Politics Ombudsman: Sarah Palin

Apologies for the time in between posts, TWO has been summering on his yacht in Hvar (pictured above), and life is slow. And sensual.

But its time for a talk about politics.

I am thinking of a American female politician. She comes from a working class family, was active in the local school system prior to beginning her political career and attained national notoriety at a young age. She is a polarizing figure, a lightening rod for criticism and is loved by some and hated by others... even those in her own party can't always agree as to whether she is helping or hurting her party's cause.

I am speaking, of course, about rogue, lunatic politician Cynthia McKinney (here looking a bit like ODB).

Moving on, Sarah Palin is "still very popular" according to FoxNews. And this should be very troubling to the Republican Party.

Palin, as a leader, has some positives in her makeup: she has a blue collar background, is religious, tough, self-made politically and is not a career politician in the traditional sense. She has met with success as a Governor and is a physically attractive person - in fact she is probably the only American politician to win a pageant since Dennis Kucinich's 1958 Boy's Beauty Pageant victory.

But the driving force behind Palin's popularity has little to do with her own substance, rather its the result of a reflexive movement by Republicans to support her in response to Democratic attacks. Palin, as a Vice Presidential candidate was quite clearly attacked and treated far differently than a similarly situated Democratic candidate would have been. The treatment of her and her family by the media, particularly when juxtaposed against that of President Obama's and VP Biden's, was truly shameful. The wagon circling began almost immediately and her popularity skyrocketed as a result. In short, Republicans were supporting Palin to show their distaste towards what they perceived to be unfair media treatment.

And this can be very dangerous. While the vigor with which the liberal media attacked Palin's intelligence and experience may have been disproportionate and condescending, it doesn't mean that the liberal media was wrong. Frankly, an intelligent person doesn't answer a question like this. And a person with a working knowledge of national politics and economic theory doesn't sound like this. I actually cannot watch that clip - I get too uncomfortable, and TWO is rarely uncomfortable. Jack Cafferty is a liberal hack, but he is 100% correct when he says that "...that is one of the most pathetic pieces of tape I've ever seen for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country." TWO has nothing personally against Sarah Palin (in fact she seems like a wonderful person), but no honest analysis can conclude that she is fit to be a high ranking politician on the national stage.

A related but broader theme (and one equally troubling) is the anti-intellectual movement among mainstream Republicans. Conservatism has a long history of intellectualism - from David Hume to David Brooks. But recently there has been a backlash against "liberal elites" such that a Republican with an elite pedigree suddenly risks no longer being an authentic Republican. Not only is this an obvious recipe for disaster for the future, but, in fact, it has already hurt the Republican Party: A Romney ticket (TWO was hoping for Romney- Kay Bailey Hutchison) easily beats Obama-Biden last November. But the Republican Party was scared by Romney's elite background and Mormon faith, so gave the country McCain-Palin -- and effectively Obama-Biden -- instead.

A large base of the Republican Party views themselves as thoughtful, intelligent conservatives and has no interest in aligning themselves with garbled words and muddled thoughts. And that puts Palin, and her popularity, at the fault line of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party goes in the direction of Palins and Bushes (as opposed to Romneys and Giulianis), I see poor results and possibly huge fractures within the party.

Palin has unfortunately become a 1 woman sideshow. She threatens the health of the party, and there is very little upside to her as a politician as she has demonstrated only a moderate understanding of national politics and an average intelligence. Palin's everywoman background and Republicans' resentment of Democratic attacks on her should not compensate for those huge deficiencies. Cynthia McKinney had blue collar roots and was attacked by Republicans, but Democrats weren't considering pushing her to the forefront of their party. Is Sarah Palin the Republican Cynthia McKinney? Not yet, but we are probably only a few crazy interviews and conspiracy theories away.

In conclusion, sometimes the criticism is right.

Environmental Ombudsman: Climate Change

Hubris and Folly.

This Washington Post article explains that the average consumer will pay $175 per year as a part of the new "climate bill," an act of legislation by the US Congress meant to combat global warming. Some believe that the costs per household could be as high as $4,300 per year. The problem? There are several, with the legislation and the climate change movement as a whole.

This legislation, as described, only makes sense if you believe each of the following things:

1) Global warming exists.
2) Global warming is caused by humans.
3) Global warming is bad.
4) Humans can take steps to reverse the effects of global warming.
5) The benefits of those steps outweigh the costs

Lets look at each.

