Hello, lampost. Whatcha' knowin'?

Joe Scarborough on Sarah Palin:

What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run? It makes the political biography of Barack Obama look more like Winston Churchill’s, despite the fact that the 44th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified state senator.

Still, Palin is undeterred, charging ahead maniacally while declaring her intention to run for the top office in the land if “nobody else will.” Adding audacity to this dopey dream is that Palin can’t stop herself from taking swings at Republican giants. In the past month alone, she has mocked Ronald Reagan’s credentials, dismissed George H.W. and Barbara Bush as arrogant “blue bloods” and blamed George W. Bush for wrecking the economy.

Wow. That’ll win ’em over in Iowa.

And this is but a snippet from his piece. Joe is just getting started. Even though he channels Margaret Carlson a bit, I have to say I'm firmly with Joe on this one. Looks like the Kraut is, too.

Wikileaks to Publish Defiled Koran!

Julian Assange, auditioning for the prehensile villain in Patricia Cornwell's new movie

Just kidding.

Had that been about to happen, we would have seen some heavy-duty action. Because that kind of thing is serious biz.

But hey, this is pretty good, no?

By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.

That "strongly condemns" stuff works, almost never always. Except that it's almost always after the fact.

Peggy gets it. But will Obama?

Occasionally, Peggy Noonan is off the mark. But today she is right on about our country's collective psyche, and she's described it to perfection with delicious wit.

Her essay is called, "Special Assistant for Reality." By necessity rather than choice, she acknowledges, the president lives in a bubble. He has no idea what Americans are thinking and feeling because, well, he's so bubbled.

The solution? Read on. Her imagined dialogue hits the bulls eye.
____________________________

What a president should ideally have, and what I think we all agree Mr. Obama badly needs, is an assistant whose sole job it is to explain and interpret the American people to him. Presidents already have special assistants for domestic policy, for congressional relations and national security. Why not a special assistant for reality? Someone to translate the views of the people, and explain how they think. An advocate for the average, a representative for the normal, to the extent America does normal.

If Mr. Obama had a special assistant for reality this week, this is how their dialogue might have gone over the anti-TSA uprising.

President: This thing is all ginned up, isn't it? Right-wing websites fanned it. Then the mainstream media jumped in to display their phony populist street cred. Right?

Special Assistant for Reality: No, Mr. President, it was more spontaneous. Websites can't fan fires that aren't there. This is like the town hall uprisings of summer 2009. In the past month, citizens took videos at airports the same way town hall protesters made videos there, and put them on YouTube. The more pictures of pat-downs people saw, the more they opposed them.

President: What's the essence of the opposition?

SAR: Sir, Americans don't like it when strangers touch their private parts. Especially when the strangers are in government uniforms and say they're here to help.

President: Is it that we didn't roll it out right? We made a mistake in not telling people in advance we were changing the procedure.

SAR: Um, no, Mr. President. If you'd told them in advance, they would have rebelled sooner.

President: We should have pointed out not everyone goes through the new machines, and only a minority get patted down.

SAR: Mr. President, if you'd told people, "Hello, there's only 1 chance in 3 you'll be molested at the airport today" most people wouldn't think, "Oh good, I like those odds."

President: But the polls are with me. People support the screenings.

SAR: At the moment, according to some. But most Americans don't fly frequently, and the protocols are new. As time passes, support will go steadily down.

President: I've noted with sensitivity that I'm aware all this is a real inconvenience.

SAR: It's not an inconvenience, it's a humiliation. In the new machine, and in the pat-downs, citizens are told to spread their feet and put their hands in the air. It's an attitude of submission—the same one the cops make the perps assume on "America's Most Wanted." Then, while you stand there in public in the attitude of submission, strangers touch intimate areas of your body. It's a violation of privacy. It leaves people feeling reduced. It's like society has decided you're a meat sack and not a soul. Humans have a natural, untaught understanding of the apartness of their bodies, and they don't like it when their space is violated. They recoil, and protest.

President: But you can have the pat-downs done in private.

SAR: Mr. President, you don't know this, but when you ask for that, a lot of TSA people get pretty passive-aggressive. They get Bureaucratic Dead Face and start barking, "I need a supervisor! Private pat-down!" And everyone looks, and the line slows down, and you start to feel like you're putting everyone out. You wait and wait, and finally they get another TSA person, and they take you into the little room and it's embarrassing, and you start to realize you're going to miss your plane. It's then that you realize: all this is how they discourage private pat-downs.

