Maybe things are looking up after all

Wow.



And Andrew Sullivan is right. Obama should approach Colin Powell. That ticket would be near unbeatable, as much as I'm not voting that direction, at this point. It would also be the most genuinely bipartisan and thoughtful ticket in my lifetime.

If we play our cards right, this election could just be one that makes us proud to be Americans.

Colin Powell steppin' out of the cave

This is why I respect the shit out of Colin Powell.

Powell Praises Obama, Fears Afghanistan Growing 'More Difficult' Than Iraq

This is why I appreciate Republicans like Colin Powell and think arrogant pricks like Charles Krauthaumer can kiss my ass.

News bulletin for Charles Krauthammer: arrogance is a vice, not a virtue, asshole. I don't mind vices. Just stop confusing the two.

I think Colin Powell may be right that boycotting the opening ceremonies may be a useless and counterproductive move. I've been open to the idea of boycotting the opening ceremonies. But I think Powell may be right that it probably will lead the Chinese to pull away more rather than constructively engaging them in a resolution to the situation in Tibet, but also the situations in Taiwan and Hong Kong, both of whom (likely, in Hong Kong's case; definitely, in Taiwan's case) would want autonomy or independence if autonomy or independence is granted to Tibet.

I'm voting for McCain, at this point. But I respect the shit out of people who think outside of political boxes, these days. Because the boxes make me goddamned claustrophobic.

And it's nice to have company with people who have stepped out of the goddamned cave. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, I'd suggest you read the one really quality passage in Plato's Republic. Plato got a lot wrong in that book. But that allegory surely fits for anyone who has stepped outside into the sunlight.

Thanks, Colin. It's nice to have the company.

Sanity

Finally, some reasonableness amidst this insane political period and the current economic downturn.

High Finance, Laid Low

"It is often wrongly said that the present problems originated in the mindless financial deregulation begun in the 1980s, as if everything would be fine if the old financial system had remained. Actually, the old system -- dominated by banks and savings and loans -- collapsed. Many S&Ls failed when high inflation raised interest rates on their short-term deposits above the levels on their long-term mortgages. Banks suffered huge losses on energy, commercial real estate and developing-country loans. Securitization and other new forms of financing filled the void left by weak banks and S&Ls.

So modern finance has a split personality. Greed, shortsightedness and herd behavior compromise its usefulness. But regulation cannot cure this dilemma, because regulators can't anticipate all the problems and hazards, either. The best protection against human fallibility is to insist that major financial institutions have ample capital to absorb unexpected losses. Paulson's recommended reforms barely dwelled on that; Congress should."

Everything Samuelson says here, is sound, I think, though I think people like Samuelson and the surrounding democratic discussion and democratic and financial institutions would be better off insisting on financial institutions having ample capital than Congress passing a law to make it so. A more reasonable investing philosophy less subject to greed and quick profit turnover would better prevent such problems and make them all more money, I think, with Warren Buffet's success during this period being the best example of that point, but that can hardly be legislated. Congress could pass a law. And reasonable institutions would likely comply, more because it is a good idea than because Congress said it. And such a requirement could only apply to institutions which have large amounts of capital, of course. Everyone else will just need to learn to invest more wisely and with a more reasonable idea of returns to be seeking and the tendency of the market to leave people trying to get rich quick getting poorer much more reliably.

The truth is that there just isn't anything that can be done to prevent greed and the unsound investing it produces. It's as futile to legislate it away as it is to legislate away gluttony, vanity, sloth, lust, envy, or wrath (though actual violence - not metaphorical versions, either, for all those looking for an angle on that argument - associated with any of these must be dealt with). All such sins are endemic and timeless feature of humanity as much as any of the virtues that humanity rightly values and celebrates.

The best financial wisdom teaches these values in the context of finance. If you doubt that, I highly recommend Benjamin Graham's Intelligent Investor. There is a reason that Warren Buffet has made all that money. And this question has everything to do with that. The market, and the people who make it up, really do and will reward virtue, in the long run, often after periods like this where their greed and other vices get the best of them.

Economic and all sanity is found in taking all that wisdom seriously and being honest about the places where we do not. What liberal values and liberal economies offer us is a much stronger and open opportunity to be honest about that wisdom and about where we fall short. Illiberalism and our propensity to use force to get our way has always undermined the probability and capacity for us to get honest with ourselves and one another about our mistakes and shorcomings, because it makes people more afraid to be honest, even with themselves, about those failings.

