"I don’t bluff"

President Barack Obama says he means it when he insists it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

This statement serves mainly as an occasion for journalistic review of the situation to date. By itself, what can it mean?

Does it mean that Obama is willing to launch an illegal war of aggression if Iran continues to enrich uranium? Does it maybe mean that he will somehow provoke Iran into making a move that he can interpret as an act of war against us? Does it mean he will not look too closely at a possible false flag attack conducted by Israeli agents? Does it mean an open break with international law covering wars of aggression largely framed by the US after WWII? Aren't all these possibilities already covered by "no options off the table"? What can "I don’t bluff" add?

Zooey Deschanel

I do not normally pay much attention to entertainment news, celebrity gossip and such but my eye was caught by a recent Slate item. Apparently there has been a lot of blog criticism of "Zooey Deschanel's Girly Problem". I happen to like Zooey, although I haven't seen her new since last fall show The New Girl, (I don't watch much TV). I first encountered her in the film Elf where in a shower scene she sings one side of the classic duet, "Baby, It’s Cold Outside" -- unaware that Will Ferrel's character, the elf, is nearby and is singing the other part. I was instantly captivated by her sweet voice and honest interpretation. I went out of my way to see her again in The Yes Man and everything of her's I could find on YouTube. I like that she fits her style well to the song instead of, as many singers do, unconditionally imposing an elaborate personal style onto it.


Perhaps, like me, she seems to represent a more idealistic, less cynical age. I can't help it -- I've been a big Audrey Hepburn fan too.

The meaning of the Romney candidacy.

In economic theory there are classically four "factors of production": land, labor, capital and management -- that last often going by other names such as "enterprise" or "entrepreneurship". In a healthy market economy supply and demand causes each factor of production to be used efficiently and rewarded according to its contribution. I believe there exists today a macroeconomic distortion that benefits capital and management over land and labor. Evidence of this is not simply the historically outsized returns, (i.e. corporate profits and management compensation), to those favored factors and the stagnation of wages but also the damage allowed to the environment and neglect of infrastructure, (indicative of deficient demand for and undervaluation of land resources).

In my opinion, this results from the over-stimulation of the financial sector that excessively empowers organizations like Bain which represent the capital and management factors. Whenever we hear rhapsodic praise for somethings of value, such as the liquidity and deregulation enabled creativity of the financial sector, we must remind ourselves that there is always a point of having too much of a good thing and we should ask what such an occurrence would look like should it develop. We have had, and still have, too much bubble producing leverage in the system and it stems, basically, from too much money creation. It feeds into the financial markets and acts like "empty calories" to create fat, bloated financial organizations on something like a sugar high because they simply have more money than is good for them -- or us.

The situation has advanced to the point that capital and corporate management interests have developed an ideology, which I call "corporatism", to justify its continuation and its growing influence within government This is the meaning of the Romney candidacy.

A dangerous sanctions policy

Do sanctions work? The most comprehensive study comes from Kim Elliott, Jeffrey Schott, and Gary Hufbauer, fellows at the Institute for International Economics, a think tank with a free-market bent. A sanction "works," in the authors' formula, if it accomplishes the goals identified by U.S. policy-makers at the outset of a sanctions program, like ending apartheid in South Africa or undermining Libya's support of terrorism. Examining 35 U.S. sanctions programs in place since 1973, the study estimates they have succeeded 23 percent of the time.

Our best intelligence estimate is that, for the time being, Iran is not working on building a nuclear weapon. Frequently used coy phrases in the media like "nuclear activities" are references to uranium enrichment to low levels suitable for peaceful applications. Ending that, despite its legitimacy under the NPT as an "inalienable right". is the actual goal identified by U.S. policy-makers at the outset of the sanctions and which is likely to fail.

If sanctions fail better than 3 out of 4 times on average they are even more likely than that to fail in the case of Iran since what they aim to defeat is not a moral offense like apartheid or a dictatorial regime already fighting an active rebellion but a nuclear power program with broad support from the Iranian population. The signs of "success" being cited by the administration are only the damages being caused. There has been no effect on the actual "nuclear activities" other than attempts to shield them from military attack. The result of sanction failure in this case will either be war or Iran resorting to creating a nuclear deterrent which we will have to accept.

The sanctions policy simply isn't worth the risk. We should just aim for the best monitoring agreement we can get and allow Iran to go forward with their nuclear power program including low level enrichment.

