices floated back down to earth.  Plus, when considering the impact of the holidays, one has to remember that gift cards that are purchased today do not get factored in until they are actually spent.  Ie, you don't get to count the revenue until you use the gift card, otherwise you'd probably count the revenue twice - once when you sold the card, and once when you sold the item.

So, maybe things weren't bad....maybe the 1.1% growth is an anomoly.  Afterall, Bush will give his state of the union speech on tuesday, and my best guess is that he'll say the economy is good and the state of the union is strong.

Except, 4th quarter 2005 was not an anomoly.

Anyone who was out in the malls and stores knows that while christmas shopping was high, it wasn't nearly as high as in the past year.  Some of this is internet related (shopping - not porn).  In reality, though, the malls are ALWAYS packed.  We went to Roosevelt Field near my mother's house on black friday (the day after thanksgiving), and it was busy, but it wasn't any busier than any other day...ie, it wasn't like its been on past thanksgiving weekends (we went to pick something up - not to christmas shop).  I guess for this christmas shopping, as far as economics go, color me unimpressed.

But maybe it was, again, just a bad confluence of events.

When Katrina hit and gas soared over $3.00/gallon overnight (or during the day), people said that it would have a limited impact on the economy...maybe in the order of 1/2 a point.  But its obvious that it had a greater impact.  What separates 4Q '05 from other weak quarters is that we have entered the beginning stages of permanent "crisis."  All of the crisis are low level, but if they impact you, they impact you.  Cumulatively, we are looking at a net drag on the economy for the forseeable future.  Maybe not recession - but definitely the days of good growth are gone for now.

First, oil didn't simply spike to $65+/barrel, ready to come down just as soon as we conserve.  Oil is staying high in price, and a new reality is setting in.  Plus, as we've seen, any crisis sets off the commodities  markets.  $100/barrel oil is not unrealistic by the end of this year, nor is $3.50 gas.  IT will not take much to happen.  China is a new player on the oil markets, soaking up the resources, and frankly, OPEC simply can't keep up with the demand, despite what they say.  There are limited new supplies to come.  We may be at Hubberts Peak right now, or even past it, but evidence suggests that we will not know for year.  IF we've reached peak oil, we have a problem (people do not appreciate our dependence on oil - not just for cars, not just for heating, etc., but for plastics and the like - oil is the machine that runs our society).

Second, Katrina wasn't an anomoly.  Oh, Katrina itself may have been a once-per-hundred-year storm, in that a storm hit New Orleans just right (although weakened from cat 5, it brought a record cat 5 storm surge), but this country is now on a path of man-made disaster, mixed with natural disaster.  Medicare Part D is the first of many problems we will face.  Think about it - we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, for a program that doesn't work.  Medicare itself is a good program.  But the Part D add on comes across as if it was designed to show people that government can't work, by giving the people a poorly thought out program.  Insurance companies make money, and drug companies make money.  Big money.  And we are paying twice.  First, for the inadequate coverage, from the government or individual's pockets/taxes, and second, for overinflated drugs through loopholes like the donut hole provisions.  Social Security reform, if the Dems give in, will have the same impact.  Our environmental disregard will have the same impacts.  Bush is touting HSAs - as if the problem for the 45 million uninsured americans is that they are actually overinsured...will have the same impacts.  Bankruptcy reform will have the same impact.

In other words, be it natural or man made, our country will continue to lurch from problem to problem, while stuck in the Iraq quagmire, with very high oil prices.

The 4th quarter was no anomoly.  It was a harbinger.