Free Republic

Hank may have been a prick but, he had old school business acumen and would never have let the FP division get out of hand like it did.

Agree, too.

Hank was a difficult man to work for -- and had his limits. But they were lightyears beyond anyone else in the insurance industry. About the crusade to remove him from the empire he built: it brings to mind the old observation about cutting one's throat to cure a nose bleed.

One thing in common these patterns bear: the rise slow, the fall seemingly precipitous, and in every case we find the loss of nerve and strength and will comes not from the bottom, not from the common people at all, but from the rulers, the philosophers, the most affluent and educated who, in their comfort and Narcissism, abandon duty for self-absorption and self-gratification and who in boredom or self-loathing decide to fling open the gates of the city to the barbarians beyond, while the common man still stands at the walls prepared to die for the people in his charge.

True as far as it goes. But, eventually, the rot reaches the people, too. As it has in this country. We cannot perpetuate the myth that we are still an heroic people betrayed by corrupt and weak leaders. We, too, have become weak and corrupt. We elect those leaders. We listen to the lies and choose to believe. It may start with treason of the clerisy. But by the time it all collapses, as it is now doing, the entire structure is rotten through and through. America the exceptional is virtually gone. Little flashes -- like the rescue of the sea captain from the pirates -- will counter the general corruption. But these are just momentary ripples in the stream of history.

I may be wrong, but Obama apparently bought the extra property. Maybe it was for less than the true value. That would affect his basis when he sells it. Until he does, he has no taxes to pay.

I oscillate between the two interpretations myself. But I wonder if an incompetent or even inadvertent Go player with the power Obama has amassed might not almost always defeat a disorganized rabble, each member playing a different Chess game. Seen through the lens of governance, he is "trying to do everything at once and mostly failing at the overwhelming majority of them". But the net effect might well be a commanding board position in four years in terms of social organizing.

He is a product of Harvard Law -- which often means brilliant but, in practice, incompetent. He is also an experienced radical organizer, so he knows how to achieve his radical goals.

Bottom line: I've decided on a quantum mechanical view of him as existing in two universes -- the real world and the alternative, radical world. His failures in one might well be victories in the other. And down the road, I fear, we'll wake up in the second universe ourselves.

even if one side "wins," the other retains its own territory.

Only until the game ends and score is toted. This is a winner (on points) takes all game. there are no safe havens.

Finally an intelligent reply.

The problem is: you are thinking Chess. Obama is playing Go. You can try to ignore all the side shows and fight the main battle. But one day, you will wake up enmeshed in the fruits of those small enemy victories. This is what “Think globally; act locally” means.

AIG is not just a side show. It distracts from the other thrusts, it directly strengthens an important assault (more regulatory power over other companies), undermines societal and constitutional defenses, establishes precedent for confiscatory taxation under a popular banner, actually enlists Obama’s enemies directly in one of his initiatives and thus, indirectly, in many others.

Fast forward a few years.

The US will see a network of local Soviets. (“Originally the soviets were a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy.”) Local organizing is already going on. Organizing For America.

These will be backed up by an army in uniform. The civilian service corp. It's roots are already in place through the recent “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” As an organizer said, “We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army.”

An “progressive Party” will exist as a power in parallel with and, increasingly, as a replacement for State institutions.

Organized mob fury will have intimidated resistance. The AIG mobilization is just a prototype.

The mainstream media will have been bailed out. It will serve its masters loyally, if not well. The new media will have been regulated. The close partnership between party and state mechanisms will allow the later to be deployed to snuff out hard cases.

The tax system will have been deployed against the Party's enemies. That is coming from the new tax commission. (Notice, a semi-governmental structure). The Party will be one of the chief beneficiaries of the revenue. ACORN hospitals and social service offices will have begun to dominate the landscape.

Eventually the stupid, complacent population will have woken up to what was happening. But too late to organize effective resistance. State organs will collect intelligence and bring down punishment. Party organs, in communication with the State, will intimidate and, if necessary, apply muscle.

Too late.

AIG is the opening battle. And we wimped out.

What I've noticed about my (semi) fellow Europeans (I have dual citizenship) is that however right-minded their thinking, their heads are stuck completely up their a$$es when it comes to actual events on the ground and the meaning behind them. That MEP so much in the press for his denunciation of Brown's economic policies is still an Obama supporter, although what he said about Brown is even more true about Obama. Europeans are blinkered, in the true sense of the word.

