Wednesday, October 15, 2008

One, One and One, One and Two, One and Three....

I'm just contemplating some numbers, courtesy of the Vote-Masters web site(click on the yellow map to the right)and using his algorithm, which uses poll results for a one wee trailing period.

My assumptions: the margin of error for these polls is approximately 3%; to be truly outside the margin of error one must have a lead of twice the margin of error; the so-called Bradley Effect, which states that minority candidates receive higher poll numbers than actual votes, has not been proved.

Therefore, I believe Sen. Obama has a safe lead, defined as equal to or greater than 10% in the following states: WA, OR, CA, IA, WI, IL, MI, PA, NY, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE ,MD, and Washington, D.C., for a total of 241 safe Electoral Votes.

Using a definition of a probable lead, that being greater than 6%, but less, than 10%, Sen. Obama has leads that fit that criterion in NM, MN, and WV. That gives hime and additional 22 Electoral Votes. I do not have full confidence in those WV polls due to the known difficulty of conducting polls in that state, so eliminating WV's 5 EV's, add another 17 to Obama's 241 and you have 258 EV's for him. He needs 12 more.

CO shows Obama with a steady lead over time and he currently leads by 6 percentage points there. If you are a betting person, put CO's 9 EV's in the Obama column. Likewise for MO, with 11 EV's which currently shows a 6 point Obama lead, but considering that state's voting history in presidential elections, I have little confidence in those numbers and neither should Obama. However, those states could put him over the top, but don't count on it.

I believe we will know the winner of the 2008 Presidential election when we get the results of the states east of the Mississippi.

If Obama now focuses his efforts on the traditional battle ground states of OH and FL, as well as VA, he might just make history of a most exquisite sort.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Ethnics Politics at its Worst!!!

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Doin' the Pakistani Fatwa

The fine folks at Abu Muqawama share this little tidbit on the mix of religion and politics in Placid Pakistan:

In crazy Islamicist news, President Zardari has been the target of a fatwa issued by Maulana Abdul Ghafar of Islamabad's Lal Masjid. What was it that provoked Ghafar’s ire? Was it Zardari’s shady business practices, allegations of corruption or money laundering? No…it was Sarah Palin. Troy could not make this stuff up. Apparently Zardari's indecent gestures (shaking hands), filthy remarks (saying he’d like to hug her) and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt is not only “un-Islamic but also unbecoming of a head of state of a Muslim country.” After getting that off his chest, Ghafar added a demand that the military operations in the tribal areas be ceased since they are “creating hatred amongst the general public against the Pakistan army.” Unsurprisingly, Ghafar is a close relative of the fanatic Red Mosque cleric Maujlana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who was killed by security forces during Operation Silence in July 2007.


However, more to teh point is their assessment on changes in top level ISI personnel and what it might mean for the fight against the Taliban:

Pakistan Army chief, Gen. Kayani, has appointed Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha as director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Prior to his appointment, Pasha was Director-General of Military Operations, overseeing the Army’s operations in the NWFP and FATA. Pasha is succeeding Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj, a relative of Musharraf’s, who was viewed by many to be a key figure in the “double game” Pakistan has been playing with the U.S. on the one hand and the militants in Tribal areas on the other. So, what does this change mean for the U.S. and operations in Afghanistan? Reports indicate that the U.S. has been pushing for Taj’s replacement—believing that intelligence shared with the ISI by Americans was passed to the Taliban. What will Pasha’s appointment mean for the Pakistan Army’s approach to militancy and terrorism? What will it mean for US-Pakistani relations? After a week-long hiatus, the U.S. attacked another target in Pakistan's tribal areas, while Pakistani security forces are still under orders to open fire if American forces attempt to cross the Pakistan/Afghan border. Finally, it is worth noting that in making this appointment, along with that of the new corps commanders in Rawalpindi, Bahawalpur and Karachi, General Kayani (who led the ISI from 2004-2007) now has a number of individuals in key offices who owe their position to him and not to Musharraf.

