More Strong Currency Joy!

OK, so it's really a followup on my March 1 post, but it fulfills my personal requirement of posting at least once a month.

Rousseff seeks US support in ‘currency war’

In a meeting that highlighted the occasionally uneasy relationship between the two countries despite their potential to be strong partners, Ms Rousseff said that excessive monetary expansion in the US and Europe was hampering growth in countries such as Brazil.

Duh. As I keep saying, if you like the idea of a strong dollar, well, you should be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

SUCKER

Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.

Specter also claims that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not uphold his promise to grant him seniority accrued over 28 years of service in the Senate as a Republican.

Yes, Arlen, you got the old pump & dump. Are you surprised? But hey, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes ...

The Joys of A Strong Currency

I've always said that we have more to fear from deflation than from inflation. Not that excessive inflation is good, mind you, but a certain amount is actually healthy in a growing economy. But deflation, that really stings ...

Brazil declares new ‘currency war’

Yep. They're quite put out over their currency getting stronger. With good reason.

Is This The Change You Were Hoping For?

Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched.

Well, of course. He needs the unions, and he's not going to get the uniformed vote no way, no how.

Well, DUH!!!

Ron Paul Quietly Plots Backup Strategy While Seeking the Nomination

If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform.

Ya think? This has always been a prime object of running for those who know they're massive underdogs. The scramble for delegates to use as poker chips in the intra-party factional power struggle at the convention has been a part of the system since parties formed and started holding their conventions.

Padilla Redux

A lot of hair-tearing and drum-thumping and bloody-shirt-waving out there in wingnutterland about Senate Bill 1867, the Senate version of House Bill 1540, and its provisions regarding detainees. This is the Defense Autorization Act, and the sections under contention in this behemoth of a bill are (respectively) sections 1031 and 1032 in S.1867, and Section 1034 in H.1540.

The hysterically hyperbolic claims being made are that the Senate bill (based on the House bill) would "expand the battlespace" on the WoT to US Soil (already here for a decade, no?) and allow the President to order the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, ala Jose Padilla. (If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it's a re-run of claims from the last decade.)

Tired of the flame-rhetoric being tossed about, I did what would seem obvious and read the relevant sections of both bills, as published on THOMAS. As near as I could tell, the only major difference between the two lay in the specific exemptions of Section 1032 in S.1867 that, in essence, exempted US citizens and (for the most part) lawful alien residents of the US from the military detention rules. Then I took a six-pack over to visit with a friend who's a former assistant US Attorney, so he could tell me what I missed.

His take pretty much matched mine as far as the published versions go: Neither bill changes the legal authority of this or the previous admin as far as authorizations under AUMF 2001. They do lay out a set of ground rules for how those authorizations are implemented. Whereas before they were improvised, the bills would provide a framework. Neither bill "expands the battlespace" in any way as compared to the standing law of the AUMF of 2001, they merely reiterate the Congressional authorization of war powers to the President, and explicitly disclaim that they either limit or expand Presidential authority under the AUMF. Where they differ materially is in the exemptions of 1032, which are lacking in the House version, and that's where the Padilla case comes in as directly applicable.

The Bush admin in the Jose Padilla case captured an American citizen who had trabvelled overseas to train in terrorism for the purpose of launching terrorist attacks in the US, and detained him as he got off the plane returning from that training. They held him in civilian custody as a material witness to the 9/11 attacks. Two days before a judge was to rule on his detention under the material witness warrant, the Bush admin designated Padilla as an "enemy combatant" pursuant to the terms of the 2001 AUMF, and placed him in military custody. Padilla's attorneys filed for habeus corpus. To skip the reams of detail, lower courts ruled against the admin and the admin eventually dodged the question going to the Supreme Court by releasing Padilla to civilian custody and chargimg him with in civilian court with crimes overseas. He was susbequently convicted on terrorism charges, and the authority of the President under the 2001 AUMF to declare US citizens "enemy combatants" and detain them in military custody on US soil outside of a war zone remains unsettled.

The House bill lefft that an open question, though from the rulings in Padilla's case and others, it would seem that the courts are inclined to treat US citizens and lawful alien residents as subject only to civilian detention and prosecution when captured on US soil. (Those captured on the field in combat are a different matter, and always have been.) Section 1032 affirms that principle rather than leaving it up in the air.

So what's the gripe here with the Senate version, which specifically provides that any US citizens or (for the most part) lawful alien residents captured by the military be removed to civilian custody? Well, it seems the Obama admin's veto threat was based mostly on the Guantanamo provisions in the bills -- and as to why that is, your guess is as good as mine. But the specific objection seems to be the cluase prohibiting federal funding for facilities on domestic soil to house Gitmo detainees.

BUT it further seems that the direct request of the White House was that Section 1032 be omitted, that they specifically lobbied Levin on that point. They apparently want to keep the "Padilla question" open, rather than affirming what seems to be the direction the courts are going. But as of this writing, 1032(b) excluding US citizens and (for the most part) lawful alien residents from indefinite military detention is still in the Senate bill as published on THOMAS.

To sum up: The hysteria about "extending the battlespace" to allow the President to designate US citizens on US soil as "enemy combatants" to be held in military custody appears overblown, and the situation there is no different than it has been for the last decade under the 2001 AUMF. And it seems it's the White House that wants Section 1032(b) that would defuse that removed from the bill.