President: I've wondered if this general feeling of discomfort might be related to a certain Puritan strain within American thinking—a kind of horror at the body that, melded with, say, old Catholic teaching, not to be pejorative, might make for a pretty combustible cultural cocktail. This heightened consciousness of the body might suggest an element of physical shame we hadn't taken into account.

SAR: Mr. President, the rebellion isn't shame-based, it's John Wayne-based.

President: I don't follow.

SAR: John Wayne removes his boots and hat and puts his six-shooter on the belt, he gets through the scanner, and now he's standing there and sees what's being done to other people. A TSA guy is walking toward him, snapping his rubber gloves. Guy gets up close to Wayne, starts feeling his waist and hips. Wayne says, "Touch the jewels, Pilgrim, and I'll knock you into tomorrow."

President: John Wayne is dead.

SAR: No, he's not. You've got to understand that. Everyone's got an Inner Duke, even grandma.

President: What should I do?

SAR: Back off. Say you spent a day watching YouTube. You're not giving in to pressure, you're conceding to common sense. "Free men and women have a right not to be trifled with. We'll find a better way."

President: If I don't?

SAR: Well, every businessman in America already thinks you've been grabbing his gonads. You'll continue that general symbolism.

President: Janet Napolitano won't like it. Drudge is always after her. He'll get all "Big Sis Bows Now." She might quit.

SAR: Oh God, yes. A twofer!

President: I'd look like I got rolled.

SAR: Then look strong. Fire her. She's been a disaster from day one. Now she's the face of the debacle.

President: Won't they think I'm weak?

SAR: No. They'll think you returned to Earth. They'll think ground control broke through to Major Tom. They'll think you took a step outside the bubble.

Yond Cassius v. Christie

Bring it on!



This fat guy is the one to watch.

This guy's "junk" must have been mighty distracting.

Adam Savage on his TSA body scan (fast-forward to 1:10):



Happy Thanksgiving.

Limbaugh's Obamiranda Warning

Rush mixed it up pretty good today, sternly warned the president to "keep your hands off my tea bag!" and coming up with the Obamiranda warning:

"You have the right to remain silent while we fondle you. Anything you say while we fondle you can and will be used against you. You do not have the right to speak to an attorney while we fondle you. In fact, if you try to speak or object in any way while we fondle you, you will be fined and/or jailed and we will call the local cops. Do you understand our rights over your rights as they have been read to you here while you're in line to get on an airplane?"

Speaking of balls, Limbaugh brought up ballsy James Carville's recent quip to reporters which infuriated the thin-skinned White House. "If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, they'd both have two." But the recalcitrant Carville says he is not sorry.



In completely unrelated news from across the pond that I just feel compelled to mention, you'll be shocked to learn what many Muslim school children in Britain are being taught.Oh, gosh, where to start? That anyone who doesn't believe in Islam will go to hell. That some Jews were transformed into pigs and apes. Thieves who break sharia law should lose their hands (and feet, if they're repeat offenders).

Last but not least, the teenage students are taught where to make the flesh cuts for the amputations.

Tolerance, people. Tolerance!

There's no opting out of government x-ray vans

When Pistole spoke to the TSA "oversight" last week, he briefly mentioned that New York City has a "mobile screening program." But now that I know what he means by "screening," and ever wary of government euphemisms, I thought I'd look into it.

And the news is not good.

The TSA, as well as other law enforcement agencies, have purchased drive-by x-ray vans. The x-ray is the same back scatter x-ray you will receive at most airports. Except . . . you won't know it.



Who has them now? The manufacturer of these "ZBV" x-ray vans won't say.

But we do know the government isn't using these mobile search vans just to check cargo.

Been to a Superbowl game in the last year or two? Let's hope you weren't pregnant. Because the Department of Homeland Security gleefully reports these mobile x-ray scanners "have been a huge asset at the nation’s ports and borders, and at major crowd events like the Super bowl."

Peering under our clothes "at major crowd events" or, if you're a New Yorker, while boarding the subway, is an unconstitutional search. Period. And we won't even know when it happens.



I am now officially in heart-attack mode. At least with Google Street View you know we can see you naked.

SNL on the TSA: art imitates life.

Next up, another TSA video. This one? Not so funny.

But first, read what the fellow who captured this footage said:

Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn't set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn't complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn't end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn't hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.

