As most know, on January 8th, in a grocery store parking lot, a gunman, opened fire on a small political gathering.   He wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others, and killed 6, including a 9 year old child.

Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.

Not that I expect much out of press unwilling to engage in critical thought on even the smallest of issues, but this tax debate and almost every press outlet’s discussion of it refuses to acknowledge even basic points in a logical way.

Fact – the real discussion is about extending the tax cuts passed in 2001 & 2003 during the Bush Administration (here); I.E. maintaining the status quo. 

The press?  [all emphasis added]

The AP reports  (here) :

WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax deal struck by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans essentially gives Americans a pay raise.

WSJ (here):

Tax-cut optimism fueled a rise in short-term U.S. Treasury yields…

Kansas City Star (here):

This week’s tax-cut compromise would contribute almost $1 trillion to the nation’s federal budget deficit over the next two years and add sharply to the mounting national debt…

CNN (here):

News of a high-cost tax-cut deal between President Obama and the Republicans…

DesMoines Register (here):

Forget federal deficit: Tax cuts all around!

& these are just five examples in a long line of examples.  I could honestly publish ten more articles today alone about “tax-cut” idiocy, but won’t (maybe two more though).

Truth is, it’s frustrating to see professional writers who are unable to use language in any way consistent with reality, which I don’t think is asking too much.   

I’m certainly not asking for all writers to agree with me (that in itself might freak me out a little).  It’s their right, at the discretion of their employers, to write what they wish.  So they can and should write articles against the compromise or the extension of the tax cut policy in general if that’s what they believe.

I’ll still argue they’re wrong of course due solely to the economics of the situation, but here I’m wondering why we can’t at least expect the press to use terms like “cut” only when a true “cut” actually exists.

The logic is beyond simple – there are no tax cut proposals on the table.  None.   This is not about cutting anyone’s taxes.

Secondarily, this cannot increase the debt at all.  As logic dictates by not giving money to the government which they do not now have nor have they requested, you have in effect done absolutely nothing.

Makes me want to rob them, turn around later and give only half their stuff back…  When they looked frustrated and confused and finally asked with anger, “Where’s the rest?”

I’m simply reply, “It would cost me way too much to give you everything” and calmly walk away.

Wikileaks, that organization which released over 100K US war documents (here), is at it again.  This time, they have released US diplomatic cables (here):

…WikiLeaks released thousands of State Department documents that disclosed candid impressions from diplomats and other world leaders about America’s allies and foes. The memos also unveil occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea….

& now the stories begin – depending upon which story you read, their basic slant, and their ability to search quickly for specific keywords to make their points while ignoring the vast majority of information available, reports vary.  For instance, from Salon we see the US helping Yemen attack AQAP resulting in civilian casualties (here):

…confirms that the Obama Administration has secretly launched missile attacks on suspected terrorists in Yemen, strikes that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians….

From CSMonitor we have reports that Israel is vindicated with its policy towards Iran (here) as the cables contained:

…candid assessments from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that Iran posed the biggest strategic threat to regional stability. The assessments even stressed the need for considering conventional attacks on Tehran before its nuclear program becomes operational….

From Bloomberg, we get news about North Korea selling weapons to Iran (here):

Iran obtained 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, potentially giving the Islamic nation the capability of attacking Moscow and cities in Western Europe, according to embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks.org and provided to the New York Times…

From eWeek, news about China’s cyber-warfare against privay (here):

China’s government was indeed behind the hack on Google’s Gmail system earlier this year according to a cable captured by the controversial Wikileaks organization….

& this is just the beginning.  With the number of documents and their contents, there is likely many more “reports” to come, but most coming this early are little more than attention seeking headlines, as all are without context.

This isn’t to say anything being reported is inaccurate, only to say that no one individual fact can be said to be indicative of any specific trend nor should it be used to shape overall analysis.