1) There is a general consensus that global warming exists on a macro level. There was a little ice age believed to have ended around 1850, and a general warming over the last 150 years. However, two things bear mentioning. First, there has not been a global warming trend over the last 10 years. While still a warmer than average decade, there has actually been a cooling trend since 1998. Second, it was just 30 years ago when Lowell Ponte, backed by the vast majority of the scientific community wrote "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species..."Fast forward to January of this year, and Al Gore, in front of Congress, averred that global warming "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth" within this century. The point? Analysis of weather trends, mapping global temperatures and the predicting of future climates is an undertaking still in its nascency. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

“...the phenomena fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. [Nor is there] evidence that the climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change." - Marine Geologist Robert M. Carter of James Cook University in Australia.

2) Lets assume that there is a global warming trend. Is it caused by humans? The UN's IPCC suggests that man-made increases in greenhouse gas levels are responsible for upwards of 90% of the temperature increases over the last 150 years. There are two logical barriers here.

First, day 1 of logic class teaches you that correlation doesn't imply causation. The IPCC states that human carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of world temperature changes while failing to show that a change of a certain amount of carbon will result in a corresponding change in temperature, all else held constant. The IPCC's paper, linked above, takes the following logical progression: 1) it notes that man made carbon dioxide has increased by .01% (100 parts per 1 million) over the last 150 years, 2) lists observations of increased temperatures and then 3) states that humans are most likely responsible for most temperature changes. Of course, this skips over the most important step - How is it determined that a 100 part per million increase in carbon dioxide will increase temperatures? Answer - its not! No one knows whether that 100 part per million increase in carbon would raise temperatures by 1 degree or by 1 trillionth of one degree, and no one cares. The IPCC sees one thing increase, and another thing increase, and says, the first thing causes the second! Debate over. It remains unclear to TWO how the IPCC linked global warming to carbon dioxide and not, say, the popularity of reggaeton music or number of west coast girls wearing Ed Hardy hats, both of which have also experienced notable (and at times troubling) increases over the past few years.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

The second logical barrier is the failure to take into consideration outside forces. For the sake of argument, lets assume that human carbon dioxide increases have a measurable effect on temperature, all else held constant. Lets now take a deeper look. 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapor. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 4% of the greenhouse gases, and human contributions to carbon dioxide levels account for about 3% of that - in other words, about 0.1% of greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from humans. Presumably, there could be variances and changes in the make up of the other 99.9% of the greenhouse gases that might have some effect on the atmosphere.

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Lets forget about the atmosphere. There are other things to consider. Ocean currents like El Nino and El Nina cause temperature change -- explaining 2008's lower temperatures, according to the IPCC (this admission, on its own, would seem to support a more tempered position on the effect of humans on climate). Solar activity, totally ignored by the IPCC, is thought by many climatologists to be the single most important factor in temperature fluctuations. When one considers the fact that Mars' ice caps have been melting and that there's presumably been no human carbon dioxide increases there, it would seem like a factor that reasonable people would at least include in the climate change discussion. However none of these other factors - atmospheric, land-based and solar - are given any credence by the IPCC.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

3) Whats so bad about the world getting warmer? A fascinating social aspect of the global warming crisis is the unspoken assumption that climate conditions are perfect only as they are right now. Any variance up or down, we are told, will result in total catastrophe. TWO would propound that if human beings are effecting the climate, we are far better off slightly increasing temperatures (creating more water, more vegetation and more farmable land) then slightly decreasing temperatures (which would decrease water, vegetation and agriculture).

4) Can humans take steps to reverse global warming? Assuming that you believe that 1) global warming exists, 2) its caused by humans and 3) its bad -- you still have to think that human beings can reverse it to even consider supporting this bill. The climate change bill looks to reduce carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, by 42% by 2030 and by 83% by 2050. The problem? The IPCC says that even if carbon emissions were to be stabilized now, global warming would continue on for centuries (centuries!) because of lag times in our atmosphere's reaction. Now, TWO sees no reason to believe that the IPCC knows what its doing, but would assume that it would lean towards empowering and encouraging green legislation if possible.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group.

5) When one factors in the unintended, but likely, consequences of such legislation - including increased costs to ordinary citizens (estimates of $175 per year to consumers and as much as $4,300 to households in bills), onerous restrictions on businesses and a loss of American jobs - along with the nebulous state of climate change science, one wonders if the benefits (if any) of such a bill could possibly outweigh the costs.

