Cancer Babies

I used to work with a great guy, Cali Ruchala, who ran the online ‘zine Sobaka, which isn’t online anymore. Cali isn’t online anymore, but I’m pretty sure he’s happy where he is. Or, at least where he said he was going to be… but that’s not my point. I want to bring him up to cite the origin of the idea of a “cancer baby” and how it applies to authoritarian dictatorships everywhere.

Ruchala defined a cancer baby as the ineffective son of a ruthless dictator. The only reason the son rises to power is because he’s the son of a ruthless dictator. Said son is nowhere nearly as ruthless or politically sharp as his father, who usually dies from cancer, and proceeds to lose control of his nation. Bashar al-Assad in Syria is one such cancer baby, and his grip on power there is as bloody as it is slipping. Mubarak’s son in Egypt and Ben Ali’s boy in Tunisia were two cancer babies that lost power even before their dads died: the ruling cliques did not want to have them running things and thought it best to take care of the arrangements as the public rose up in rebellion. Had the ruling cliques in Tunisia or Egypt been more strongly allied to the authoritarian dynasty, the blood in both those nations would be on the level of at least Libya or Syria.

Speaking of Libya, there’s another place where the cancer baby won’t be able to take the stage, it seems. Qaddafi the Elder will fight to the death, but his son lacks the ability to rally people behind him. When the dad dies, the son won’t be far behind.

Monarchies are different, in that they can handle successions with existing institutions. They don’t suffer as badly from the cancer baby phenomenon. But wherever a strongman has taken over and ruled by the sheer force of his personality, his nation is forever one tumor away from collapse.

Now take a look at North Korea. That is an interesting place in this discussion, as one must ask if that nation is ruled by its Communist Party and the military, or if the dominant force there is still Kim Il-Sung, who is still named as North Korea’s head of state. He’s dead, but he’s the head of state and enjoys godlike status in North Korea. Kim Jong-Il, the cancer baby, has ruled over an erratic North Korea of late, and one wonders aloud if he’ll successfully transfer power to his son. If not, then what is happening in the Arab world could suddenly unleash itself in North Korea. One slip of the iron hand in that nation, and the power players in North Korea may find that they have a popular uprising they can ride to to the top with – but will it sustain them there?

Moreover, what happens if North Korea goes the way of Libya, with an actual civil war in and around the nuclear warheads? Have the nations of China, Japan, South Korea, and the USA discussed what they would do if a desperate regime opened fire on its own people? The law of the cancer baby says something is bound to happen, and I can guarantee it won’t be a minor event.

Hardly a Defense…

As Moody’s rating service placed the three largest French banks under review for a possible downgrade due to their exposure to Greek debt, they attempted to make their situation seem not all that bad by pointing out how Germany’s banks were way more exposed than they were…

In other news, Greece’s largest private bank has started to sell all of its Greek government bonds. Greece’s prime minister might be forced to resign and in between riots, Greek citizens are shopping for forks to stick into their country, because it’s done.

There are rumours that Elton John is considering re-re-recording a version of “Candle in the Wind” to commemorate Greece’s brief flirtation with the euro. Other rumours say he’s holding off to see if he has to re-re-record it to commemorate Europe’s brief flirtation with the euro.

Michele Bachmann

The Seven Dwarfs of the Republican Party had a debate last night and Michele Bachmann managed to get on the media’s radar screens in a big way. This is not good. The woman is insane, misinformed, and ready to sell us all out to the banks.

Yes, she opposed the bailout plan for the big banks in 2008. But she’s also dead-set against regulating the banking industry, and it’s deregulation that got us into the mess we’re in – that is yet to resolve. She’s worried about too much government, I’m worried about not enough. I like that police will investigate murders and bring criminals to justice: we need more of them on the financial end, and we need more bankers in jail instead of on yachts purchased with bonus money. Bachmann’s not in favor of that: indeed, she’s ready to get rid of as many rules as possible so the wolves in the banking industry will be able to be as rapacious as they want to be. This is not a good thing for America. Supporting Ms. Bachmann is a dangerous thing for that reason alone.

She’s got the same ideologically blind stridency that Palin has, with the added bonus of being able to find Libya on a map. That doesn’t make her suddenly qualified to be in government, let alone as our nation’s president. I don’t want to compare her to Hitler just because she’s right-wing. I want to compare her to Hitler because she’s insane like that. The USA is going through some horrible economic times and we’re bound to see extremists emerge in the political field. The key to survival is to reject that extremism before it has a chance to enter government and enact legislation to make what is now criminal into standard operating procedure. Bachmann sees un-Americanism everywhere, yet cannot offer specifics when pressed: that is a sign of an addled mind.

