Key Points from Gov. Palin's Nomination Speech

Key points from Governor Palin's vice-presidential nomination speech in St. Paul, Minnesota last night:

-reporters don't like her and she doesn't care
-Obama talked about religion and guns differently when speaking to versus when speaking of middle America voters
-Obama only worked as a community organizer
-reform is hard but must be done
-she sold governor's jet and chef in Alaska
-she drives to governor's office (instead of taking the jet, presumably)
-she knows how the veto works
-she doesn't like tax on fuel
-she doesn't want federal funding for state projects
-she built a $40B natural gas pipeline to lead America to energy independence
-she knows that foreign powers don't have American interests at heart
-she is in favor of gasoline autarchy
-she wants to drill the North Slope of Alaska to go towards gasoline autarchy, presumable because it will stop our energy dependence on evil foreign powers
-McCain-Palin administration will do everything but drill for oil (lay pipelines, build nuclear plants, clean coal plans, and mover forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources)
-Obama has not written a "major law" or "reform"
-Obama thinks that "America's war" and "victory" are two phrases that just don't mix
-she doesn't like styrofoam Greek columns
-Obama is a hippy-dippy environmentalist
-Obama wants to reduce America's strength in a dangerous world
-Obama is too concerned about terrorists' rights (presumably, that means she just wants all people accused of terror to be put in jails with no due process)
-Obama is raising taxes when America is going into a recession
-how do extra Obama taxes help Americans suffering a recession? (implying that healthcare for uninsured and welfare for poor doesn't apply to those recession-struck Americans)
-Obama uses change to promote career, McCain uses career to promote change
-she doesn't like that Obama has buttons and self-designed presidential seals
-Obama doesn't have the idealism of McCain (presumably because the lack of experience in Washington has left Obama more jaded than McCain, who has been in Congress for around 3 decades)
-McCain isn't a party man (implying that he chose Palin because he has suddenly become hugely religious, strongly anti-choice, and hates the environment) [that last one may actually be true]
-Senator Reid hating John McCain is the best proof that McCain is a good candidate
-Harry Reid isn't as good at stuff as McCain
-Obama wants to make the presidency a journey of personal discovery
-McCain is a war veteran, Obama and Biden are not
-Obama's story of adversity is far less than that of McCain's torture in Hanoi
-McCain has already made his journey
-McCain is compassionate because he was tortured
-McCain is wise because he was tortured
-McCain is confident because he was tortured
-McCain was inexplicably exuberant when returning from interrogations conducted by the North Vietnamese torturers (who presumably didn't read him his rights, a view that Palin shares with McCain's torturers)
-America needs an inexplicably exuberant, tortured Vietnam War veteran as its president for the next 4 years
-Obama only talks, McCain has done things
-since character is "the measure" in this election and change the goal, McCain should be president

[via NYT]

New Ideas for Gun Control

Another Freakonomics entry that I found really interesting. They asked some interesting folks for interesting ideas to reduce gun-related crimes/deaths in the US. Out of the three, I found this one most interesting:

We should give out rewards — I mean big, serious rewards — for tips that help police confiscate illegal guns. ...

A bunch of logistical issues would need to be worked out, including how large the rewards would be (I think $1,000 or more wouldn’t be crazy) and how police should respond to tips and confiscate guns while respecting civil liberties.

I like that they thought of the logistical issues involved.
Some of the comments were interesting too, ranging from recollections of Chris Rock's suggestion of making bullets expensive to (semi-valid) critiques of the suggestions. Really interesting reading.

[via NYT Freakonomics]

Russia-US relations post-Georgia

An interesting article about how relations between Russia and the US (and NATO) could change for the worse due to the Georgian conflict. Generally, because the US is far more thinly stretched throughout the world and is not the regional hegemon in eastern Europe, the "bad" consequences fall on its side. However, it seems that the negatives don't all swing the US way:

Moscow may also be checked by the desire of its economic elite to remain on the path to integration with the rest of the world. The main Russian stock index fell sharply in recent days, costing investors $10 billion — many with close ties to the circle of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.

It seems that the same group of rich folks who have made post-Soviet Russia so powerful may be the ones who check Putin's power-grabbing... Really interesting article; certainly worth a read.