"Basics" My A**


The marketing gurus have got to be kidding to come up with this product. And they call it "Back to Basics"? How about a frying pan? Anyhow, I won't be buying it until it also takes care of my shower, shaves me and brushes my teeth.

I'm Perverse

I admit it. I almost, actually, really want Sarah Palin elected Vice President so that I can watch Tina Fey make fun of her for at least four years. OK. That might be asking the country to give up a bit too much in order to humor me.

In the alternative, here is a link to Daily Kos where you can watch Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey debate "Joe Biden". For safety's sake, please wear your seat belt s0 that you don't fall on the floor from laughing.

RAILROADED!



From the Daily Kos here.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Excellent!

Great work Aden Nak for this piece!

Trust me! Check out this site.

Palin-Biden 2

Alex writes:

Alex said...

"minor victory for palin"

-- Disagree. Without even analyzing what she said [including supporting giving the VP MORE power than under Cheney], she's going to come out of it still looking like an imbecile, albeit one that memorizes talking points incredibly well. This is important for the undecideds, who respond to warm fuzzies more than substance.

However, with all the manic down home-isms, the winking, and the mindless "maverick" claims she came off as more a caricature than a candidate taking the evening seriously.

Biden, on the other hand, performed fantastically given the unique nature of the opponent. He seemed authentic, respectful, and knew when to shut up (for the most part).

This Palin performance won't win over a significant amount of the undecideds that will win the election.
October 2, 2008 11:56 PM

Palin-Biden

A friend writes:

I found this on MSNBC's comment board.

Watched the "debate" with my husband who is a McCain supporter. We
agreed to offer no comments while it was on. After about 25 minutes, he
muttered, "I can't take it any more," and left. I stayed through it all
and all I could think of was, she really IS a post turtle. You drive
down a country road and see a turtle on a post; you know it didn't get
there by itself; it doesn't belong up there; it doesn't know what to do
now that it's there; and you wonder about the guy who put it there.

Best of the Worst- The 2008 Ig Noble Prizes!

They're here! The 2008 Ig Noble Prizes were handed out last night at Harvard. Diet Coke as a Spermicide? Strippers make more money when they are ovulating? All true, according to teh best of the wrost research.

Here are the winners:

The 2008 Ig Nobel Prize Winners



NUTRITION PRIZE. Massimiliano Zampini of the University of Trento, Italy and Charles Spence of Oxford University, UK, for electronically modifying the sound of a potato chip to make the person chewing the chip believe it to be crisper and fresher than it really is.
REFERENCE: "The Role of Auditory Cues in Modulating the Perceived Crispness and Staleness of Potato Chips," Massimiliano Zampini and Charles Spence, Journal of Sensory Studies, vol. 19, October 2004, pp. 347-63.

PEACE PRIZE. The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH) and the citizens of Switzerland for adopting the legal principle that plants have dignity.
REFERENCE: "The Dignity of Living Beings With Regard to Plants. Moral Consideration of Plants for Their Own Sake"
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Urs Thurnherr, member of the committee.

ARCHAEOLOGY PRIZE. Astolfo G. Mello Araujo and José Carlos Marcelino of Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, for measuring how the course of history, or at least the contents of an archaeological dig site, can be scrambled by the actions of a live armadillo.
REFERENCE: "The Role of Armadillos in the Movement of Archaeological Materials: An Experimental Approach," Astolfo G. Mello Araujo and José Carlos Marcelino, Geoarchaeology, vol. 18, no. 4, April 2003, pp. 433-60.

BIOLOGY PRIZE. Marie-Christine Cadiergues, Christel Joubert,, and Michel Franc of Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse, France for discovering that the fleas that live on a dog can jump higher than the fleas that live on a cat.
REFERENCE: "A Comparison of Jump Performances of the Dog Flea, Ctenocephalides canis (Curtis, 1826) and the Cat Flea, Ctenocephalides felis felis (Bouche, 1835)," M.C. Cadiergues, C. Joubert, and M. Franc, Veterinary Parasitology, vol. 92, no. 3, October 1, 2000, pp. 239-41.