The last best hope for freedom in the United States

It now appears to be a done deal, President Obama will sign the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which in all but name officially establishes martial law in the United States.

This tragedy directly results from the failure to properly repudiate the demagogic falsehood that the nation is "at war" with terrorism. So now even the homeland is legally a "battlefield" in the so-called "Global War on Terror", (that particular terminology having fallen from favor even as the logic of it became established as political dogma).

Of all the politicians aspiring to be elected, or re-elected, President only Rep. Ron Paul retains the belief that the Constitution, including the habeas corpus clause and the Bill of Rights, remains the supreme law of the land. Electing him President appears to be the last best hope of freedom loving Americans.

Martial Law to become offical in all but name

Corporate media is once again failing us by largely ignoring a significant new war on terror related advance in the development of the American police state.

The Senate Armed Services Committee behind closed doors, approved an amendment offered by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to the National Defense Authorization Act the stated purpose of which was to declare everywhere in the world, including within the United States, the "battlefield" of the war on terror and, therefore, subject to the use of military force as specified in the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Without calling it such, the Levin-McCain provision effectively establishes martial law. What has already been held, however wrongly, to be lawful for capture and treatment of detainees abroad, including US citizens, under the AUMF would then also be explicitly authorized at home. This includes indefinite detention of anyone simply accused, without judicial review, of support of terror. It potentially also includes Bush-Cheney style "enhanced interrogations" if the president so decides since it is only current Obama Administration policy, not new legislation or court rulings, that forbids their resumption. (Of course they were really illegal all along but it is hard to hold a "wartime" president to the law as long as war hysteria prevails in Congress and among many in the public).

There was one important article in the WaPo authored by Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) who was offering an amendment to strike the Levin-McCain provision, replacing it with a call for further study. but even that was disheartening in its non-prominent placement, weak commenting response, lack of related news and commentary and even its content. It appears that Senator Udall is less concerned with the assertion of government power to violate Constitutional protections than that the provision would be administratively burdensome. I doubt, however, that the weakness of his argument was the reason his amendment was voted down on a lopsided 60-38 vote.

The police state has political momentum driving its accelerating development. Most in Congress want to be firmly in line with the trend if not in the forefront. Special interests have grown that benefit from it, past over-heated rhetoric resists being retracted and fear of being denounced as unpatriotic, even as a traitor, for objecting to it prevails. Indeed, this latest atrocity largely codifies powers already claimed under some interpretations of current law such as the "Patriot" Act. We are most likely on one of those slippery slope slides that cannot be halted before reaching the bottom.


UPDATE: Thanks to a veto threat, the mainstream media has begun to pay more attention to the Levin-McCain addition to the Defense funding bill, but not because of its assertion of power to violate our constitutional rights. No, its because it has become a government insider process story with the Whitehouse and Congress squabbling over the division of that power between them.

What we are looking at now

After the real estate and financial bubbles burst in 2008 there was an awful lot of denial, mainly by politicians and pundits but even among many government, business and academic economists who should have known better. (Of course, there were a few who even saw the catastrophe coming, but they were routinely dismissed). The truth all along has been that there was no easy way out from the Great Recession. Serious mistakes were made and somebody would have to pay, the only real question being who.

Government policy, monetary and fiscal, is basically up against the logic of the "misery index". For being quite crude the MI is remarkably effective at measuring the over all health of the economy. Invented in the 70s by economist Arthur Okun, it is calculated by simply adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It tells us that there are basically three tracks the economy can follow after a crash, all bad, and government can pretty much choose its poison.

One track is to do little or no stimulus and let the economy fall to the very bottom with very high unemployment and liquidation of debt through defaults, business failures and bankruptcies. This course may seem to have little to recommend itself but savers would benefit from deflation and capital would be find its way most efficiently to new allocations. This leads, eventually, to the soundest recovery, (if insurrection doesn't happen first).

Another track is that of hyperinflation through very high levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus. This course also features rapid debt reduction but this time by devaluation rather than default. Savers are severely punished but more businesses stay afloat, consumer spending is stimulated and unemployment falls. This sets up the next bubble.

The third way is "stagflation", a middle course designed to avoid the worst extremes, but only the worst extremes, of the other options. Debt reduction is slow with minimal defaults, favoring creditors. This comes at the cost of delaying eventual recovery and there is some permanent residual weakness due to prolonged unemployment. It is what we are looking at now.