Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

Econobrowser has some interesting thoughts on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But be sure to read the comments also.

My feeling is that we should return to the fully public Fannie Mae of the past, with as little room for corruption or inflated salaries at the top as possible.  The very purpose of Fannie Mae was to hold risk that private borrowers might not want at low price, to keep only the smallest FHA loans low priced.  Some of that risk is the systemic risk.  The public bank may need to be bailed out during a crisis.  The idea is that fewer other entities would need to be bailed also.  And the public bank could set an example with good rules and boring management receiving comparatively low salaries.

Humanity and decency require new drug policies

Here's Ethan Nadelman of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization I contribute to almost every year.

Funny, though, while I knew DPA favored legalization of Marijuana, I assumed, unlike the sea of Marijuana-only legalization organizations, they favored legalization of all drugs.

In fact, Nadelmann is even a bit qualified about his support for marijuana.  He does not want to see it become like the tobacco cigarette market.

And wrt other drugs, the DPA doesn't have an official policy, but it wouldn't be a full libertarian style legalization.*  They mainly push for harm reduction strategies, such as needle exchange, in a step by step process of reducing all harms from drug prohibition (by far the major source of harms) and the drugs themselves.  (*He seems to say other drugs should not be freely sold, but possession should not be a crime.)

My own idea of the only decent policy is legalization of marijuana as with alcohol, restricted by age particularly.  (I would prefer to see blue laws repealed and alcohol available pretty much all day, so I didn't mention hours.  And restrictions on location can be suburbanizing...)

And then for other currently illegal drugs, I believe all drugs without exception should be available with a presecription from a state licensed medical doctor.  So more "schedule 1."

Overthrowing the deeply intrenched status quo, especially the prison industrial complex, and DA's, is difficult to contemplate.

Anyway, Nadelmann says a lot of other things I had thought of decades ago, with nobody else talking about them ever, and it's so wonderful to hear someone else confirming those ideas.

One idea is the spirituality of a once a year carefully planned psychedelic trip, to clear out mental sediment.  Not that I've been able to do this.  But the arc of my life does suggest that at least one door opening is useful--perhaps essential.

Another is that prohibition of all drugs including marijuana is what can create a "gateway" effect, as illegal dealers may carry more than one.  If marijuana is legal, but not the others, there is no gateway.

He says you can't have an effective 12 step program if falling off the wagon has legal consequences.  I've always said you can't have drug treatment if the drug is illegal, few will ever seek treatment because of possible consequences.

He mentions nalaxone, as a good idea, I will have to check that out.  He believes it should be liberally available.

He says the latest research shows decriminalization has no effect on use (it doesn't go up over all groups in society) but vast effect on the harm caused on people and society.

Here is my post to Facebook


I agree with and support Ethan Nadelmann and the Drug Policy Alliance.  Their policy on drugs other than marijuana is to emphasize decrim, and make people think about what the ultimate laws should be (though they oppose full libertarian style legalization of all drugs, they don't mind others talking about it in the interest of dialog).  I more specifically say that all drugs should be available with prescription from any state licensed medical doctor.  I would abolish Schedule One, the drugs that cannot be prescribed for any reason.  And marijuana should be at least as legal as alcohol, but with personal production and noncommercial sales less restricted (so the corporations don't take over).

Causality is a story

I've been thinking about the Kennedy assassination, then the Tate-LaBianca murders, two epoch ending events, whose effect was the end of liberal governance (ok, that's overstating it a bit, the last liberal President was Nixon--as Chomsky says, but that might only have been the assassination aftermath corrected the rightward bias of the assassination itself), the the end of liberal culture.  My thinking is that there were likely inputs from many sources alleged by conspiratorialists (of whom you could say I was one).  For example, had the CIA not had the MK ULTRA program, and not experimented with LSD, the Manson murders could not have occurred as they did.