MEDICINE PRIZE. Dan Ariely of Duke University, USA, for demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine.
REFERENCE: "Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy," Rebecca L. Waber; Baba Shiv; Ziv Carmon; Dan Ariely, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 5, 2008; 299: 1016-1017.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Dan Ariely

COGNITIVE SCIENCE PRIZE. Toshiyuki Nakagaki of Hokkaido University, Japan, Hiroyasu Yamada of Nagoya, Japan, Ryo Kobayashi of Hiroshima University, Atsushi Tero of Presto JST, Akio Ishiguro of Tohoku University, and Ágotá Tóth of the University of Szeged, Hungary, for discovering that slime molds can solve puzzles.
REFERENCE: "Intelligence: Maze-Solving by an Amoeboid Organism," Toshiyuki Nakagaki, Hiroyasu Yamada, and Ágota Tóth, Nature, vol. 407, September 2000, p. 470.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Toshiyuki Nakagaki, Ryo Kobayashi, Atsushi Tero

ECONOMICS PRIZE. Geoffrey Miller, Joshua Tybur and Brent Jordan of the University of New Mexico, USA, for discovering that a professional lap dancer's ovulatory cycle affects her tip earnings.
REFERENCE: "Ovulatory Cycle Effects on Tip Earnings by Lap Dancers: Economic Evidence for Human Estrus?" Geoffrey Miller, Joshua M. Tybur, Brent D. Jordan, Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 28, 2007, pp. 375-81.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Geoffrey Miller and Brent Jordan

PHYSICS PRIZE. Dorian Raymer of the Ocean Observatories Initiative at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA, and Douglas Smith of the University of California, San Diego, USA, for proving mathematically that heaps of string or hair or almost anything else will inevitably tangle themselves up in knots.
REFERENCE: "Spontaneous Knotting of an Agitated String," Dorian M. Raymer and Douglas E. Smith, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 42, October 16, 2007, pp. 16432-7.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Dorian Raymer

CHEMISTRY PRIZE. Sharee A. Umpierre of the University of Puerto Rico, Joseph A. Hill of The Fertility Centers of New England (USA), Deborah J. Anderson of Boston University School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School (USA), for discovering that Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide, and to Chuang-Ye Hong of Taipei Medical University (Taiwan), C.C. Shieh, P. Wu, and B.N. Chiang (all of Taiwan) for discovering that it is not.
REFERENCE: "Effect of 'Coke' on Sperm Motility," Sharee A. Umpierre, Joseph A. Hill, and Deborah J. Anderson, New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, vol. 313, no. 21, p. 1351.
REFERENCE: "The Spermicidal Potency of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola," C.Y. Hong, C.C. Shieh, P. Wu, and B.N. Chiang, Human Toxicology, vol. 6, no. 5, September 1987, pp. 395-6. [NOTE: THE JOURNAL LATER CHANGED ITS NAME. NOW CALLED "Human & experimental toxicology"]
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Deborah Anderson, and C.Y. Hong's daughter Wan Hong

LITERATURE PRIZE. David Sims of Cass Business School. London, UK, for his lovingly written study "You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations."
REFERENCE: "You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations," David Sims, Organization Studies, vol. 26, no. 11, 2005, pp. 1625-40.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: David Sims

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Biden-Palin Debate

Sarah Palin was prepped within an inch of her life and it showed. While nothing can overcome the ignorance she exhibited in her carious television appearances during the past few weeks, she made no major mistakes. Since prior to the debate the bar for her performance was set so low she would have had to walk onstage backwards and naked to make what would have been considered a major error. The fact is Palin made no major error.