[via NYT]

India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

The New York Times Op-Ed section was on a roll yesterday. First, the two Georgia-related pieces and now this. A little background. A couple of years ago, President Bush of the US and Prime Minister Singh of India created a deal wherein India would get access to the international nuclear market (governed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group) without having signed either the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which are a prerequisite to being able to deal in uranium on the world markets. The authors, rightly, suggest that President Bush's appeal to the Nuclear Suppliers Group to let India join without becoming a signatory of the two treaties should be ignored by the members of the group.
As I wrote earlier, the deal that India made with the US is an amazing one for India; so much so that I thought that the vote of no-confidence was rather pathetically politically-based. While it was a good deal for India, I do not believe it to be the best idea for the rest of the world; India has repeatedly flaunted international rules on nuclear proliferation, never having signed either of the two treaties. While the US has also not signed the treaty, most of the other 46 nations have. This might be a hard thing for India to deal with, considering its nuclear race with its neighbor, Pakistan, but the world community should see the forest for the trees: to let India trade on the international uranium market without committing to non-proliferation would be a dangerous precedent to set.

Georgia-Russia Conflict: Gorbachev and Friedman's Perspectives

I had been looking around for a Russian perspective on the Georgian conflict and, finally, I got one. Ex-Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev wrote an op-ed that was translated and published in the New York Times yesterday. While it seems rather partisan, I was glad to get this perspective. Perhaps the most interesting bit for me was how aggressive Gorbachev seemed; I had always thought of him as a peaceful guy, a view that was solidified quite a bit by his Nobel Peace Prize. But, apparently, he feels, "The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst." Those sound like fightin' words. Hehe. Interesting piece nevertheless.

[via NYT]

On the other hand, I agreed completely with Thomas Friedman's take on the conflict:

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

Friedman very clearly lays out several key facts: Russia violated the territorial sovereignty of another nation; Saakashvili was more than a little reckless when he decided to challenge the relative autonomy of South Ossetia; and the US has been unwise in the way it has wielded NATO as an anti-Russian weapon in Europe since the end of the Cold War. I really like this piece and feel anyone who wants a little more clarity on what is happening in Georgia should read it.

[via NYT]

A response to comments on "Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again"

Id It Is linked to the Jammu and Kashmir entry on his/her blog recently and got several interesting comments. In particular, one commenter had some rather interesting takes on what I had written:

I just read that post and thought that the following was a rather naive and one sided statement from an outsider's perspective:

"There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests."

Of course there is external pressure but the second part of this statement is quite debatable if not largely incorrect.

In my opinion India should simply have a fair referendum in Kashmir and Kashmiris should be allowed to choose what they want for themselves. But a referendum will not take place any time soon because they will likely vote in favor of separation and the creation of an independent state.

See Pervez Hoodbhoy's documentary 'Crossing the lines - The battle for Kashmir's freedom' for an excellent overview of the whole issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr2PiD4c5rE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsOKxgicKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ory6Tv1ZvWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNR_qDw76E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYyeLVb08dQ

8/20/08 6:40 AM

Continuing, he added:

ok perhaps naive was the wrong choice of word and I apologize for that but to me the statement did sound like it was coming from an outside perspective.

How can one make a sweeping generalization that 'no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests'?

There's obviously a lot of support for the separatist movement and Kashmiris have obviously been mistreated by India for this support to exist. If no wrongs were committed by India, no amount of outside influence could ever lead to such a widespread separatist movement.

Why can't Kashmir exist as a separate nation? I am sure they will be able to build a bigger airport and sustain themselves without being attached to India :)

I think it's about time that they were given a chance to do so. India and Pakistan should stop acting as their colonizers and let them create their own destiny.

8/21/08 5:30 AM

I would like to respond to the commenter. I was initially going to respond on Id It Is's blog, but my response became rather longer than a comment should be, so I respond here (and will link to it on Id It Is's entry's comment page:

I think cubano makes an interesting point in his comments on your post (thanks, by the way for the responses; I would have preferred them on my blog so that it looked like people read it!). Namely, he feels that, based on empirical evidence, Kashmiris are very much interested in separating from India and either forming their own "more perfect union" or joining their neighbor to the west, Pakistan.