Irregardless of what reports are now stating, without question this is another serious blow to the security apparatus of the US by Wikileaks (here):

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, posted online Sunday by WikiLeaks and made available to other media, are sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

The cables, most of them from the past three years, provide an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats….

Realitically, we’re a long way a way from knowing the true impact, assuming it can ever be known.  For instance, not only could frank assessments damage relationships by revealing less than positive views the US has about their allies, but this leak could also work to reduce open discussions in the future.  (more…)

Well currently, the question is moot as the US government does own 61% of GM stock.  So they are the controlling shareholder, but it seems once again, pundits, journalists, and the rest are acting as if it’s a good thing only because it’s not as bad is it could be.

Via the Economist (here subtitled: An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not):

AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees. This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public…

Which sounds nice in theory, but in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars.

So even if a theoretical IPO that generates excitement were to happen, in order for the government to recoup $50 billion dollars the stock price will have to increase to $163 dollars a share or by more than 400 times it’s current price.

But of course when it’s not your money you lost, but taxpayers money, I guess that changes the calculus….

The Economist continues:

…Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy….

& here’s where it gets more confusing.  After stating the obvious concerns one would normally have when any business starts making decisions based upon politics instead of what’s best for the company (& also what they are legally bound to do, their fiduciary responsibility), they tell us those fears are wrong:

…Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside….

While simultaneously explaining to us how they did in fact make tons of political decisions:

Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior….

DA posted about how the Obama administration used their leverage and power to bend the law to help the Unions over other creditors who should’ve legally be first in line for any monies (here).

But of course, that wasn’t the only political meddling in GM (the Economist):

Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends….

Then why does the Economist think it’s a good idea?

[President Obama] his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold….

& there we have it.  So long as there wasn’t a huge amount of political intervention and there’s a possibility that the government might recoup all their money…. Thing are good for The Economist.

Of course “good” is being defined by potential future results.  The truth is, the US government buying up private businesses creates far more implications that whether the stock prices rise enough to recoup the money they were given.

Enter Harvard Law School on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.  Instead of asserting some win based upon theoretical future value, they asked the more important question (here):

In our paper When the Government Is the Controlling Shareholder, recently made publicly available on SSRN, we analyze the ways in which existing corporate law structures of accountability change when the government is the controlling shareholder, and the extent to which federal “public law” structures substitute for displaced state “private law” norms.

& the implications are vast.  In their full research paper (here), they ask a much more serious and long term question.  Which is, what rights do other shareholders have when the government owns a controlling interest and is forcing companies to make decisions that will not benefit shareholders in the long term?

Normally, shareholders have legal rights at the state level where officers of any company are held legally liable to their fiduciary responsibility:

In the handling of money and when one acts as a corporate or individual trustee, there is a fiduciary responsibility owed to the principal party. It is defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a “caretaker” of another’s rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of “good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiaries interest.” The good faith has been interpreted to impose an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary’s interests as well the duty not to favor ANYONE ELSE’S INTEREST (INCLUDING THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST) over that of the beneficiary. Further, if the agent should find him/herself in a position of conflicting interests, the agent must disclose the dual agency (acting for two parties at the same time) or risk being accused of constructive fraud in regards to both or either principals….

What this is for, is so shareholders can be protected.  If a company you own shares in decides to willfully make decisions which are counter to this responsibility, shareholders can sue for compensatory damages.

But what if the main decision maker is the federal government?  Even though the Economist seems to be ok with this, though recent history shows this is an incredibly naive position to take (from the full report):

Even though government investment started less than three years ago, there are already troubling anecdotes….

For instance, after the government purchased 71% of AIG and AIG gave 165 million dollars in bonuses which were contractually guaranteed, the “owners” responded with threats.  Senators and Congressmembers bemoaned this.  Told us it was unethical for AIG to follow their contractual obligations because the government owns them.  Even President Obama:

….urged Congress to draft legislation that sends “a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”

As if Senators, Congressmen, and the President have any idea what pay should be in the first place… (DA post here), but they went further (from the full report):

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee pushed the idea of suing AIG….