For his part, Biden was in a difficult position. He had to approach Palin carefully: attack but not be a brute, talk but not be a gas bag. He accomplished both of his objectives.

In ordinary circumstances this would have been a draw, but since Palin was expected to perform like a drooling idiot, and didn't, the final score was a minor victory for Palin.

More Fun in A Totalitarian State-Life in China

Like all totalitarian states, the Chinese government fears all information that it doesn't control. One of the greatest sources of information today is , of course the internet and the Chinese government does its best to monitor and control its citizens.

Here's a little item on China and fear.

If you're an authoritarian government that closely monitors your citizens' online communications, here's a tip from Ars Technica: tell your minions not to store the logs on publicly-accessible servers. This is exactly what China has done with information pulled from the TOM-Skype network, leading a handful of researchers to discover that China is logging text messages and analyze the country's behavior with regards to the online monitoring and censorship of citizens. In a joint report between ONI Asia and the Information Welfare Monitor, author Nart Villeneuve details evidence that China not only monitors and logs text chat, but also targets specific users for further monitoring.
Related Stories

The report published yesterday, titled "BREACHING TRUST: An analysis of surveillance and security practices on China's TOM-Skype platform" (PDF), explains that full chat text messages from TOM-Skype users were found on insecure, publicly-accessible web servers along with the encryption key required to decrypt the data (TOM Online is Skype's operating partner in China). This—along with "millions of records containing personal information" such as IP address, usernames, and landline phone numbers—were stored along with additional data detailing Skype users outside of China who have communicated with TOM-Skype users in China.

"The captured messages contain specific keywords relating to sensitive political topics such as Taiwan independence, the Falun Gong, and political opposition to the Communist Party of China," reads the report. Villeneuve explains that the surveillance doesn't stop there, either. According to the groups' analysis, many of the captured messages contain content that falls outside of typically-censored words or topics, "suggesting that there may be criteria, such as specific usernames, that determine whether messages are captured by the system." Translation: If you're the type who regularly talks about unapproved topics on Skype, you may be flagged for further monitoring of everything you say.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Sarah Loves the Supremes!(They had Big Hits in the 60s, Right?)

She Gets All The News She Needs From the Weather Report

Problems With George?

And according to this in The Hill some don't like the Soros Solution:

Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm, who served as Commerce Department undersecretary during the Clinton administration, raised questions about Soros’s proposal.

He said that if the government bought stock in troubled firms, a problem would arise regarding how Uncle Sam would be represented as a shareholder.

“How does the government vote the shares?” he asked. “It puts them in a potential conflict of interest. Regulatory interests may hurt the bottom line.”

Why Dems Balked

Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman of California had his reasons for voting "no" on teh bailout, and he circulated this influential memo to fellow Dems:

TAXPAYERS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO RECOUP ANY OF THE COSTS -- Brad Sherman 9/29/08

We know that the Bailout Bill allows million-dollar-a-month salaries to executives of bailed-out firms, and it allows hundreds of billions to be used to buy toxic assets currently held by foreign investors. But we are told: "don't worry, this $700 billion bill won't cost us anything. We will get it all back next decade through a revenue bill."

I. Section 134 of the Bailout Bill merely says that the President must submit a revenue bill to Congress in 2013 that recoups from the financial industry the taxpayers' net losses.

a. If the President has any revenue ideas he actually likes, he would submit them to us anyway.
b. If the President submits revenue ideas only because he is forced to by Section 134, he will send it to us with a note saying that he believes they are bad for the country, and reserves the right to veto.
c. The Bailout Bill does not automatically enact any revenue increases, nor protect a revenue bill from filibuster or veto.

II. Congress is unlikely to pass a tax increase bill of hundreds of billions of dollars in 2013.

a. Tax increase bills are anathema to many.
b. 41 Senators can block the plan. We're giving Wall Street enough money to hire 4100 lobbyists.
c. In recent years, Wall Street has easily defeated every attempt to close every loophole that they exploit, no matter how pernicious-even the abusive use of Cayman Island tax havens by hedge fund managers, who thereby pay zero tax.