I’m a Canadian and Brit by birth, Kiwi by naturalization

Enough said.

Wrong! Wrong! And wrong!

Most of the bonuses were entirely legal and proper. These are people, some hired specifically to fix the problem after the meltdown, with expertise. They were being paid at a market level. As in the case of the SVP resigning in the NYT, some accepted $1 salaries and a “retention” bonus conditioned on completion of specified tasks. The head of AIGFP was hired in November!

Your comments about taxing them at 120% and throwing them in irons relies on ignorance of the actual circumstances. It is as much a manifestation of mob hysteria as the Congressional hearings and legislation.

And this is not a sideshow. This is part of the main event. It is the obvious vanguard action of the class war which will shortly destroy this country.

Mr. Stalin, go ahead and kill all those Kulaks but we reserve the right to disagree with your economic philosophy.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Science may be scientific, but is also, too often, a religion. As in belief in global warming or the disbelief in cold fusion.

You have described an actuarial (insurance math) solution. I think NY State is being foolish. But it is an insurance-type product.

The difference: when billings exceed the retainer, you get charged the difference. This is exactly the issue raised by the doctor's service. If he gets more than the expected number of accidents or illnesses, he will go broke. And his patients will be left high and dry.

Actually, it is very close to insurance. It can be said to really be insurance.

Insurance is the monetization of risk. Risk is the chance of loss when such chance is probabilistic. So charging a flat annual fee (in monthly installments) to cover, among other things, fortuitous accidents is, in essence, insurance.

What if the doctor were, in reality, running an intentional or unintentional Ponzi scheme by charging less than it cost to provide services? Very quickly he would run out of money and go bankrupt. This would leave patients in the hole to the extent of their prepaid premiums. And by relying on the good Doctor, they would have no other insurance. This is why insurance is regulated.

But I do believe that the State has put formalism ahead of logic. The fact that payments are monthly (I assume) removes the most serious consequences of inadequate pricing. It is an insurance-like service that is being provided. But it does not trigger in a serious way the concerns insurance regulation is intended to deal with.

I have, for some decades, believed that a Second American Revolution was the only possible salvation for us. The problem: it would probably resemble the French more than the American. Both these things are even more obvious today than even a few years ago. But I admit that a sort of nihilism has crept into my thinking. An American French Revolution would not be productive of much of lasting value, but it might at least be cathartic!

When back in Germany during the war, Rabe was treated with hostility. After the war, he was starving. Madame Chiang Kai-shek found out about it. Taiwan sent him a stipend and care packages and invited him to live on a stipend in the ROC.

I have had utter contempt for members of Congress -- of both parties -- for years. But, as an alumnus of AIG who left 25 years ago (and who believes its demise came from unbelievable arrogance and stupidity) I have been disgusted by the hearings to the point of distraction. These failed little country lawyers, with little or no understanding of anything in the real world, ought not to be allowed to run anything -- certainly not a superpower. My wife, also a veteran of AIG from the same period, just called em ask if I was watching. She too was flabbergasted at the utter stupidy of these persons.

We've been talking, as a people, about using Chapter 11 to reorganize various failing businesses with defective corporate cultures. Like GM. I am at the point where I would consider using a revolutionary remedy to do the same with the Federal Government. Starting with the Congress.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

See my Reply to:
A Man of Seasonal Principles (Charles Krauthammer)
Friday, July 04, 2008 9:50:54 AM · 7 of 29
FlameThrower to kellynla

Do you all recall BEING THERE — the oddly great Peter Seller’s film about an empty vessel of a man absorbing the popular culture from TV and dishing it out to the people, guided by political hacks who believe they have discovered a nascent messiah? I believe we are seeing something similar. The difference is, of course, that Obama is not an empty vessel. He is a little, damaged man like Chauncey Gardner, but one with a nasty streak and dangerously leftist instincts. This man has been adopted by the Democrat establishment as he emerged — first as the front runner and then as presumptive candidate. Now they are repackaging him as a viable, mainstream candidate. The false facade is under construction as we watch. The question is this: what will emerge after victory? A butterfly or a moth? I suspect a moth.