“The [global warming] scare mongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

TWO has said it before, and he will say it again: TWO is an environmentalist. Corporations should internalize their costs on society, we should push safe emissions where possible, and we should take the steps necessary to protect our resources. We should move to smarter modes of transportation and shift away from foreign oil as much as practicable.

What we should not accept is alarmism, rushed and hazy logic and unscientific thought. I have long privately believed that the global warming crisis resembled a large scale street hustle. If you've ever seen a street hustler sell, he brings together a crowd, waives some goods in front of their face, quickly explains what they are without any opportunity for discussion, and then has a couple of cronies in the audience, acting like ordinary pedestrians, who then rush up to frantically try to buy all of it. If done correctly, this sets off a frenzy, and everyone wants to buy.

Applied here, green political leaders and organizations are trying to sell the public on the threat of global warming. Scientists, funded in many cases by green organizations, rush to support the position, reports are waived around and the public is stirred into a frenzy. Before anyone can question it, the debate is over and anyone who questions the position is quieted.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, formerly of NASA and who has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

The reason why you don't declare that a debate is over or quiet skeptics is because discourse in our society is structured around the belief that an open and free market place for debate is the best way to judge the merits of different ideas. Ironically, this bill is being proposed just as we are moving in on a tipping point in the global warming discussion. A record high of 41% of Americans believe that the global warming threat is exaggerated. Whereas 5 years ago no one would EVER have questioned global warming in a mainstream publication, highly regarded conservative columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer have recently expressed their skepticism and even liberal institutions like the New York Times have tempered their support.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

I can't predict whether this bill will pass, but I think that it is difficult to defend its passage based on the above. I can predict that at some point in the future, possibly within our lifetimes, civilization will look back on this "global warming crisis" as the pinnacle of human hubris and folly.

In conclusion:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal [in history]…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Hackery Ombudsman: Paul Krugman

There are many different kinds of hacks.

But before we get into that - lets address my whereabouts recently. Some of you became a bit concerned with my absence, wondering where the column was, wondering what I was doing.

To all of that I say shhh shhh shhhh. Everythings ok. Lets see if you can guess what I was doing. Was TWO

A) Pausing before his next column, like a basketball player sinking a three pointer holding his arm aloft as he runs down court, simply to impress upon the readers how incredibly correct he was about Lebron and the Cavs

or

B) Lounging at his estate in Santorini (pictured above), sipping marula fruit cream liqueur and disburdening himself of musings on Bismark's Germany

Trick question. BOTH! Because TWO is both always right and has a Pan-European accent.

A brief moment on Lebron... in addition to the posturing and grimacing and limping around (which was on display almost constantly)... did you notice the Lebron-Headwhip? Here is a man who is 6-8, 275 pounds, who knocks people around like bowling pins when he flies through the lane. However, should he be caught in the face or upper chest with a flailing hand or an errant basketball, he whips his head backwards, rotates his arms in huge concentric circles and usually rolls around on the ground for a while. Did Shaquille O'Neal do this during the hack-a-shaq days where he was hacked acrossed the shoulders, face and arms 20 times a game? No.

Look, Lebron will be the best player in the NBA if he isn't already. He is young and has time to mature. In his defense, he has been told he is the greatest from the time he was 12 -- that sort of things leads to arrogance which may, in time, be tempered. TWO can admit that he would be just as bad if he had attained success at such a young age. As it is, I am older than Lebron and whenever my column has over 1000 hits in a day I spray champagne out of the window onto unsuspecting pedestrians below. They hate that. But thats how I celebrate. Anyway, I continue to find it disheartening that the basketball commentators are typically too hacky to call out Lebron on his antics.

Moving on to a different kind of hack, can we have a moment on Paul Krugman? Krugman might be the hackiest journalist to ever attain acclaim in American history. Krugman's most recent opus was this article, blaming Ronald Reagan (who is dead) for the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Am I oversimplifying? Is TWO using hyperbole? The title of the article is "Reagan Did It." Like its the last utterance of a victim at a murder scene.

How did Reagan commit this crime 5 years after his death? Well, with the passing of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of course! This bill, passed 26 years before the 2008-2009 financial crisis, deregulated the savings and loan industry. One of the consequences was that it allowed lenders to lend more freely to potential home purchasers. Krugman's thesis is that this Act was the main cause of our current economic downturn.