Did CIA/FBI/Mafia/KnightsOfMalta/dissaffected-nationals/Hoover direct the outcome more tightly than that, perhaps suggesting or listing Tate (such as hit one of these, and we'll let you live)?  Well that's into conspiracy territory, no evidence exists, but then none would be expected.  Remember the tape recorder on Mission Impossible.  Only a small group of people might have ever known.  But then, perhaps through some screw up, the table was tilted, as these programs certainly involved people with far right and racist views, like J Edgar Hoover himself, a finite number of people could have been targets, planned or unplanned.  Then where would you put the matter if CIA/FBI had a pot of money for this kind of thing, embarrassing Black power movements, but simply left the who question to the perpetrators, who would understand the biases of their clients?  They would have chosen 'someone like Tate' (a left liberal movie icon) as to not offend their clients and someone they could get their hands on, and not someone of other persuasions.

Anyway, determining most important or proximate causes may be more difficult than one would naiively suppose, especially in the broadest view, when you can consider counterfactuals of all kinds.

For example, what would have happened in the truck had broken down on the way to the Tate residence?  Well then the murder wouldn't have happened that night anyway, and Manson might have had a different goal the next day, if any.

Then where do you put such things as the highway itself.  Or the invention of things like automobiles.  Surely without those, both of these events cound not have been anything like they were.

When it comes right down to it, the cause of everything is everything.

So where does that leave us?  Causality cannot be considered an absolute description of everything that happened.  Only a description of everything that happened can be that, or some description of the same scale.  Causality is a story we create about events, selecting which things are the variables and which things are the fixed.  But the reality is that all are variable, it is only in our mind we consider some things part of a fixed background, which is the context which must exist for a notion of causality.

BTW, if you read over on my other blog, I have a (likely untrue--falsely remembered from misplaced details) story in which I caused the Tate-LaBianca murders by insulting Manson's drug access compared with that of my chosen (Hollywood) people.*  So he murders a couple of Hollywood dealers and their favorite clients to put me in my place (fear if not respect of him).  The LaBianca portion of the murders were related to my mother's first name, literally "La Nore" (she insisted on the space), so it was some kind of coded message (watch out, kid, you might be next).

Now what if the Manson murders had actually been sparked by some 13 year old kid's insult at a park? Consider the extreme case in which there was nothing else, particularly, behind Manson's decision to order murder at all AND to order murder for these specific people?  In what sense would you say that I caused the murders?  Well it certainly wouldn't be a matter of criminal liability on my part.  I had freedom of speech and an inherent right to defend myself by insulting a creepy guy.  I did nothing wrong, or at least nothing illegal.  Certainly a kid's insult isn't in any kind of balance with a terrible murder.  But from a neutral standpoint, not related to social judgement, I was part of the causality, and a more active part than a molecule in the roadway between Spahn Ranch and Cielo Drive (which must have taken a bit longer than the 20 minutes I've seen quoted)--which would have been nevertheless "a part" of the events that actually took place.

And so, guilt is restricted form of causality, a more particular kind of story.  When assessing guilt, we leave out a universe of additional causative factors, to focus on those assumed to be part of human free will.

*When I met Manson at the Chatsworth Park--2 miles from Spahn Ranch--during the years 1967-1969 preceding the Tate-LaBianca murders, possibly only days or hours beforehand, he first struck me as a country bumpkin Christian promoting his church.  Though I was only a 13 year old kid who had never used drugs, it struck me that I did not want to be leaving my infinite LA culture and becoming Christian in some country bumpkin church because that would mean giving up on a lifetime of playing with psychedelic drugs, as I imagined my future.  When we first started talking, he pointed out some alleged gaps in my world view, making me angry because I couldn't see through his rhetorical tricks. I retorted something like "But you don't have any good drugs.  What fun is that?"  All the Christians I knew were opposed to drugs.  If this is an accurate recollection--and I have serious doubts--the irony is incredibly thick.  I recall Manson quickly blurted out a bunch of details proving he knew plenty about drugs as he walked away.  I was a little blond headed kid, and my best friend and guide was a brown haired jew who had begun styling himself to look like Roman Polansky--in part because Rosemary's Baby had been his favorite movie.  All this could have made Manson angry, and angry specifically against blonde and jew pairs.  We might have been a causative factor, but not a guilty one.

The other theory

OK, perhaps it's rather hard to believe that Oswald was gunning for the other gunman, as I suggested in an earlier post.