However, I would contend that any empirically-based view of the situation is far from rational. As cubano concedes, there is a lot of external pressure on the valley (primarily due to Pakistan's ISI continued provocations and, consequently, the Indian army's responses to those provocations). That pressure has been present for quite a while (ISI provocation pressure since 1989; Indian army response pressure shortly thereafter). Therefore, for nearly two decades, this external pressure has rendered invisible what I feel is Kashmir's best interest. I really can't imagine that it is "naivete" to think that all people, regardless of their geographic, racial, or religious background, want to prosper and be free. With India, Kashmiris get a readily available, fairly rich, consumption-oriented population, relatively easy access to international funds, an institutionally secular government, and an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds. On their own, Kashmiris will have to set up their own economy (not all that easy, from evidence of the past 60 years from around the world), provide their own government (which will have to face the same external pressures that the Indian Army has been attempting, rather poorly, to repel, as cubano pointed out in his comments), and generally replicate a lot of the Indian government's failures and successes. With Pakistan, Kashmiris get an economy that is not doing as well, a government that is in the throes of revolution and has a history of military dictatorship (which, by definition, limits the personal freedoms of Pakistani citizens), and a nation identified as a non-secular state, which limits its supply of foreign tourism and investment.

Cubano feels that it is naivete to ignore empirical evidence. I would generally agree with that statement. However, if we are trying to ignore the effects of external actors (as he and I both seem to agree that we should), we must discount the effects that external actors have had on the valley in the past 20 years; that is why I chose to ignore the "on the ground" fact that a large segment of Kashmir wants to separate from India. If the state's (many) leaders are acting in the rational self-interest of their constituency (which I concede they currently certainly are not), I believe cubano and I would see them acting quite differently and, likely, in the way that I describe.

I hope that the commenter responds to my response to his response to my blog (hehe). I would really like to see if I have clarified my position.

[via I Me My]

Georgia-Russia Conflict: End of Democratic Peace Theory?

In thinking about the hopefully-over conflict between Georgia and Russia, I realized that both countries are, theoretically, liberal democracies. The Democratic Peace Theory stipulates that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Does this mean that the theory has been disproved? Also, does the Falkland Islands conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina (a much smaller conflict, of course) also stand as a contradiction to the theory? Any insights would be much appreciated.

McCain's Real Alternative Energy Policy

I know everyone who's been watching the Olympics in the US has seen the McCain ads about how he's really strongly in favor of alternative energy and energy independence. Here is the truth:

"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems. ...

"Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

I guess all those wind-turbine commercials on TV are supposed to replace the votes he should have been casting in favor of renewable energy investment tax credits.

[via NYT]

Background on Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria)

As frequent readers (hah!) of this blog know, I have been trying to get a better grasp of the situation in Georgia. I finally found a rather clear explication of the situation from the Guardian (link below). Unfortunately, I am no longer sure where I stand on the conflict. On the one hand, there seems to be genuine reason for allowing South Ossetia and Abkhazia (not so much Transnistria) to develop into sovereign states; they have languages, cultures, and traditions that are distinct from those of Georgians. But, on the other hand, Russian support for their independence seems to arise purely from a desire to weaken Georgia and its successful transition into a western European state; it is unclear what exactly Russia would want to do with either fledgling state if it were able to help them secede from Georgia. Furthermore, it is unclear whether they even want to help the two regions secede, as that would apparently set bad precedent for the territorial sovereignty of nations (much like Kosovo) and threaten the unity of the Russian Federation.
It's all rather confusing but at least I now understand what exactly was happening there before it caught my interest. Some interesting bits from the piece follow:

"Take South Ossetia, which like Abkhazia had autonomous status within Soviet Georgia. Although many South Ossetians live in Tbilisi and elsewhere in Georgia, its people are really connected in terms of family, kin and language with North Ossetia, which is now in Russia, across the mountains to which it is connected through the Roki tunnel.

"Ossetians speak a language related to Persian and believe (truly) that the King Arthur of British myth was actually an Ossetian. I found billboards in Tskhinvali emblazoned with pictures of men dressed as knights in armour celebrating the 17th anniversary of South Ossetia's declaration of independence.

"The Abkhaz, like the South Ossetians, have all been given Russian passports and vote in Russian elections, even though their unrecognised statelets are legally part of Georgia. They use the rouble, their people work and study in Russia and they speak Russian at least as much as Abkhaz or Ossetian. Their elderly receive their pensions from Russia. And, as the last few days have helped demonstrate, without Russian military support, it is doubtful whether the breakaways would still exist.