When I point a finger of accusation, I back it up with facts or I don’t point at all. This is what separates me from the political nutcases. I make sure my facts are in order, by the way. I don’t make them up and I alter my ideas when I get new information that adds to what I already know. Bachmann just heads on out with her half-baked ideas and believes every single word of her own press. This is not good.

I could make other criticisms of Ms. Bachmann at this time, but I’ll pass over them. I think identifying a paranoid that will hand the nation entirely over to the banking interests stands as criticism enough. No, hold on. I’ll get one more criticism in there.

She claims to be Christian, but wants to let the poor starve. That’s totally not what Jesus taught to do. Sorry, Ms. Bachmann, but I don’t want someone who draws near to Jesus with her lips but who is far from him in her heart to be my president.

It is henceforth the editorial policy of this website to oppose Ms. Bachmann’s political aspirations.

What Happens if Greece Defaults?

Our entire economy, for better or worse, depends upon an active banking sector. Should that sector freeze up, then the entire economy begins to freeze up as well. People are still having a hard time getting money together for a down payment on a home, now that lending requirements are significantly tightened up. My friends in real estate can sell homes, but they can’t get loans approved like they used to: that’s a banking issue.

Now, say Greece defaults later today, just to get it over with. (Greek debt is now CCC and costs more to insure than *Pakistani* debt. Yikes.) OK, first, how do they default? If it’s a soft default, then only European banks take most of the hit, as such a default won’t trigger insurance payouts. On a hard default, US banks are left holding the bag, because US banks are the ones insuring Greek debt. European banks finance it, US banks insure it.

So let’s say the default is bad and hard: the Greek PM resigns and the new guy from the “We’re Not Gonna Take It” party says everyone can take a flying leap into a lake of their choice, they’re all going back to drachmas and autarky. As the financial advisors from North Korea land in Athens, European banks now have to face a drastic reduction in their balance sheets. They will need an infusion of emergency cash to shore up their positions or they’ll be insolvent. Both the cash infusion and the insolvency will be bad things, but the cash infusion allows more room for maneuver, so that’ll happen… until the governments run out of cash. If it’s not there, they’ll have to turn to the ECB, and the ECB itself lacks solid-enough assets to provide a general bailout. That means banks go insolvent and the money-creating ability of banks heads south. That’s deflation, and the economy follows along, with five-cent apples for sale to people that don’t have a dime.

Over here in the USA, debt insurers face a host of claims… not all will be able to pay out 100% of those claims, so they’ll have to get that cash infusion or default. Sure, we got lots of cash in the USA, but we’re already at a discount rate barely above zero. The discount rate has to be that low to avoid hyperinflation: any higher relative to the money supply, and the prices march inexorably upward across the board. With a massive increase in the money supply to bail out a banking system a second time, we cross that discount rate:money supply limit and enter a hyperinflationary environment.

Now maybe we’re lucky enough to withstand the stress of a Greek default. Then we get a Portuguese default, an Irish one, and… oh no, a Spanish one. There’s an analogy to this situation in the game “Buck Buck.” A YouTube video shows what happens to a system that faces repeated stresses… it eventually collapses. While those are kids playing in that video, Bill Cosby tells the story of how his bunch of friends back in the day always won the game of Buck Buck because they had a ringer in one Fat Albert. Fat Albert could crush any competing Buck Buck squad, with ease. Even if Greece is a feather, Portugal feels like a fly landed on us, and Ireland is a leaf, Spain is the Fat Albert of the potential defaulters in our financial game of Buck Buck.

This is why I’m reading Der Spiegel’s reporting on the Euro Crisis religiously.

Astropia

I picked up this film recently at the Cincinnati Friends of the Library Sale and watched it last night. It’s a wonderful exploration of the world of the comic store nerd, with a sweet and predictable love story. It’s in Icelandic, which is a cool language, and it’s very family-friendly, so don’t worry if the kids want to make an Intelligence saving roll as they try to read along with the action as it makes friendly observations on the good stuff the nerd world has to offer.

It is absolutely NOT a big-budget spectacular. That would have ruined it, I think. The effects are special enough, and they make an appeal to the imagination in the same way a role-playing game appeals to the imagination. This is not a film for people that want everything thought out in advance for them. It’s cute, it’s quirky, and it avoids obvious stereotypes of all kinds of people. Yes, there’s a “Clueless”-type princess that has a fish-out-of-water experience, but she’s not as helpless as an American writer would have made her. As a film lover and a gamer, I appreciated the film on several levels, and can recommend it to all my gamer buddies. If you’re not a gamer, you might still like it. It’s cool like that.