It's actually not that hard to believe, even as a communist (and not a Communist?) Oswald seems to have been the sort of idealist for whom even though Kennedy was better that almost anyone else available could be, he still wasn't good enough.  He did, after all, order the Bay of Pigs.  Perhaps it wasn't known as well then how Kennedy failed to follow the whole Eisenhower script--and bring in the Air Force.

It seems reasonable still to doubt the fatal bullet came from Oswald.  But he could have been...with some imagination..the kind of person to try to kill Kennedy.

What kind of information was he getting from his friends?  In fact GdM, his CIA handler, said he was responsible, then allegedly committed suicide before he could testify to Congress.  He was responsible not for gunning Kennedy, but for programming Oswald to do it (or he could have been, allegedly).  A master conspirator.

And there could have been others...but we'll never hear the testimony.

Who was GdM working for at the time?

Maximum Possible Sea Level Rise: 263.5 feet or 80.32 meters

What would the maximum sea level rise be if all the glaciers melted?  I think the answer to this question is fairly simple, as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey, it would be 80.32 meters or 263.5 feet.

But some people, including many scientists and even Global Warming activists, don't want to give this number.  They think it too implausible, alarmist, or whatever.  So for example, we find reported in the New York Times (I have been told...but haven't checked out the links yet) that it would be 25 feet.

How do they arrive at this?  Clearly not by simply adding up all the water, as the USGS does.  Instead, to come up with another number, either based on what they believe is likely to happen, or based on some limited interval, such as 500 years.

But any such limited timespan is just an artificial cutoff, and any such idea of what is likely to happen is based on some kind of model of how things happen in the climate, and how they happen in the ocean, etc.  Even though the question, as stated, is not asking what is likely to happen, or even plausible, just what could possibly happen.

One problem with trying to gauge what is likely to happen is that it is very complex.  There are interactions between the main effects, interactions among the interactions, etc.  Scientists typically make conservative projections, the kind that are not likely to be wrong.  So then if you feed one conservative projection into another conservative model, you get an an even more conservative projection, and so on.  This is why scientists do not (apparently) like to report the 80.32 meters that geologists plainly see.

The Long-Term Problem of Full Employment

John Maynard Keynes quoted by brilliant blogger Sandwichman in a comment to this post at EconomistsView.

"4. After the war there are likely to ensure [sic] three phases-

"(i) when the inducement to invest is likely to lead, if unchecked, to a volume of investment greater than the indicated level of savings in the absence of rationing and other controls;

"(ii) when the urgently necessary investment is no longer greater than the indicated level of savings in conditions of freedom, but it still capable of being adjusted to the indicated level by deliberately encouraging or expediting less urgent, but nevertheless useful, investment;

"(iii) when investment demand is so far saturated that it cannot be brought up to the indicated level of savings without embarking upon wasteful and unnecessary enterprises."

[Keynes's ultimate cure for the third phase?]

"It becomes necessary to encourage wise consumption and discourage saving,-and to absorb some part of the unwanted surplus by increased leisure, more holidays (which are a wonderfully good way of getting rid of money) and shorter hours."

http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/long-term-problem-of-full-employment.html

Thinking about a non-Oswald hypothesis

OK, I heard a great JFK assassination lecture at the 2013 Mensa AG.  I spent 4 1/2 hours at the JFK 6th Floor Museum in Dallas and inspecting Dealy Plaza and the Grassy Noll.

On the other hand, many years ago (1988?) I heard the PBS version, which basically left me feeling that the lone gunman theory needed no alternative, it was perfectly fine, people should just get over it.

But afterwards, I kept hearing about other things that didn't fit, such as

!!!!!  The Pristine Bullet   !!!!

The official theory has it that the Pristine Bullet shattered JFK's brain and did multiple injuries to Connally.  BUNK !!!!  Any theory which includes this should be immediately discarded, or modified not to include it.

There are other things that may be less conclusive, but I'm trying to explain anyway, such as:

1) Oswald was apprehended shortly after the assassination.  His cheek was tested for shotgun use.  The results were negative.  (In the official story line, shown at the Museum, the test was "inconclusive.  That means they didn't get the expected results.)