******* THIS VIDEO OCCURRED AT SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON NOVEMBER 19TH AT AROUND THE TIME OF 12:00 PM **********

Last but certainly not least, we have the poor man whose urostomy bag was ripped out of his stomach, causing urine to leak all over him and soak his clothes.

From MSNBC:

"I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”

Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.

And this is what they're doing when all eyes are on them, during the holiday season.

Assault rifles? Sure. But nail clippers? No Way!

TSA story of the day:

Soldiers just returning from Afghanistan went through TSA's cutting-edge security.

They could keep their assault rifles, just not their finger-nail clippers.

Because, you know, a nail clipper is one bad ass weapon.Here's the soldier's account.
___________________________

So we're in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they're going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can't take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I've had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You're not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I'm allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can't use it to take over the plane. You don't have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

__________________________________

And how awkward will it be when the TSA takes women in skirts aside to make them disrobe and put on a special "pat-down gown"? (Fast-forward to 2:20)



I told you I wasn't crazy. Not crazy. Not crazy. But if the TSA keeps this up, it won't be long.

Who coined "gate rape"? I cannot tell a lie.

Last Monday I was furiously compiling a list of TSA horror stories, as catalogued by the Washington Post in the comment section to this post. And I came across this anonymous comment:

"to all of you who think GateRape is neither an invasion of your privacy nor an unwarranted usurpation of your 4th amendment rights, may I remind you of Ben Franklin's quote 'They who would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither.'

I don't know what the solution is but sexual assault (virtual or physical) on children while their parents are forced to watch is not the answer.

I'll be driving and enjoying the scenery out the car window."

Posted by: FedUp389 | November 15, 2010 12:41 PM

"Gate rape," I thought to myself. Why, that just sums it up perfectly.


Pickled tink, I wrote a post and called it, "Gate Rape: the Saga Continues." (Am I obsessed? Yes. And I will be for the foreseeable future. I get really hot and bothered when the Constitution is suspended on our own soil.)

When that nice Iowa Hawk man -- go read his clever TSA version of "Come Fly With Me" -- kindly linked to my "comply and fly away" post, I thanked him and told him to feel free to appropriate "gate rape."

Because it's the message, not the messenger, that's important here. It is gate rape. Let's not kid ourselves. Ah, but I better stop now, before I launch into a diatribe about our 4th amendment rights and begin frothing at the mouth.

In any event, it appears "gate rape" took off from there.



So, as Paul Harvey would say, "that's the rest of the story."

And "FedUp389," whoever you are? You da' bomb.

A PSA from the TSA

Yep. Safety first!

Happy flying. Happy Friday.

Hmm. That sure went well.

Capping today's news, a terrorist accused in the embassy bombings was acquitted on 284 counts by a New York City jury. His defense? He was duped into buying the explosives.

The only count that stuck was conspiracy, conspiracy to destroy buildings.

Oof. Ow! Punch. Pow!

The government's key witness against the defendant was a guy who said he sold this fellow the explosives. But, umm, this statement by the explosives-seller was suppressed. The jury never heard it.

Nonetheless, Holder's Justice Department said by the verdict, it is "pleased." Umm, wow, DOJ. How smart thou art. I suppose I should be pleased, too.

Alrighty then.

So what happened?

Well, at least one respected legal analyst says our bad boy walked because the judge was constrained by the federal rules of evidence. He was therefore compelled to suppress the statement of the explosives-seller, Hussein Abebe.

Abebe would have testified that he sold Ghailani the explosives to blow up buildings. But his statement didn't come into evidence because it was obtained by our people after alleged "torture." Thus, under our constitution, and our laws -- designed and intended to protect our citizens -- it was illegally obtained.

But if our terrorist (wait, am I allowed to say that?) had been tried in a military court, the statements would have been heard by the jury.

Because in a military tribunal, people carrying out acts of war against us don't get the same due-process protections we do. Had the statement of this witness been admitted, the terrorist man-made-disaster-causer would likely have been been convicted. On every count.

But of course, this outcome was entirely predictable.

Remember when Eric Holder proudly announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court in NYC? New Yorkers were outraged. There was a great hue and cry. And, after several months, Holder heard them and "adjusted."

We know he did because it now appears KSM won't be tried at all. He'll just be held indefinitely in that wretched, inhumane Guantanamo Bay Bush prison. You know, the one The One eagerly spat upon and insisted -- at least on the campaign trail -- that he would immediately shut down.

As an aside, the childlike simplicity of this recent Obama statement: "Campaigning is different than governing" amuses me. This, he did not know?