“Astropia” belongs in a category of foreign movies for me that will never be on a dominant, overpowering “Top One Hundred” list. It doesn’t aspire to such heights. It wants to be a niche film, with a few great characters that get into some nifty situations. As such, it succeeds marvellously and is well worth my three bucks and ninety minutes. When I get home, my family – all of it – is going to enjoy the movie and get some great fun out of it.

Dear AP Reader…

While I can’t reveal the contents of the tests I grade as an AP Reader, I can say that every now and then, a student chooses not to answer the questions on the AP exam and instead opts to turn the exam into a sort of confessional. Sometimes, those students are rude, flighty, pompous, panicked, or given over to the drawing of hand turkeys. Every now and then, however, I get a “Dear AP Reader…” message that I really appreciate.

Such was today’s case. The poor kid apologized for why she didn’t finish the exam. She explained it was because she’d missed lots of class time. She further explained that the lost time was due to a series of tragedies in the past semester, including crises that hit close to home.

Reading the four pages of explanation moved me. She wasn’t making this stuff up, believe me. After reading it, I had to sit back a moment and reflect on my own life and count my blessings. She’d taken a huge beating, but held firm and found her way through it. I really admire how she kept holding on to life and found a way to still be positive after everything it did to her. Believe me, I know what life can do.

At the end of her explanation, she told me to treat myself to a dinner, that I’d deserved it. I want you to know that I honored that direction. I went to Campanello’s here in Cincinnati and had a fantastic Spaghetti Carbonara that has worked its way into my list of the Twenty Best Things I’ve Ever Eaten. More than that, as I waited for my food, a little boy from the table next to mine kept running around and saying “hi!” to everyone. He had blond hair and was only 17 months old, so he easily reminded me of my son, Jarom, who left this world 9 years ago. I talked with a group of people next to me, including a couple that had been together for 43 years, so that easily reminded me of Yvette, my dear wife, my best friend, and my true love. A group of kids asked me to take their picture: that easily reminded me of my three lovely children still here with me.

Sure, the food was great. But taking the advice of that student that had been through so much helped me to realize how blessed my life has been so far and how wonderful people really can be. I love my family, I love the good people of the world, and I love the positive experiences we’re able to enjoy each day, if we just allow them to happen.

On Crisis

Reinhart and Rogoff are looking at historical evidence of defaults and make a strong case about what prerequisites will allow for a crisis to precipitate. Right now, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are in the most precipitous situation and stand ready to create a replay of the crisis that followed in the wake of German default in the late 20s.

Is this a stretch? I don’t think so.

Zimbabwe, Argentina, and others went bust either singly or as part of a regional financial crisis. We’re looking today at a global situation, with much more going on in more countries than in any other crisis since 1927-1933. Look at Spain’s recent election results: the Socialists that advocated austerity were swept aside in favor of populist parties. Greece isn’t likely to accept a surrender of fiscal independence to a band of German bankers, so look for a political trump there of any possible economic solution involving staying in the Euro with austerity. Italy’s and Belgium’s debt outlooks have both been lowered, and Italy is one of the G7/G8 nations: they’re a whale to the minnow of Greece.

The outcome of a crisis is never certain: one only knows that a crisis will precipitate an outcome that is in many ways significantly different from the set of conditions that existed prior to the crisis. While hindsight is also clearer than what people see at the time events are happening, it’s also insulting to those that experienced the events. By that, I mean we need to take a look at how people react in the midst of a crisis and what causes them to realize what will happen down the road. What danger signs do people consider? What events do they consider significant?

In Nazi Germany at the time of WW2, roughly half the Jews there had fled, while roughly half remained. While there were likely many Jews that could not afford to travel, there were those who could afford to do so that felt things would be all right in the long run. For those who fled, different things acted as triggers to their decision to depart. As the events became more obvious, escape became more difficult to accomplish, but remained possible. From a man who wrote “Mein Kampf” leading a coalition government to the Reichstag fire to the Enabling Act to Kristallnacht to the Nuremberg Laws to Rhineland occupation to Anschluss to Sudetenland to the Danzig crisis, events mounted in seriousness and yet war and its consequences still came as a surprise to many observers. Such will happen again in the current crisis.

This is not to say that we’re going to see, specifically, Nazism, World War, and a Holocaust. But I do believe we will see more political extremism and populism, increased tensions that will lead to more conflicts, increased opportunities for small nations to wage war as the bigger nations are preoccupied with internal troubles, and increased opportunities for ethnic-based conflict as the peacekeepers turn inward. We’re already witnessing the various Arab states dealing with their outbreaks of democracy in their own ways, and none of them are finished with their internal turmoil.