Before we just accept this argument and move on with our lives, TWO would like to examine facts. TWO loves facts. The Garn - St. Germain Act was a bi-partisan bill sponsored by Congressman Ferdinand St. Germain (D-RI) (who sounds like the sort of person who I would invite to my property in Santorini, but I digress) and Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) (who sounds like the sort of person who would be re-caulking bathroom tiles at my property in Santorini, but I digress again). It passed the House and, with some amendments, the Senate overwhelmingly. Co-sponsors included current Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and current Democratic Congressman Steny Hoyer. The Act allowed savings and loans to increase commercial lending to up to 10% of its assets, national banks to lend 15% of assets (up from 10%) and similar other slight increases. There's a savings and loan debacle a few years later, but essentially 10 years go by without any sort of substantial change in American home ownership and 25 years go by without any sort of housing related financial crisis.

Fast forward to 1993. Home ownership is at 63%. At the urging of the Clinton administration, bank regulators reform the Community Reinvestment Act requiring banks to show they were lending to a set number of lower-income buyers. By 2000, home ownership has suddenly jumped to 68%. Meanwhile, GSEs like Fannie Mae are being pressured to provide more and more mortgages to high-credit-risk purchasers. How outrageous were the rates? In 1997 Fannie Mae was offering 97% loan to value mortgages. The Bush administration was no better. Attempting to rebound from the dot com bubble, Alan Greenspan advocated refinancing and borrowing against speculative home values and Bush tirelessly pushed for more home ownership for more low-income buyers. By 2001, Fannie Mae was actually offering 100% loan to value mortgages -- in other words, allowing people to buy homes without putting any money down! As pressure mounted to lend, the number of dangerous loans increased. During a three year period between 2003-2006, sub-prime and Alt-A loans jumped from making up about 1/10 of all mortgages to making up nearly 1/3. By 2008, US consumers were spending almost $1.1 trillion more than they were earning in spendable income.* When the values of homes fell, homeowners who had refinanced often had almost no equity value in their homes and often just didn't pay. Others couldn't afford their mortgages after the downturn. Financial institutions, many of whom held massive amounts of mortgage-backed-securities (Bear Stearns collapsed under a 35:1 leverage ratio) found that the underlying assets were greatly, greatly overvalued and illiquid. All the while, government officials (the Fed, the Clinton and Bush administrations and members of Congress) were asleep at the wheel, as we've discussed before.

To summarize, although there has been a general trend towards open markets and free lending over the past 30 years, the events proximately causing this financial crisis undeniably took place throughout the past 10 to 15 years. No serious thinker would call President Reagan, of all people, "the prime villain" of this financial crisis.

And that is really the point. Paul Krugman is capable of being a serious thinker, but he chooses not to be. He instead chooses to be a hack. A economics professor, skilled writer and (somehow) Nobel Prize winner, he has relegated himself to the journalistic equivalent of a drunk heckler at a basketball game, yelling inflammatory things to anyone who will listen. As people tune him out or change seats, he has to yell louder and more obscenely to get noticed. By the end of his career Krugman will be writing articles like "George Bush - Sarah Palin Love Child Is Wolf Boy" for the National Enquirer.

Politically, there are two types of people: People who treat their political party like its their favorite college football team and people who just want the government to get things right. The former will trace back the roots of any problem to a misstep by their rival and make any argument, no matter how convoluted, to show that their "team" is blameless. The latter would prefer that elected officials who get things right be given proper credit, and those who get things wrong be held accountable, no matter the letter after their name.

In conclusion, don't be a hack.


*We don't really cite sources in any organized way here at TWO, but, for those interested, I relied heavily on financial figures from this article by Peter J. Wallison and this speech by Robert Rodriguez

Bama Ombudsman: The Cleveland Cavaliers

Bamafied.

The noun bama is a common term in Washington DC. Like all colloquial terms it lacks a set definition, but basically defines someone who is garish, posturing and egomaniacal to a clownish degree while at the same time essentially insincere and likely insecure. A list of bamas or bamafied behavior might be helpful, but in the interest of time, TWO will just point out that about 90% of celebrities are bamas. About 75% of people living in Los Angeles are bamas, as TWO estimates that three quarters of the population of LA are OPALC (Ordinary People Acting Like Celebrities). 100% of white people speaking in a blaccent are bamas. Dylan McKay was a bama.

Which brings us to the Cleveland Cavaliers. The most bamafied sports team of all time.