It hasn't gone to conference yet to reconcile the House and Senate versions, but judging from the vote totals, the public ranting about who's doing what here seems to be exactly backward. A majority in the Senate want the 1032(b) exclusions. The rest appears to be noise identical to that dating back to the original AUMF. More as this develops, if it does, but I take it as indicative that the more reliable media outlets are not confirming what the ranters are screaming about -- this appears to be a noise machine from multiple sources that just wants the whole damn question left open.

Cain's Pain

Having been excoriated by women for pointing out the obvious, I feel compelled to jot a few notes down. You needn't feel compelled to read them. But don't expect a polished blog post.

Cain is accused of being a sexual harasser, one of those modern crimes that in some circles are considered worse than actual physical violence resulting in serious physical injury. Cain may or may not have committed sexual harassment. I have no opinion at this time on his guilt or innocence, though from the descriptions of the alleged incidents (if true) he sounds a lot more like a clumsy wannabe adulterer than a harasser.

The sole exception to that so far are the claims of the one woman who has actually come forward and alleged an offered quid pro quo exchange of employment for sex, and frankly, I don't find her very credible and am unaware of any actual evidence other than her own word that anything untoward occured. Which leads me to ...

What I've gotten beaten up for (by liberals and especially liberal women, naturally) is pointing out that the evidence of actual sexual harassment on Cain's part being offered up was of such a thin, subjective, hearsay, and insubstantial and likely unsubstantiable nature that the media assault on him does indeed resemble a media lynching. While more evidence has come to light, it remains so far of the same nature. There's no blue dress here, no filed rape or attempted rape complaints. The best we have is one known "termination agreement" the contents of which we have not seen, that would likely contain no useful specifics if we could see it, and the recipient of which declined to named (though the media outed her) and who through her lawyer expressed zero desire to re-visit the specifics or even be named, and who has declined to make any other comment other than that lawyer's statement, which amounted to "Buzz off and leave me out of this."

My own crime is not piling on Cain as a despicable predator and cheering on the rope squad. Pointing out that the "evidence" so far offered is so flimsy as to be laughable by legal standards or even journalistic ones. Not buying that just because ANONYMOUS allegations were made does not mean there is any truth to them, or that if there is, we do not know those truths. Noting that all of the allegations, even if backed up publicly by the alleged harassed, still amount to he-said/she-said argument in which our only real standard is our personal assessments of the credibility of the claimants.

There is an apocryphal story about LBJ's campaigning in Texas in his early political years iduring the Depression. LBJ was alleged to have told his campaign chief to spread the rumor that his opponent was known to have engaged in beastiality with his barnyard animals.

"But Lyndon," the aide protested, "We can't call him a pig-fucker!" To which LBJ replied, "I don't want us to call him anything. I want to get him to deny it."

Well, they've gotten their denial, haven't they?

The principle of smearing allegations is firmly esconced in American politics. Sometimes the allegations are true. Most times they are not, or are at best horribly twisted misrepresentations of rather ordinary events. All such allegations WILL have an impact on the politico being smeared, regardless of the truth of them and the evidence or lack thereof, because voters as a whole aren't exactly rocket scientists and tend to run in lemming herds.

Something to remember as the campaigns heat up. You will hear lots of things. Try to apply some critical thinking skills and develop a minimal standard of evidence for evaluating them. It's about all that sets you apart from the lemmings.

Obligations

Holy Carp, Batman! I almost let a month go by without an entry. Blame it on the real world, which insists I have higher-priority obligations than entertaining my seven regular readers. Speaking of the real world, it seems that Jon Corzine has done to MF Global what he almost managed to do to New Jersey:

MF Global files for bankruptcy after deal unravels

MF Global Holdings Ltd, the futures broker run by former Goldman Sachs chief Jon Corzine, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after a tentative deal with a buyer fell apart.

The firm's meltdown in less than a week is a stunning setback for Corzine, who sought to turn MF Global into a mini-Goldman. Corzine became CEO last year after losing his governorship of New Jersey, and his big bets on euro-zone debt sealed the company's fate.

Guess that whole revolving-door thing doesn't work as well when there's no massive government bailouts available.

UPDATE:
Regulators Investigating MF Global for Missing Money

Regulators are examining whether MF Global diverted some customer funds to support its own trades as the firm teetered on the brink of collapse.

The discovery that money could not be located might simply reflect sloppy internal controls at MF Global. It is still unclear where the money went. At first, as much as $950 million was believed to be missing, but as the firm sorted through its bankruptcy, that figure fell to less than $700 million by late Monday, the people briefed on the matter said. Additional funds are expected to trickle in over the coming days.

Also wik: Others note the obvious ...

Big Three Nets Omit Corzine's Party ID as Feds Investigate His Firm

But of course.

As Foretold In The Prophecy ...

DUH.

Patients to wait longer for care under new health law

My favorite bit:

Expanding insurance coverage without a corresponding increase in the number of primary care doctors, though, could create problems with access to medical care

Ya think? Tell me if this all sounds kinda familiar ...

Cannibal Feast: The More Things Change ....

... the more they stay the same.

White House, Senate Democrats clash over campaign cash

Senate Democrats are increasingly concerned that President Barack Obama’s campaign money machine is sucking up so much cash that it will cut into the party’s aggressive campaign to hold on to the Senate next year, several Democratic sources say.

Democratic senators have already pressed Obama campaign officials — including campaign manager Jim Messina — not to lock up the richest Democratic donors, but the presidential campaign declined to make such a promise.

...Messina would not agree to the request not to max out big donors, and no decision was made on the amount of financial backing that Senate Democrats will get from the DNC and the Obama-Biden campaign.

I'm guessing that the future will tell us just how much Obama values person over party.