III. Any tax on the financial industry would make the good banks pay a huge tax so we can recoup what we gave to the bad banks.

a. Section 134 says the tax will be on "the financial industry." It does not provide for a tax on just those firms that received bailout payments.
b. A bank that doesn't get a bailout payment still pays the tax.
c. Community banks and perhaps credit unions will also be subject to the tax, so we can recoup what we gave to Wall Street.

IV. It is impossible to draft a tax that hits only those firms that received bailout payments, and even more impossible to draft one that taxes each bank in proportion to how much money we lost on its toxic assets.

a. There are no provisions to even keep track of losses on each asset purchased as it is managed over the years. Assets purchased from several
banks will be pooled, managed, and sold together, and we can never know how much we lost on assets purchased from any one bank.
b. If three banks in the year 2013 have the same income and size and operations, they will all pay the same tax-even if one got no bailout payments, a second got a million dollars, and a third got a billion dollars.
c. Many bailed-out firms won't exist in 2013.

1. Some will go under.
2. Some bailed-out firms are only shell companies. Example: Assume the Bank of Shanghai has $30 billion in toxic assets. It will sell these to the tiny subsidiary it has incorporated in California. The subsidiary will then sell these to the Treasury in 2009, and will be dissolved long before 2013.
3. Many bailed-out firms will still be unprofitable in 2013.
4. Some bailed-out firms will move offshore before 2013.

d. The whole purpose of the bill is to improve the balance sheets of the bailed-out firms. If particular bailed-out firms owe us the money they receive, they would have to list this as a liability, and the bill would fail to improve their balance sheets.

In 2013 we will not pass a tax bill that imposes hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes on the financial services industry, including those banks that got no bailouts, community banks, and credit unions. A tax bill imposed only on those entities that got bailout payments is impossible to draft, and contrary to the purposes of the Bill.

If it were easy to pass a bill to recoup hundreds of billions of dollars through taxes to be imposed in 2013 and thereafter, then provisions imposing such taxes would be in today's bill.

Wall Street gets their money now, and we get it back never.

When George Soros Talks-- Everybody-Especially Dems-Listen

George Soros is not a big fan of the Hank Paulson bailout plan, even as tweaked by both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Take a look st this Financial Times op-ed piece. (Register free of charge at the FT website)

Soros states:

Instead of just purchasing troubled assets the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalise the banking system. Funds injected at the equity level are more high-powered than funds used at the balance sheet level by a minimal factor of twelve - effectively giving the government $8,400bn to re-ignite the flow of credit. In practice, the effect would be even greater because the injection of government funds would also attract private capital. The result would be more economic recovery and the chance for taxpayers to profit from the recovery.

This is how it would work. The Treasury secretary would rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of Tarp to Wall Street firms. The bank examiners would establish how much additional equity capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalised according to existing capital requirements. If managements could not raise equity from the private sector they could turn to Tarp.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the entire article.


Recapitalise the banking system

By George Soros

Published: October 1 2008 02:05 | Last updated: October 1 2008 02:05

The emergency legislation currently before Congress was ill-conceived – or more accurately, not conceived at all. As Congress tried to improve what Treasury originally requested, an amalgam plan has emerged that consists of Treasury’s original Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) and a quite different capital infusion programme in which the government invests and stabilises weakened banks and profits from the economy’s eventual improvement. The capital infusion approach will cost tax payers less in future years, and may even make money for them.

Two weeks ago the Treasury did not have a plan ready – that is why it had to ask for total discretion in spending the money. But the general idea was to bring relief to the banking system by relieving banks of their toxic securities and parking them in a government-owned fund so that they would not be dumped on the market at distressed prices. With the value of their investments stabilised, banks would then be able to raise equity capital.