There are so many reasons for keeping Guantanamo Bay open for military tribunals. And there are so many reasons civilian courts don't work well in terrorists cases.

For one thing, our soldiers aren't equipped with Sergeant Joe Friday's laminated "Miranda warnings" card, a card someone can whip out at a moment's notice while dodging bullets during battle on foreign soil -- even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these rights even applied to war-wagers. They don't.

The notion that terrorists on foreign soil who wage war against our country should get the same constitutional protections our grandparents and great-grandparents fought so hard for us to keep, is unfathomable. And insulting.

So if you want to try these guys in civilian courts, Mr. Holder, be careful what you wish for.

Minutes from Today's TSA "Oversight" Hearing (Corrected)

Today the Senate Subcommittee for TSA Oversight held a hearing. John Pistole showed up to answer questions. I watched it live on a webcast.

Take-aways: Pistole Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill referred to the pat-downs as "love pats" (here's an independent link if you don't believe me). The TSA is going to leave John Tyner alone and they're sure as hell not going to change their screening procedures. Children 12 and under can be exempted from groping. (No word on whether they are also exempted from the radiation machines).

Highlights, in chronological order:

Pistole says in opening statement that the new "adjustments" to the pat-down" challenge social norms." Do ya' think?

This is a partnership "with the traveling public."

Removing your shoes and taking stuff out of your pockets is called "divestment."

There is a mobile screening program being used in NYC.

Pistole and Janet were patted down before they foisted it on the public. Oh, and any senator in the committee is welcome to get a pat down from "an experienced TSO officer" so they can see what it's like. (There were no takers)

Gee, the naked people pictures on the internet might have been photo-shopped. They're just so graphic.

Functions are disabled for retention, storage or transmission of naked pictures and no cell phones are allowed in naked people viewing rooms.

A new day may dawn with "automated target recognition." It only shows a stick figure and any weird object shows up as a square. Only that part of the body where the square shows up gets patted down. Alas, there are too many "false positives" with "ATR" but boy will it be great when we get it. Right now we're in "an interim period."

The FLRA ordered TSA to hold an election on "exclusive union representation" but not collective bargaining. This makes no sense to Kay Bailey Hutchison or Pistole.

Senator Johanns wants to know why he had to go through the naked people machine and get a pat-down when he didn't set off any alarms. He even showed his Senate ID! What the hell, man! Pistole has no idea. Maybe it was "random." He will "look into it." But wait! The images aren't stored!

Why are crew passes taking so damn long? TSA has been testing a crew pass for two years. Pistole: I just got here in July. We are making progress.

Isakson says Napolitano was insensitive when she said "don't fly if you don't like our screening." Enters a 3-page letter from one of his Diamond-flyer constituents into the record. Pistole: children 12 and under don't have to be groped. (He never says children can skip the radiation machine).

McCaskill is upset because some countries have no screening for cargo. Pistole agrees and says private shippers may boycott those countries and refuse to ship their stuff.

Pistole says reasonable people can differ whether TSA has "struck the right balance" with the naked people machines and the groin-groping pat downs. Alrighty then. Public outrage might be "reasonable."

Profiling is the elephant in the living room.

Jim DeMint was pathetic.

Should the flying public feel threats have increased or decreased since 9/11? Pistole speaks words but doesn't answer the question. Says maybe the bad guys are so scared of TSA now that they'll go for "softer targets." Nice.

Kay Bailey asks if TSA is really going to fine this "high profile man" Tyner and anyone else who says no thanks to the screening and goes home. Pistole hedges a bit. Kay Bailey presses on. Pistole capitulates and basically says nothing will come of the Tyner investigation. Fines are for people who try smuggle stuff.

All agree a classified hearing is needed and the meeting is adjourned.

Gate Rape: the Saga Continues

About those naked pictures from the radiation machines. Recall the TSA has repeatedly assured us that the pictures cannot be stored or transmitted, that they are instantly destroyed.

This has never seemed plausible to me. How can the TSA have any quality assurance without storage of the naked people pictures? If a bad guy slips by, you can be damn sure TSA will be able to figure out where and how it happened.

So you'll never believe this, but guess what? The images can be saved and stored. 100 naked people pictures from a courthouse in Florida were leaked onto the internet. Fortunately for the naked people involved , the courthouse machines had far lower resolution capabilities than the machines used by TSA.

Talk about a nakation!

And Napolitano has repeatedly claimed the pat-downs are "discrete" (ha!) and that the radiation machines are safe. They pose no health risks. But that's not what independent experts say.

