Humor Is Where You Find It

Seeking some information on the Presidential Medal Of Freedom, I browsed over to what may or may not be the official web site. It has information on the recipients of the award over the years and even allows for listing by year or by president.

I don't know who runs the site, but I'm pretty sure it's a group of loyal Bush supporters. Or should I say lazy Bush supporters. The information obviously hasn't been updated since before the Iraq war. Even so, it proved to be a source of great amusement (unintended, I'm sure.) First item of note, whoever updated the site after George W Bush took office apparently scrubbed the Clinton bio clean off. (Unless there never was one, but since every other president has one, I find that hard to believe.)

So, what do we learn of George W Bush from this site? For starters:

Many political pundits and analysts have stated that President George W. Bush has surrounded himself with an all-star team comprised of the most qualified and diverse people our government has ever seen.

Yeah, that's a nice start to the stroke-fest.

Unlike the previous administration, this President has surrounded himself with an honest, qualified and hard working staff needed to most effectively serve the American people.

Ah, there's the first good laugh. Of course, this text is from before Bush's honest, qualified and hard working staff lied us into a war and outed a CIA operative for revenge. It was back in the good old days when the Bush administration only lied about inconsequential things like illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, the "intelligence failure" that led to the 9/11 attacks, and rigging an election.

We all should be aware of those individuals who will shape the history of our nation in this time of crisis. The hunting down of Osama bin Laden, the bombing of Afghanistan, and the downfall of the Taliban government is in the hands of our National Security “Dream Team” hand picked by President Bush.

So how has Bush's "Dream Team" fared? Let's see, the hunting of Osama Bin Laden: um, nope. The bombing of Afghanistan: check. The downfall of the Taliban: not quite. But, hey, one out of three isn't bad. And at least they succeeded at the one where they bombed people. That's what matters most.

Then there is a short bit about each member of the "Dream Team," which consists of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell. (Coincidentally, all four of those people served under Bush Sr. at some point.) Then, to sum it all up:

This glimpse into the people that define this administration has hopefully provided you with confidence in the leadership of this nation. George W. Bush has shown us his greatness through his leadership during this trying time, his willingness to surround himself with people who have proven their abilities time and time again and his undying faith in the American people and the American way of life. He knows that we will be triumphant and that America’s ability to unite in these times is what makes the United States the greatest country that the world has ever known.

Bush has "shown us his greatness?" Seriously, who wrote this? Katherine Harris?

The Lesson Of Greed

While reading about the impending crunch that is going to hit us as a result (in large part) of the subprime mortgage fiasco, I reviewed a newsletter from John Maudlin back in August, The Panic of 2007. In it, John explains how there is plenty of blame to go around, and several parties to share it. One thing he says is this:

But then in 2004 loan practices began to change and had got completely out of hand by 2006. In 2005-6, about 80% of subprime mortgages were adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, also called "exploding ARMs." These loans are so-named because they carry low teaser rates that often reset dramatically higher, increasing the borrower's monthly mortgage payments by 25% or more.

Interesting. Subprime mortgages are given to people who are more likely to have difficulty making the payments. So what do the mortgage brokers do? They push these people toward the loans with low "teaser" interest rates. That way, the broker gets the closing (and the commission) and is out of the picture by the time the rate jumps and the borrower defaults and the bank forecloses.

Another item that caught my eye:

The loan application and review process for 'no-doc' loans was so lax that such loans are referred to as 'liar loans.' In a recent report by Mortgage Asset Research Institute, of the 100 loans surveyed for which borrowers merely stated their incomes on loan documents, IRS documents obtained indicated that 60% (!) of these borrowers overstated their incomes by more than half.

I had no idea that there is such a thing as a "no-doc" loan, or the "stated income" loan. Apparently, these loans allow people to get a mortgage without actually having to verify their income. They simply tell the bank how much they make. I'm sure that these loans were created for a legitimate purpose. The flaw, though, is the part of human nature that causes these to be referred to as "liar loans."