"Of course, Russia is interested in its territorial integrity, not Georgia's. By supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it has the means to keep Georgia at its mercy and prevent it from following the pro-western path chosen by its electorate. But beyond that, it has little real interest in the breakaway states.

All in all, a very illuminating piece.

[via Guardian]

Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again

As Russian army (and many irregulars) roll through central Georgia untrammeled, another conflict seems to be coming to a boil as well: the imbroglio between India and Muslim separatists in Kashmir. I don't know if people have been following this situation, but, recently, the Indian central government (the "Centre" as they call it) considered giving over some forest land to a development group with the intent of improving facilities for the thousands (possibly even millions) of Hindus who make the trek to Amarnath temple (located in Kashmir) annually. Some of the Muslim separatist factions in Kashmir decided to raise a ruckus about this, claiming that the development group was a front set up by the Hindu nationalist party, BJP, to alter the demography of Kashmir (ie, resettle Kashmir valley with Hindus to sway political decision-making in the valley).
Now, to be honest, at first, I just thought this was another of the many pathetic posturing exercises that the seemingly endless political factions indulge in on a regular basis. But, it turned out to be quite a bit more. Apparently, the level of protests, both in Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu, has risen to levels that have not been seen since the early 1990s. Reuters had this to say about the newly-brewing conflict:

Indeed, some fear Kashmir will become a diplomatic football once again between the two nuclear rivals, with New Delhi unsure of a new civilian government in Islamabad that it perceives is in a dangerous vacuum.

Clearly, this is no longer just posturing.
However, I find the situation rather frustrating. Do the separatists actually think their lives will be "better" once they separate from India and, maybe, join Pakistan? Even putting aside the large sums of money India pours into Kashmir on an annual basis for development and what not (seemingly to no effect), separating from India would be economic suicide for the region. If they could get their act together, Kashmir, as part of India, would be a huge tourist attraction (as it used to be prior to the terrorism that began in 1989). As part of Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, the prospect for tourism/trade/etc. fall dramatically (simply because foreigners feel less comfortable dealing with a religious nation than with a secular one). As an independent state, Kashmir's prospects are even worse; how likely is it that Srinagar airport (the only viable international airport in the valley) will be able to provide as easy access to Kashmir for tourists as ... all of the transportation access points to India available to foreign tourists? Thinking simply about their own best interests would convince most "separatists" to accept India with open arms.
This is the reason that I find the notion that the separatists in Kashmir are entirely home-grown to be a total hogwash. There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests. Therefore, there are external actors that are stoking the fire. And I am not simply talking about the ISI of Pakistan (CIA/FBI equivalent), who have been accused recently of fabricating the whole notion of an economic blockade by Jammu Hindus of the only access route via truck to Kashmir. No, several Indian political parties stand to benefit from making Kashmir a conflict zone, notably the BJP. The BJP is fuelled by radicalization of Indian politics and so, it is no surprise that the BJP (and its close friend, the RSS) took up the "Hindu" cause of the Amarnath land transfer (aside: this is where one sees how important language is; BJP/RSS very consciously made something that could easily have been a development-related issue into a Hindu/Muslim conflict to foment religious radicalism on both sides) as soon as they sensed that Hurriyat and PDP (Muslim-majority political parties in Kashmir) were trying to polarize the issue in religious terms (I guess Hurriyat and PDP also know how to play the language game).
If all these external actors had never meddled with the extremely complex religious relations extant within Kashmir, not only would there no longer be a problem in that Indian state, but the whole notion of a Kashmir problem would probably not exist.

[2008-08-14] Update: I was wrong when I said that the Amarnath project was spearheaded by the central government of India; the state government was the one that started the land development project.

[2008-08-21] Update: A commenter on I Me My had some interesting comments that I chose to respond to here. Please read that, as I feel it is an interesting extension on what was written here.

[via Reuters]

Georgia - Russia Conflict

I seem to be admitting my ignorance quite often on this blog, but... I felt like I don't know much about the Georgia-Russia conflict taking place currently in the Georgian areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I figured the best resolution of this would be a nice map explaining everything. Thanks to the Guardian, I found just such a map. You can get to the original map via the link at the bottom of the page (but it is in PDF format). For your perusal, I have put up a JPEG version of it here. Hope it helps you understand the conflict as much as it helped me.