Independent experts point out there is no "real independent safety data" for these machines. In fact, these experts pleaded with the Obama administration, back in April, for an urgent independent evaluation, to no avail.


Dr. Michael Love of Johns Hopkins said,

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays. No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous, but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner." (emph. added)

And remember, these TSA safety claims are coming from the same administration that told a federal court judge that "experts" supported its oil-drilling moratorium when that was simply not true.

Now it's come to light that TSA agents are putting their hands in our pants.



That's it. I'm done.

$11,000.00 or a cavity search? Take your pick. (Updated)

Yes, I'm still fixated on the TSA and Tyner's story. But for a different reason than you might expect. Let me give you my lawyerly take on things.

In the last audio of Tyner's tape trilogy, the TSA agent tells Tyner he cannot leave the airport, and that if he does, he'll be sued and subject to a $10,000.00 fine.

Holding a man against his will, threatening him with a government lawsuit and an exorbitant fine -- well, that really perked up my ears.

Lawyers are trained to dream up plausible hypotheticals and ask what could go wrong. I started doing just that.

First I imagined Mr. M going through a pat-down at the airport. I remembered his hernia adventure. Dear God. No, we'd just have to cancel our trip and leave the airport if it came to that.

Then I thought of a lawyer friend who's recovering from prostate cancer surgery and needed adult diapers for a time. If he opted for a pat-down and the TSA couldn't feel his crotch, what then?

Heck, millions of elderly people rely on Depends. The ones in wheelchairs would have to get full-body grope downs. But that won't work because their "torsos" are padded.

And then of course, we have the problem of maxi-pads. Oh dear.

Remember, the TSA has already said its agents won't stop going up your inner thighs until they feel your crotch torso. So what happens when they can't?

This is going to end badly. Because we all know what's coming next.

TSA will demand a body cavity search. And I don't know about you, but I ain't gonna'.

So what are our options? Can we say "never mind" and leave if they demand to inspect our cavities?

In a word, no.

According to the brilliant 9th Circuit (which, ironically, quoted Orwell in its opinion) the search must go on. By entering the security check point, you consent to being searched and you cannot revoke your consent to the search. (Read the Aukai case synopsis here.)

Put another way, you can't change your mind and leave. Unless, of course, you're willing to fork over $11,000.00 bucks, get sued, and risk arrest by a police officer.

The big man at TSA's San Diego office called a press conference today to announce a "probe" of Tyner. Chief Michael Aguilar said the investigation could lead to prosecuting Tyner and hitting him up for a “civil penalty” of up to $11,000.00. When it was pointed out that TSA agents told Tyner on Saturday that the fine was $10,000.00, Aguilar said "That’s the old fine. It has been increased."

Clearly the TSA is not backing down. To the contrary, it plans on making an example out of Tyner because he left the airport. It's a damn shame Tyner is in the 9th Circuit.

So you see, this isn't just about humiliation, or radiation and full frontal nudity, or being legally assaulted. The TSA's power trip has only just begun.

Body cavity and strip searches are coming, make no mistake.

But hey. Whatever it takes to keep us safe, right?

UPDATE: Before you call me crazy, wait. It gets worse. A legal TSA "search" of your "junk" includes reading your emails and whatever else is saved on your laptop computer . . . all without a warrant.

The Touch Stops Here (Updated)

The federal government, through the TSA, believes safety is more important than . . . well, anything. Hence, the "groin checks" we are now forced to endure in order to fly. That, or get virtually naked and subject ourselves to an intimate visual inspection, and radiation.

My new-found hero, John Tyner, stood up to them. "You touch my junk and I'll have you arrested," he told the would-be genital groper. And he got most of it on tape.



The TSA groper, who sounds eerily like Dexter (or, for us older folk, Carlton the doorman), took it all in stride for the most part. (Click here for new CNN video and you can hear Dexter yourself).

Some of the other agents, though, were not amused. It's not a molestation, one female agent can be heard arguing. "It's an administrative search."

In the end, American Airlines refunded his ticket. And the TSA threatened him with a $10,000.00 fine and a civil lawsuit if he left the airport. He took the gamble and got the hell out of Dodge. Note to John: I'll contribute to your legal fees.

You can read his blog post about it here.

Ah, safety. It is of such paramount importance that we must give up our rights and essential liberty.

But why stop in the air! What about Greyhound buses? Shopping malls? Football games? Street festivals? Block parties?