The bottom line is that deregulation and lack of oversight do not work. I understand that it has been a conservative wet-dream since at least the Reagan era to rid the country of all government interference in business, but time and time again, we see that businesses can't be trusted to regulate themselves. The concept of deregulation may look good on paper, but conservatives never seem to account for the one factor that always screws things up: greed.

The subprime catastrophe is the perfect example of the downward spiral of greed. Greenspan held interest rates at unreasonably low levels due to Bush's greed (It masked the failing economy so Bush could be "re"-elected.) Home buyers and speculators started buying more house than they should have, especially once home prices started climbing faster and faster. Banks eased the process of getting a loan because there was a lot of money to be made.

Eventually, of course, the sputtering economy caught up with the housing market and now we're seeing the beginning of the destruction that a lack of regulation and oversight brought to the mortgage industry.

For Some Reason, I Don't Believe Him

President Bush vetoed the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. In the statement that he sent to the House, he said that the bill simply spends too much money. Specifically, $10 Billion more than he wanted.

So all of a sudden, George W. Bush is a fiscal conservative. Stop laughing, he really is! Here's what he said:

Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars.

Bush said that on the same day that he signed the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense FY 2008 budget, which increased defense spending by $40 Billion.

The reason that I mention the defense budget is not to harp on the fact that the US spends waaaaayyyyyy too much on defense, but rather to point out the hypocrisy of Bush's statement about being a good steward of our tax dollars. For example, by the Pentagon's own admission, they have "lost" several trillion dollars over the years. If Bush wants to cut spending, maybe he should have vetoed the Defense Department budget and forced them to become a little more responsible with their money before giving them more of it. Who knows, if they're able to clean up their act, maybe they'll be able to afford Bush's Iraq Occupation.

Reality Is Overrated

President Bush is isolated form the world. That in itself is not unusual. Bush has admitted that he doesn't read much and relies on his advisers to provide what he thinks is an objective report on world events. In the current issue of Time magazine, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN answers ten questions and provides a glimpse into the sort of insulation that our president has wrapped himself in.

Here's a particularly telling bit:

Q: What do you think is the root cause of the anti-American sentiment sweeping the nations of the world? -BEN WONG CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND

A: I don't think there's anti-American sentiment sweeping the world.

The only question is whether he actually believes that. Judging from the inability for anyone in the Bush administration to admit they ever did anything wrong, I suspect he does.

Another chilling exchange:

Q: How should Iranians feel about the unfriendly threats of war issued by the U.S.? -ALI FARROKHIAN, TEHRAN

A: Our concern is not with the Iranian people, and I think we've gone out of our way to make it clear. If it ever did come to the use of military force, we need to make it clear to the people of Iran that this is not aimed against them.

Isn't that what this administration told the people of Iraq before unleashing "Shock And Awe" on them?

Of course, Bolton was simply one of dozens, or even hundreds, of ideologues in the Bush administration who have been openly hostile toward the organization they were supposed to head / oversee / work with.

What, Me Worry?

Yesterday, the Pentagon issued a statement that they are not worried about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. This is a direct 180 from the concern expressed by Lt. General Carter Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A New York Times article quotes Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell as saying, "At this point, we have no concerns. ... We believe that they are under the appropriate control."

There has been some talk lately of how the US policy toward Musharraf (specifically, supporting an unpopular dictator who took power through a military coup) is similar to that of when the US stood behind the Shah in Iran for so many years. That situation, of course, led to strong anti-American sentiment among the people of Iran, which I think we're paying for right now, as will continue to for some time.

My concern with Pakistan, then, is not that Musharraf doesn't have a tight grip on his country's nuclear weapons. My concern is that the way things are going, there is a pretty good chance that he won't be in power much longer. What will become of the nuclear weapons once he is out of power? Will the US finally find out what happens when you back a dictator? If our failed policy with Iran is pushing us ever closer to another war, and has the Warmonger In Chief talking about World War III, what will happen when Musharraf is out of power, and the strong anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is backed with nuclear weapons?

Whatever the Pentagon's selling, I'm not buying.