Progress is found in our recognition of this fact of life, our propensity to engage in the hubris that we have somehow escaped its reach and our tendency to fall short in our pursuit of virtue.

Virtue is found in our honesty about our propensity to fall short. Even financial executives. All of us. And in the wisdom to let us learn from the lessons rather than giving in to the temptation of illiberal and repressive practices, policies, and impulses that compound our problems - by shutting down that freedom and the honesty and responsibility that come with them - rather than curing them.

Finally we seem to be edging toward sanity.

A sign of progress

Iran Report Redux

"Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker have gotten more confident about calling the surge a success, and rightly so. 'It's worth it,' said the general. 'We have seen a significant degradation of al-Qaeda's presence and its abilities," said the ambassador. 'Al-Qaeda is our mortal and strategic enemy. So to the extent that al-Qaeda's capacities have been lessened in Iraq -- and they have been significantly lessened -- I do believe that makes America safer.'

What hasn't much changed is the partisan debate over Iraq, which as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) lamented, remains resistant even to established facts. Republicans tended to follow Sen. John McCain yesterday in arguing that 'success is within reach" and that American goals can be achieved "perhaps sooner than many imagine.' Democrats, including presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Obama, remain locked within the "this war is lost" prism the party adopted a year ago. Yesterday Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and others chose to focus on the costs of the war -- whether Iraq was spending too little of its own money, and whether U.S. resources would be better dedicated to Afghanistan. Those are fair questions, but they are far different from Ms. Clinton's argument last September that accepting that the surge had made progress 'would require a willing suspension of disbelief.'

What also hasn't changed is the sobering but firm bottom line the two envoys offer --one that neither party wants to hear. While "progress is real," as Mr. Crocker put it, it is also 'fragile' and 'reversible,' as Gen. Petraeus said. That's why Gen. Petraeus is recommending -- correctly, in our view -- that troop withdrawals be suspended after the five surge brigades are withdrawn and that further reductions be based on conditions in Iraq.

Contrary to Mr. McCain's suggestion, success will require a prolonged commitment, and even then it will not be guaranteed. But the general and the ambassador both argued that such a commitment is justified. Even with all the travails of the past five years, 'Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened,' said Mr. Crocker. And an early or unconditional withdrawal would, as he noted, invite disaster "with devastating consequences for the region and the world."

The Post does a better job, generally, in my estimation, of sifting out better arguments. I think they have done so, here.

I think the best argument is that whatever policy is adopted must be done with the consultation of the Iraqis who will be, ultimately, responsible for security in their own country after American troops eventually leave and with the American troops who are responsible for security, in the meantime. I have very little confidence, at all, at this point, that American politicians, of any stripe, understand the security challenges we face better than troops on the ground. And I have even less confidence in the self-righteous activists that pressure and leverage them on issues that they have generally thought very little about relative to the challenges we face. The pressure and leveraging has clearly distorted the debate and discussion, by any objective standard.

What is needed is for us to face up to that, to be honest about it, and to proceed to a more honest, engaged, bipartisan conversation moderated by a sober recognition that there are many, many lives on the line, for this question. That is the virtue of moderation. It is about those who are wise enough to recognize that humility is one of the most serious virtues in a world full of strong opinions and that there are things more important in the world than their opinions. Moderation and independent wisdom is about sorting through those priorities and opinions to come to something more reasonable and thoughtful unclouded by our strong and often wrong-headed and foolish passions. Catholics and Protestants in 17th century England were driven by such passions, remember. And to most 21st century liberal democratic citizens, their wars and political battles look like so much needlessly tragic foolishness. And so it is with us. And so it will be till the end of the time. The Greeks warned us of this tendency. Hubris, they cautioned us, is the universal sin, the timeless mistake of humanity.

We're all sinners. Now we just need to move on to a more reasonable discussion of this war based on a thoughtful and practical concern about what policies might offer us the best way to a more democratic and secure future for Iraq, for America, and for the world.

Engaging those soldiers and security officials on the ground as well as their representatives in the Iraqi government might be a good start. Pressuring, leveraging, and bulling them has clearly backfired. Perhaps honest engagement might be a more effective and honest route.

That is what our deepest liberal values would have us believe, anyway. Perhaps we should give them a shot.