If you take this negative test as accurate, Oswald did not fire the rifle at all!  Sure, he may have set it up (at least there was the gun perch he supposedly created from boxes with his fingerprints).

2) When Oswald's rifle was tested, the FBI had to use many shims just to get it to work.  After the use of such shims, any claim about the bullets matching the wear pattern from this rifle should be abandoned.  The pattern may have been caused by the shims.  The rifle itself was old and rickety.  (I saw the full sized picture at the Museum).

3) The shot that actually killed Kennedy is half way down Elm Street.  This looks like a very difficult shot to me, especially with and old and nearly broken rifle.

4) Oswald himself!  Oswald always denied shooting Kennedy.  And what would have been his motives for doing so?  And someone so careful to get a job at the Book Depository (before the path was planned btw), be a Marine sharp shooter, and go to Russia and marry a Russian wife--this guy is no imbecile.  He has skills, he is smart, he can plan.  His lack of material success is a result of his idealism.  He should know that the assassination of Kennedy would put Johnson in power (or maybe someone even worse--if he could kill Johnson as well).  And if he wanted to show off his prowess--what was his escape concept?  Further showing that Oswald was no dummy, he refused a public defender and asked for representation from the ACLU.

5) Ruby.  Ruby shot Oswald two days after the assassination.  His story that he did this because he loved Kennedy makes no sense.  Ruby had mob connections and the mob hated Kennedy, as did most Texas conservatives.  This was clearly intended to shut Oswald up, and likely intended to hide whatever knowledge Oswald had.  Ruby died before standing trial.  This is just all to convenient to be dismissed.

OK, here's what I think.  Oswald--and his handler--were deep into this.  He knew the players.  He had deep connections in the exile conservative Russian community in Dallas (these people HATE the soviet union, just like the Cuban exiles in Miami).  He could have known:

1) There was a plot to kill Kennedy.

2) This plot was tied to the FBI itself (so no use calling them).  Did I mention that J Edgar Hoover not only hated John Kennedy, he feared Robert Kennedy, who was investigating the mob.  Hoover had long protected the mob and enjoyed their company.  Meanwhile, the mob had the dirt on Hoover so he was actually on their leash.  And possibly the CIA.  Oswald was being personally "handled" by the CIA, his best friend was a CIA contact.

3) Oswald could know that the outcome of a Kennedy assassination could be much worse.  Kennedy had done many things that could have been much worse, refusing to send the Air Force to bomb Cuba, making a deal with the Russians to end the Cuban Missle Crisis, setting up the hotline, negotiating the Test Ban Treaty, and most concurrently planning to withdraw from Vietnam.

So Oswald would be motivated to stop this plot--all by himself.  As an idealist, the difficulty of the task would not make him turn away.  What he was hoping to do was shoot the actual Kennedy shooter who was setting up the Grassy Noll.  He got his rifle set up, but before he could do anything, Kennedy was shot.  But Oswald must have immediately realized that intended heroism was not going to be taken that way.  He was going to become the patsy (as he always claimed) to take the fall for the assassination itself.  Oops!  Better get out of there fast, which was what he did.  And no use taking the gun, it certainly wouldn't look good for him to be carrying a rifle just after the assassination.

Now how would Oswald know so much to know the shooter would be on the Grassy Noll?  His Russian connections, of course.  Very smart people, including his Russian exile handler.

This sort of intended heroism was probably why Oswald attempted to shoot Walker as well.  He possibly feared Walker to be part of a coup to overthrow the Kennedy administration.  And possibly Walker was in the coup (or maybe just some of his friends).

From the Book Depository, BTW, Oswald had a clear view of the Grassy Noll, just as clear if not better than the motorcade shot, and easier because it was not moving. But he would have had trouble shooting the shooter there if that shooter were hidden behind the fence.  And thus his plan to stop the assassination was foiled.

The perps?  The FBI, the CIA, the mob, anti-Castro exiles, oil oil like HL Hunt.  I find the suggestion that HL Hunt provided the money which was used to hire two assassins.  It certainly wouldn't look good for the job to be done by actual FBI or CIA people, or paid for with payments traceable to the government.