Note: the oil pipelines inset is particularly helpful...

[via Guardian]

Obama and NASA funding

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to this when it happened back in November 2007, but Obama unveiled his education plan to the US to much laudation that month. However, one thing that bothered me, which may not have been noticed by most others because, honestly, noone cares all that much about NASA anymore (nor does NASA give people reason to care, most of the time), was that he intended to pay for his education initiative by delaying funding for NASA's Constellation program:

Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy.

This bothered me quite a bit; after all, it's sort of depressing that the only way his campaign found to increase education funding was to delay (read: shut down) the future of America's human space exploration program (for those who don't know, Constellation will be replacing the aging space shuttle program).
So, when I read yesterday that Obama promised not to cut NASA funding, I was a bit confused. After reading a bit more carefully, I understood what was happening; Obama was speaking in Brevard County, Florida, where a large segment of the population is sustained by NASA's Cape Canaveral. He would have come down on the "wrong side" of the issue with that audience so he decided to change his mind (perhaps temporarily) about NASA's human space exploration program.
I have been grumbling about Obama quite a bit of late. The fact that I don't grumble about McCain shouldn't be read to mean I like him; it's more like McCain doesn't even show up on the radar as a viable presidential candidate in my eyes. And to be honest, I really don't think Obama's that bad; I think he's probably the most hope-inducing presidential candidate I have been around to see. It's just that he's not as principled as I thought he was when I heard his Race Speech (although that probably makes him a better candidate and president). I'm going to stop grumbling for some time.

[via Florida Today]

Obama okay with offshore oil-drilling

Earlier today, Barack Obama shifted his view on offshore oil drilling in the United States during a speech he gave to Michigan voters. Just to recap, previously, Senator Obama was strictly against drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for any reason, even to make things easier for Americans (which, in the long term, and probably even the short term, it won't do). His view has changed somewhat:

He said he might be willing to accept some exploration of limited offshore drilling as part of a more comprehensive energy bill that would include things he favors, like renewable fuels and batteries for electric-powered cars.

(By the way, the above quote is the most equivocal statement I've read in a long time in the New York Times ["might be willing", "some exploration", "more comprehensive"...]) It's sadly clear why he is doing this - to garner up some votes that McCain seemed to be taking away from him. But, if he really was going to be an "Ideas President" and the "Candidate for Change," he really would not succumb to such distractions. I understand that he wants limited exploration of offshore drilling, packaged within a larger push towards oil independence based on alternative energy investments and hybrid automobile incentives. But that still does not explain why anyone with generally smart economic advisors (some of them being UChicago professors) would suggest even limited offshore drilling when everyone (including Obama himself) says that there is no long-term benefit to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just a few days ago, he did the right thing, saying "I'm in favor of solving problems. What I don't want to do is say something because it sounds good politically." Why did he change his mind so suddenly?

[via NYT]

[2008-08-05] Update: I thought about this a little more last night... Somehow, I feel that what Obama did here was take the easier way out. If you will recall, his popularity (at least with me, I guess) skyrocketed when, instead of simply distancing himself from Rev. Wright, Senator Obama gave a speech on race relations that was so elegant in content and delivery that it has since become known as the Race Speech. He didn't take the simple way out there; rather, using his intelligence and eloquence, Obama explained to us his viewpoint and stance. Admittedly, he ultimately did back away from Rev. Wright (leaving Wright's church), but he did it with a measure of class that is unseen in current politicians. This time around, I can't say I feel he took any high road. He saw he was on the unpopular side of an issue. Despite knowing and admitting earlier to knowing that the right side of the issue was the unpopular side, he changed his view so that he was no longer on the right/unpopular side. Maybe I have McCain to blame for this particular situation (who, by the way, has proven many times over that he is worse for the environment and long-term human survival on the earth than Obama by several magnitudes). But, somehow, I feel the blame falls not just on McCain. This time around, Obama failed to raise the level of debate and Americans (and probably the world) will suffer as a consequence.

Afghanistan and the War against Drugs

Not sure what I actually think of the article or the comments following after it. But the whole problem is really interesting: how exactly can a foreign government help another nation, each with its own internal politics, reduce its drug protection? Or is it a lost battle and should be given up on as such? Moreover, should we even attempt to curb the farming and production of illicit drugs? Would it be better to just make them legal and astound ourselves by the consequent reduction in demand?