A huge question mark in my mind is China. It recently had to declare martial law in Inner Mongolia, adding that region to its list of ethnic hotspots. Couple that with increasing unemployment and inflation, and the necessary preconditions exist for a potential violent regime change in China – political infighting within the CPC at the very least and open warlordism with a breakdown of central authority as a real possibility.

Now back to Europe. 45% of Spain’s under-25s are unemployed. Massive anti-government protests have happened across the nation. This is on the level of what took place in Tunisia and elsewhere, this time in Europe. Greece had similar protests, and those are sure to worsen as the economy there worsens. Italy could be next. On the strategic side, the Visegrad nations of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia have agreed to form a battlegroup under Polish command. This is significant because they would not feel compelled to do so if both Russian power were not on the ascendant and protection guarantees from NATO were credible. The Visegrad nations are seeking to extend their alliance to Romania and Bulgaria, to formalize a vision of Pilsudski’s to create an “intermarium” alliance between nations that were traditionally in the orbit of either Russia or Germany, or both.

When was the sign that got me thinking along these lines? When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and the rich world watched on, impotently.

Wilson’s “The New Freedom”

The New Freedom was written by Woodrow Wilson in 1912. I am finding it a fascinating read. While I do not agree completely with everything Wilson says, I do find his observations on the vast changes the USA underwent from 1890 to 1910 to make for compelling reading. Much of what he says resonates today. I would say his comments resonate even more so, since there have been nearly 100 years since he wrote for the forces he observed to continue their work.

Change the Government?

Said the message board poster to me: “If government debt only benefits the wealthy then clearly society should get rid of it.”

Easier said than done. Government benefits the wealthy largely because the wealthy benefit the government. It’s a two-way street, to boot.

It’s not all doe-eyed politicians falling under the sway of evil Big Money. I’ve heard a good number of anecdotes about how politicians can’t take your calls because they’re too busy speed-dialing every multi-millionaire in the country. Then there was the story related by a former president of Standard Oil when he went to Congress to see why it was passing so much legislation against his company.

He went to the head of one committee, who flatly stated that the laws against Standard Oil would stop as soon as that company dumped its current legal representation and signed a contract with the committee chair’s legal partners back in New York. The representative was basically demanding a huge bribe for himself and his partners, and the president of Standard Oil refused to play ball that way… but I think we all know that it continues.

Because of the two national parties and their primary systems, we only get to choose leaders that are pre-approved by some segment of the powers that be. We don’t get to draft our own local heroes and have them battle it out for the political mindshare of the nation: we get Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber. We’re free to think that Tweedle-Dumber is the other party’s man, but there really isn’t enough difference between the two – except on social issues and in personal style – to truly make a difference.

The level of institutional change necessary to effect a change in the way the USA is governed is sufficient to be described as revolutionary at the very least and cataclysmic in only slightly more extreme scenarios.

George Friedman of Stratfor has said that the struggle in the USA between empire and the republic is very real. I’ve read a set of books from the turn of the previous century to indicate that the struggle was already finished by 1919 and the forces of empire emerged victorious. Even then, authors complained of media concentration in the hands of the elites and the use of propaganda to distract people from actual goings-on. Every thing said in these books from 1902, 1919, and 1921 resonates today, but even more strongly because not one condition they decried 100 years ago has done anything but increase in intensity.

Many consider Eisenhower’s speech about the military-industrial complex to have been a warning back in the 1950s: It was only an echo of sentiments voiced by Wilson in 1912, in his “The New Freedom.” The problems we worry over today were already intractable a century ago.

The Flipside of the Monroe Doctrine

Whenever I heard about the Monroe Doctrine in school, it was always about how the USA put it forward to protect the Latin American republics from European interference. Never once was it mentioned that the Monroe Doctrine also effectively meant the USA could exercise a veto power on any Latin American relationship with the rest of the world. The new republics never asked for the doctrine in the first place and it was useless whenever the British navy didn’t feel like blockading France… until 1898.

After 1898, the USA could use the Monroe Doctrine to extend a condition of empire over the whole of Latin America. Rather than incorporate the lands politically and then have to deal later on with questions of citizenship and rights, as did the Roman Empire, the USA allowed for political separation to exist in legal terms, but managed to nevertheless control Latin American nations through forced treaty obligations and military interventions. This, in turn, meant that US corporations could use the puppet governments propped up by US forces and US-trained forces to create unfair economic arrangements to suck natural resources out of Latin America to make cheaper goods for US citizens. Slavery existed, just not in a jurisdiction where it was both illegal and where law enforcement would act to put an end to it.