Since they have majority ownership:

[Barney Frank] “I still believe that we have a right legally to recover this, because we can assert our ownership rights and say, yes, you may have a contractual right to a bonus but your rotten performance means you should forfeit it”…

Additionally:

…”senior Treasury officials have been meeting several times a week all spring to review, one by one, the payments to the company’s executives. But the time-consuming discussions have never been resolved whether any of the executives should get paid.”  Now, even routine bonuses are pre-cleared with Kenneth Feinberg, the “compensation czar.”

& what of the bank bailouts?

…bailout recipients faced mounting pressure from the President and Congress to increase lending.  President Obama said he would “hold banks ‘fully accountable’ for the assistance they recieved and that they ‘will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer’”…

What about foreclosures, from people who can’t pay their mortgages?

Rep. Barney Frank “acknowledged that struggling homeowners [weren't] getting help as fast as many in Congress had hoped”, and urged bank executives to put in place a foreclosure moratorium until the government could implement mitigation programs.

These same people who also went after GM & Chrysler for closing too many dealerships.  And then there’s Citigroup, Bank of America, etc, etc, etc. (DA post here).

But this is Harvard, so they talk about ways other countries have handled this.  For instance, the UK started another government agency.  Theoretically it’s independent of politics, with a sole goal to find businesses which need to be saved and to save them.

Which of course is an entire other conversation…. why anyone believes the government can make the bad decision of buying a failing private company and solve the conflict of interest by simply building another government agency is…. well, it’s stupid.

It would be like having an entire corrupt police force arguing that the solution to the corruption is to merely hire more cops.

& therein lies the true problem.  When the press, politicians, and us normal voters, refuse to look into the future to see the true implications of such actions, we end up with answers like “since our [government's] original plan didn’t work, it must only be because we didn’t go far enough.”

I would submit to those willing to critically contemplate, that the decision itself was wrong & all these implications were obvious, known, and serve as further proof that politics and business don’t mix.

More importantly however, they fail in their analysis on a fundamental level.  True critical thinking can never rely on results as proof of anything.  Because it’s always possible to make a bad decision, and have positive results in spite of it.  It’s also completely possible that you make the most perfect decision ever, but it still fails.

So no – the question isn’t really whether the government made a good investment, whether taxpayers will actually recoup the $50 billion spent, or whether GM ultimately succeeds in the long run.

The question should be- should we have done it regardless of the answer to any of those questions?

& I would proffer the answer is easy: no.  The long range implications of such dangerous behavior isn’t worth saving one single car company.

Of course, that’s just my two synapses firing…. they could always be misfiring

For some time now, I’ve listed “journalist” as one of my favorite pejoratives and without fail I get proven correct at least once a day.  Today is no different.

In Pittsburgh over the weekend, a clearly irrational gunman killed three officers (here):

Three Pittsburgh police officers were killed and a fourth was injured in an unprecedented shooting Saturday morning in Stanton Heights, where authorities believe a man was “lying in wait” with high-powered weapons, ready to fire when the victims arrived at his home.

The man apparently was extremely freaked our about potentially losing civil rights such as gun ownership from the new presidential administration.   This terrorist was obviously deluded, as even if his belief was correct, his actions are highly unlikely to have any net positive effect of reducing the likelihood of his fears coming true.

Either way – with this bit of information, a CNN Anchor reported this week (video here), without proof, only conjecture, that Fox News, Sean Hanity, Glen Beck, and other “right-wing” sources are at fault for this very tragic shooting.

He bemoans Hanity  & Beck directly for talking about “doom & gloom” while not having any direct quotes for any Fox News show or the people he name directly talking about Obama taking everyone’s guns.

& If that wasn’t bad enough, he uses the obviously leftist mouth piece  Media Matters to help him argue his points.  They say Beck said… but again, it seems that if this had taken place it would be fairly easy to come up with the audio itself…

With news like this, is it any wonder that people simply don’t believe them?