The idea was fraught with difficulties. The toxic securities in question are not homogenous and in any auction process the sellers are liable to dump the dregs on to the government fund. Moreover, the scheme addresses only one half of the underlying problem – the lack of credit availability. It does very little to enable house owners to meet their mortgage obligations and it does not address the foreclosure problem. With house prices not yet at the bottom, if the government bids up the price of mortgage backed securities, the taxpayers are liable to loose; but if the government does not pay up, the banking system does not experience much relief and cannot attract equity capital from the private sector.

A scheme so heavily favouring Wall Street over Main Street was politically unacceptable. It was tweaked by the Democrats, who hold the upper hand, so that it penalises the financial institutions that seek to take advantage of it. The Republicans did not want to be left behind and imposed a requirement that the tendered securities should be insured against loss at the expense of the tendering institution. The rescue package as it is now constituted is an amalgam of multiple approaches. There is now a real danger that the asset purchase programme will not be fully utilised because of the onerous conditions attached to it.

Different focus

‘Tarp’s adverse consequences could be mitigated by using taxpayers’ funds more effectively. If Tarp invested in preference shares with warrants attached, private investors, including me, would jump at the opportunity’

Nevertheless, a rescue package was desperately needed and, in spite of its shortcomings, it would change the course of events. As late as last Monday, September 22, Treasury secretary Hank Paulson hoped to avoid using taxpayers’ money; that is why he allowed Lehman Brothers to fail. Tarp establishes the principle that public funds are needed and if the present programme does not work, other programmes will be instituted. We will have crossed the Rubicon.

Since Tarp was ill-conceived, it is liable to arouse a negative response from America’s creditors. They would see it as an attempt to inflate away the debt. The dollar is liable to come under renewed pressure and the government will have to pay more for its debt, especially at the long end. These adverse consequences could be mitigated by using taxpayers’ funds more effectively.

Instead of just purchasing troubled assets the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalise the banking system. Funds injected at the equity level are more high-powered than funds used at the balance sheet level by a minimal factor of twelve - effectively giving the government $8,400bn to re-ignite the flow of credit. In practice, the effect would be even greater because the injection of government funds would also attract private capital. The result would be more economic recovery and the chance for taxpayers to profit from the recovery.

This is how it would work. The Treasury secretary would rely on bank examiners rather than delegate implementation of Tarp to Wall Street firms. The bank examiners would establish how much additional equity capital each bank needs in order to be properly capitalised according to existing capital requirements. If managements could not raise equity from the private sector they could turn to Tarp.

Tarp would invest in preference shares with warrants attached. The preference shares would carry a low coupon (say 5 per cent) so that banks would find it profitable to continue lending, but shareholders would pay a heavy price because they would be diluted by the warrants; they would be given the right, however, to subscribe on Tarp’s terms. The rights would be tradeable and the secretary of the Treasury would be instructed to set the terms so that the rights would have a positive value.

Private investors, including me, are likely to jump at the opportunity. The recapitalised banks would be allowed to increase their leverage, so they would resume lending. Limits on bank leverage could be imposed later, after the economy has recovered. If the funds were used in this way, the recapitalisation of the banking system could be achieved with less than $500bn of public funds.

A revised emergency legislation could also provide more help to homeowners. It could require the Treasury to provide cheap financing for mortgage securities whose terms have been renegotiated, based on the Treasury’s cost of borrowing. Mortgage service companies could be prohibited from charging fees on foreclosures, but they could expect the owners of the securities to provide incentives for renegotiation as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already doing.

Banks deemed to be insolvent would not be eligible for recapitalization by the capital infusion programme, but would be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC would be recapitalised by $200bn as a temporary measure. FDIC, in turn could remove the $100,000 limit on insured deposits. A revision of the emergency legislation along these lines would be more equitable, have a better chance of success, and cost taxpayers less in the long run.

The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008