[via NYT]

Calling 1962 ...

Seems like the Soviets Russians and Americans have had enough of this fighting terrorism stuff and just want to go back to two-player sword brandishing exercises.

"While they are deploying the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech republic, our long-range strategic aircraft already will be landing in Cuba," the source told the paper. No final decision on landing bombers in Cuba had been taken, it added.

Today defence analysts told the Guardian there was little strategic point in using Cuba as a nuclear base - adding that the idea appeared to have been floated simply as a way of irritating the US and underscoring Russia's anger.

Actually, compared to the day-to-day nuisance that is fighting non-state actors, it is no wonder that these two superpowers are dreaming of the good old days of the USSR-USA Cold War.

[via Guardian]

Obama on Israel-Palestine and Iran

 Obama, in his trip to the Middle East (and, it seems, Europe) reiterated his stance on Israel-Palestine, perhaps a little too strongly for Palestinian tastes:

"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region," he said.

He went on to add that Jerusalem should remain Israel's "undivided" capital, although he backtracked very soon after, saying that everything should be up for negotiation (which, I guess, includes Jerusalem, part of which was annexed by Israel during the 1967 war). Certainly not his best bit of diplomacy...

[via Guardian]

Congress passing bill to alleviate mortgage payer distress

Following up on my previous blog about whether, much as the US government has bailed out lenders, the government should help loan-takers. It seems that the US Congress is about to pass a bill that will allow homeowners to avoid foreclosure by taking less expensive loans backed by the US government:

The bill would let hundreds of thousands of homeowners trapped in mortgages they can't afford on homes that have plummeted in value escape foreclosure by refinancing into more affordable, fixed-rate loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Lenders would have to agree to take a substantial loss on the existing loans, and in return, they would walk away with at least some payoff and avoid the often-costly foreclosure process.

I guess this is the path that the government was forced to take, having already bailed out major lenders. I still don't know if I am 100% on board with massive bailouts like this (regardless of whether it is for companies or people), but I am glad that the government is not simply focusing on corporate problems and entirely ignoring the people.

[via NYT]

To all who feel Obama is changing his tune

Really, the piece covers all the complaints I have heard made by people who say they don't like Obama. As the New Yorker article explains, most of the "shifts" aren't really shifts, although he does concede one (maybe two) "substantive tweaks" (as he calls them). And, I hate to put too sharp a point to it, are we really okay with any of the alternatives?

[via New Yorker Magazine]

Texas governor wants biofuels mandate reduced

Today, the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, came out against the required year-over-year increase of ethanol in gasoline products. He made his point in an ever-so-Texan turn of phrase:

"When you find yourself in a hole, you have to quit digging," Mr. Perry said in an interview. "And we are in a hole."

Linguistic aesthetics aside, this is really interesting as it seems that the tide may finally be turning against the abomination that is biofuel. As John Oliver pointed out in his weekly podcast, using corn for biofuels is the ultimate slap in the face of developing nations - you may not have enough food to feed yourselves, but we'll continue burning the food we do have to run our cars.

[via NYT]

India no-confidence vote

India's nuclear deal with the United States brought about a vote of confidence for the government that it barely survived today. Both leftist and right-wing parties rose up again Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition government, with the Communist Party and their brethren claiming that the treaty "would make India little more than an American pawn."
Let's hope this sentiment was purely that, an emotionally charged statement made to cause anti-American fervor within the opposition to the Congress-led government of India because in all other ways, this deal seems to be practically a freebie for India. In exchange for opening up most of its civilian nuclear plants, India gets access to nuclear technology and materials from other nations. Note that I am not saying that India has to give up its nuclear arsenal or sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... Unlike all other nations who have access to international nuclear technology and material markets (aside from powerhouses like the US), all other nations had to sign the treaty and most had to give up their nuclear arsenals (if they had them). That puts India on equal footing with superpowers like the United States and Russia. That is why I reiterate, I hope the Communist Party was only trying to drum up votes when it claimed that this treaty makes India an American pawn; if anything, India comes out looking far more powerful than it ever has before.
As an aside, I would like to note that the Indian PM was put to a vote of no-confidence because he did what was in the best interest of the nation. I wonder whether such a vote would have arisen had the deal been put through by any nation besides the US...

[via Guardian]