Speaking of safety, child abuse is a major problem in our country today. Now we have the ability to keep children safer: by installing a government-monitored camera in every kitchen in the country. That would curb a lot of abuse.


Then there's the issue of domestic violence. It's epidemic. Why not install cameras in the bedroom, too? Think how much safer women will be.

We could keep college women safer by stopping bulimia with cameras in every college bathroom.

What's that, you say? That allowing the government to watch us while we're naked, having sex, or putting on our clothes is just . . . wrong?

Oh, calm yourselves. We're already letting the government see us naked and feel our genitals and breasts. Might as well give them a few more jollies with a little sex.


After all, if we're willing to undergo searches of our bodies in the name of "safety" so quickly -- and the sheep-like masses clearly are -- what aren't we willing to do?

James Madison said, "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."

He also said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

A more modern-day statement, no less profound, comes from an unnamed teenager in Juarez, Mexico. Although he was speaking of drug lords rather than tyrannical government, he makes my point just the same.

"We prefer to die in one year standing up than living all our lives on our knees."

Quantitative Bleeding for Dummies

Interesting terms like "QE2" and "quantitative easing" are being bandied about these days, used to describe the Federal Reserve's latest move, which is to print another six hundred+ billion dollars and put those dollars into the hands of Wall Street banks and investors.

"Quantitative easing" is just a fancy euphemism for printing money. "QE2" denotes this is the second wave of money printing (remember the first one, for a trillion? and how well that worked?).


Why print money, you ask? If our country's biggest problem is debt (inevitably followed by higher taxes), why on earth are we incurring more, you may reasonably wonder.

And I don't have an answer for you. It's hard to believe the well-credentialed chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, is doing something so incredibly stupid. But, well, he is.

Here's how his convoluted plan is supposed to work: He'll buy newly-issued Treasury notes from the Treasury and existing Treasury notes from the banks and investors, all with newly printed money. This will keep interest rates low.

Then the banks and investors will use their new found cash to lend to small businesses at crazy low interest rates. Oh, and they'll buy a bunch of stocks with some of their money, too.

Small businesses, flush with borrowed cash, will create new jobs and hire people. And higher stock prices will make consumers feel grrreat(!) about their 401ks again, spurring them to spend. Remember the "wealth effect"?

And then businesses will hire more people. Stocks will go even higher. Consumers will spend even more! It will be one big virtuous circle! Hooray!

What could go wrong?

First of all, hello? Small businesses don't want to borrow.

Consumers don't want to borrow or spend.

And at least one smart analyst says the banks will just tuck a good chunk of this money into their reserve accounts because the Fed is paying them interest on their reserves (for the first time in history), and an attractive interest rate at that. (You read that right. The Fed tells banks "lend!" on the one hand and "we'll pay you to hold it" on the other).

In actuality, banks and investors will take their newly printed money and put it into emerging markets. The thing is, putting money in these foreign markets results in higher prices in those markets, due to increased demand.

And guess what? These foreign governments don't want higher prices. They're already battling inflation as it is. Not to mention, higher prices in their exports -- think flat screen TVs, hell, lots of other stuff -- will reduce our own country's demand for these goods.

So, surprise, surprise, these foreign governments are hopping mad at the Fed. And if they get super-duper mad, do you think they won't slap high tariffs on our exports to their countries? Can you say "trade wars"?

A virtuous circle? More like "vicious circle."

All this $600+ billion in quantitative easing instant money will do is devalue our dollar and cause inflation here at home. Again, think flat screen TVs, except now they're prohibitively expensive. Worse, these new Treasury issues will drastically increase our nation's debt.

Why, oh why does anyone in Washington think the solution to our debt is to borrow and spend our way out of this recession? Borrowing and spending is what brought us here in the first place.

We need only look to Japan to see how ludicrous is this notion. Give a listen to my econ-hero, Kyle Bass. He pretty much speaks in plain English. (Ignore the basis points stuff -- you'll still get the message. Besides, David Faber is total mind eye candy).



Alrighty then. Sounds good, eh?

This is why Bernanke's latest stunt ought to be called quantitative bleeding. Put another way, I think the sky is starting to fall.

At some point -- and pretty damn soon, if we don't stop this insanity -- I believe we'll have a collapse in our currency. It's called hyperinflation, and it might trigger war. If only we knew when.

And with that, fair maidens, let me wish you a happy Friday. I'm off to try Caution Flag's rib recipe.