After losing big in the last two elections the Republican Party is holding a "listening tour." I guess this highlights the fact that they HAVEN'T been listening up until now. Hey, it only took them a few years to realize that they're not getting it.

What's most disturbing, though, is that, just like always, the plan isn't to listen, but to talk. Here's a quote from an article from Associated Press:

"We need to make sure, the discussions, I believe, should be focused on the principles that have made America great - the principles of freedom and opportunity."

In other words, they'll listen as long as you say what they want to hear.

How well do you think these "listening" tours are going to do? I wonder how many non-republicans will even attend. I'll bet this thing turns out to be just like Bush's great Social Security Privatization tour. Just a boatload of pre-canned speeches with hand-picked audiences.

We'll have to keep watching to see what happens.

Stopping the Pirates

The pirates blew it. They hijacked an American vessel. They've been working their charm around the Horn of Africa for years and earning BIG money, but now that they got Americans involved, the party's over.

Going after an American vessel is foolish, because a lot of Americans fight back. That's what happened recently and it ended up getting the pirates killed. More importantly, the incident put the spotlight on the piracy problem and now the press is all over it. I've been reading about the pirates for some time, but now there is a flurry of articles about it. Like I said, they blew it.

Among the recent articles I've read, only one bothers to explain how the pirates got started. Here's the main point:

With no coast guard to defend its shores, Somalis began complaining that vessels from Asia and Europe were dumping toxic waste in their waters and illegally scooping up red snapper, barracuda and tuna. The rampant illegal fishing began destroying the livelihoods of local fishermen.

According to a memo prepared last month by the staff of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Somali clans began resorting "to armed gangs in an attempt to stop the foreign vessels. Over time, these gangs have evolved into hijacking commercial vessels for ransom as an alternative source of income."

Another article points out that the area that the pirates are active in encompasses far more ocean than can possibly be patrolled by the 16 warships currently involved. There's a sense that the pirates can continue to do their thing with little to no repercussions. In fact, the day after the dramatic rescue of the American captain, the pirates hijacked 4 more vessels.

The gangs in Somalia that control pirates are now vowing to kill Americans that they capture. Many experts in piracy and military seem to think that this is a real risk. U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Bill Gortney is quoted by CNN saying "This could escalate violence in this part of the world. No question about it."

Others say that the more likely result will be that the pirates will avoid confrontations with American vessels. " 'pirates more likely will avoid attacking U.S.- and French-flagged ships', said David Johnson of the British-based EOS Risk Management, which trains ship security officers."

Still, there is little that can be done without a major effort in Somalia and it's coastline. There are a number of things that the experts say can be done, like going after pirate "mother ships" and patrolling the coastline of Somalia to contain pirates. Ships can do travel in convoys in lanes that are guarded by warships. Circumventing the area seems too costly (even if you figure in million dollar ransoms, I guess).

Hardly anybody is advocating arming the crews of ships. They say it could lead to an escalation in the violence and make pirates start shooting at ALL ships. At least one U.S. Admiral thinks that more incidents like the recent one will deter the pirates.

" 'This one incident, if it is the only time that we take this robust action, will not deter,' retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told CNN. 'But this incident, the next incident, the next incident after that -- a long term pattern will certainly have a deterrent effect against piracy.' "

My idea is to get those trigger-happy, fun-loving guys from Blackwater (now calling themselves "Xe" to try to avoid the negative stigma) to use "bait" ships and then either kill the pirates or capture them when they try to hijack the bait ships. If the pirates don't know which ship is a bait ship, then that will act as a deterrent against piracy also.

Instead of getting the U.S. military involved, we get the shipping companies to pay Blackwater/Xe and then we keep our hands clean. It's got to be cheaper than paying unlimited ransoms.

Fumigation

Apparently there's a new cigarette tax coming. My local newspaper, always looking out for business interests, ran an article today interviewing some of the "chicken littles" that are clucking the same old "sky is falling" tune.

THIS tax, they say, is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back (pun intended). THIS time, they say, people are going to stop smoking because they don't want to pay the extra tax. They're saying the tax revenue will actually decrease because more people won't smoke.

Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that getting people to quit smoking is an actual goal of the program, the idea that people who are ADDICTED to smoking will quit is just as lame now as it was during all of the other cigarette tax increases. Few people ever give up smoking.

A few years ago a new law was voted in by the people in our state to prevent smoking in some businesses. Those businesses went batshit screaming that they'd be put out of business because smokers won't come to their place. Over ten years ago in California, we saw a smoking ban in bars that didn't stop business there at all. With the economy as a backdrop, it's difficult to be able to say that there's been no loss of business due to the smoking ban here. There is, however, lots of anecdotal evidence that despite the ban people continue to smoke in places where it is prohibited by law.

I guarantee that a new cigarette tax won't even put a tiny dent in the sales of cigarettes. I can say this with confidence because smoking is an addiction. People will just continue smoking and they'll find the extra money for the taxes, even if they have to eat a little less. Of course, if you're a smoker, you better figure out what you're going to say to all of the "bum a cigarette" types, the ranks of which are going to grow.

There is no HOPE

Well it hasn't been a year since I wrote about the housing bill last summer, but the results are already in. A recent article from CNN says that the HOPE bill (that's what they call it, lol) has helped ONE person stay out of foreclosure.

ONE FUCKING GUY!!

This from an estimate of helping 400,000 people. That's a little bit of discrepancy. That's WAY worse than even I thought. According to the article they only had 752 people even apply. So one guy out of 752 was approved. What's the decline rate on THAT? Could this program have been worse?

The problem, as I saw it then, and continue to see it now, is that the program required lenders to write down the principal of the loan. No lender is going to do that. Here's a quote from the article:

" 'Writing down principal is the last thing you want to do because you have to realize the loss immediately,' said Paul Leonard, a spokesman for the Housing Policy Council, a coalition of mortgage lenders."

Yep. The lenders don't want to write down the principal. That's why the "cram down" provision of the bankruptcy law needs to be rewritten to include principle residences. It's the only way to get these mortgage lenders to become realistic.

There are new programs coming in from the Obama administration, but none of them involve writing down the principal. Needless to say, my skepticism is still high that these programs will be any more effective than "HOPE."

The one thing that the CNN article seems to forget about is the money that was set aside for this program. It says that they allowed $300 Billion. If they only helped ONE GUY, then what happened to the money?

Who's Worthy?

The Bailout (what I like to call "the Wall Street Welfare program") hasn't been handled very well, don't you think? At first Paulson said he was going to buy up "toxic" assets from banks, but within a week he changed his mind and started pumping money into stocks of banks. The banks were supposed to lend the money to ease the credit crunch, but they just kept the money instead. Later we heard that the banks might have used the money to pay dividends to shareholders, pay bonuses to executives or even to buy out competitor banks.

Paulson may seem like a smart guy who knows what he's doing, but his record during this crisis doesn't show that. He has haphazardly come up with plans that he said would make things better, started them, and then abruptly change course without even assessing whether the plan was working. He's blown through an amazing amount of cash (our money) and there's nothing to show for it.

Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, the pre-eminent investment bank on Wall St. He obviously comes from the upper class with an upper class education and all that crap. I suspect that he started out rather high up on the food chain, which means he didn't have to work his way up to becoming an executive. Once he was an executive, I'm sure, he was credited for successes and that's how he became the CEO.

Here's my point: It's easy to look good when the economy is going great and everybody (especially those at the top) is making money. The real challenge is to look good and be successful when the economy is tough.

You can see it everywhere. Companies are going crazy trying one thing and then another to try to keep the money in their pockets. Few companies are trying to get MORE customers. Most of them are just trying to cut their expenses and keep what customers they have.

Paulson is proving that he doesn't have what it takes to meet the real challenges. In my opinion, admittedly without really knowing, he probably coasted along his whole life and made money. Now, when there's a real challenge, like so many other upper management around the country, he can't cut it.

Later we'll know who was good and who was bad. Right now it's difficult to tell. There are already some losers. The Sharper Image, Linen & Things, Mervyn's and many others are finished. They all reflect poor upper management. Wait. There'll be more.