1) Lebron James.

a) Easily the King Bama. He is essentially a cross between Brian Bosworth and early 90s Shaquille O'Neal with just a sprinkle of Chuck Bass. The pregame ritual where he sprays powder over his head like hes some sort of wizard (or a genius) is arrogant, ridiculous and a slap in the face to the other players on the court. Yet it has been celebrated as some incredible pop-culture event. He poses and postures after nearly every big shot and dunk. After hitting that half-court shot in the playoffs, he said his range was "limitless."

Also from Lebron's mouth? The following quotes:

- "Ask me to play. I'll play. Ask me to shoot. I'll shoot. Ask me to pass. I'll pass. Ask me to steal, block out, sacrifice, lead, dominate. Anything. But it's not what you ask of me. It's what I ask of myself."

- "I’m like a superhero. Call me Basketball Man."

- "Jesus Christ needed 12 disciples, but I only have 5 teammates who really get minutes."

Just kidding about the last one. But still, has an athlete ever guzzled their own kool-aid to this extent?

And the media (fueled by the NBA's marketing department) loves it! You will never hear anything bad about Lebron James in the mainstream media. But ask someone from Cleveland who has had, or knows someone who's had, any interaction with Lebron James and ask them how he's acted. You might be surprised.

b) Fake Injuries. There is a recent trend in the NBA that I've noticed this season, and that is the fake injury. For some reason, in a sport otherwise known for its hip-hop machismo and emphasis on street cred, it has become cool to grimace and hobble around like an old man whenever mild contact takes place. Whether its to show how tough you are or to get attention (or both), it happens constantly. Here are a few notable examples:

- In March, Lebron James bumps into a a 47 year old, 150 pound referee and rolls around on the floor like he is semi-conscious. The referee gets up immediately.

- In the first round of the playoffs, Rajon Rondo is carried from the court and then acts with surprise when a reporter asks if he's ok. Hes totally fine! Why would you even ask that question?

- The best, of course, is Paul Pierce. A few months ago, Paul Pierce was carried off the court in a heap and then rolled into the lockerroom on a wheelchair. A wheelchair! I'm surprised there weren't visible signs of slobber dripping from his mouth. Anyway, he returned, showing no ill-effects, LATER IN THE SAME GAME! Amazing.

Watch for Lebron's fake grimace throughout the rest of the playoffs.

2) The Cavaliers. There have been team-wide celebrations and groups of players with choreographed routines for years. But never has a team had so many idiotic, choregraphed routines going on at once, every single game. While not roundly applauded, it again has received a reasonably warm reception as just a bunch of zany guys having fun. Wrong-Side-Of-Every-Argument-Bill Simmons' shared his sentiment that watching Lebron & the Cavaliers is "like watching a more animated/funny/bombastic version of Duncan's Spurs.....I really get a kick out of them."

Now why is this a problem? TWO certainly isn't losing sleep over what dances other people like to do. But a couple of things are troubling. First, the behavior is disrespectful to the opponents and makes a mockery of the sport. This is an event watched by millions and your opponents are professional athletes...and you are posing for fake pictures and saluting your teammates before the game? Second, the quasi-acceptance of this foolishness sends a message to kids that this sort of behavior is okay. We'll see how hilarious and bombastic it is when before every Little League game players engage in elaborate miming routines involving somersaults, fist pounds and butterfly kisses. "Why is Billy rubbing pinetar all over himself?" "Shhhh pregame ritual."

A drunk who mouths off too much needs only to get punched in the teeth once before he changes his ways. The best thing for all of us is that the Cavs get beaten down by either the Magic or (more likely) the Lakers in the next two rounds. Lets do it for the children.

In conclusion, TWO has nothing against butterfly kisses.

Common Sense Ombudsman: Vaccines for a Real Epidemic

Sometimes, there is hysteria.

There has been chaos and gnashing of teeth over the past few weeks over swine flu. Its a pandemic!!!!!! Well, maybe not...but its going to be! There have been HUNDREDS killed in Mexico... or maybe just 16.

Putting aside the media's interest in stirring the public into a frenzy (could this be just like Pandemic or Quarantine - or - even better - I Am Legend?!) ...what are the facts?

There have been 61 deaths worldwide, including 3 in the United States. There have been only 40 confirmed swine flu cases in the US, more than half occurring in one New York school. Only 4 other states have had a single person test positive for swine flu. For a country with 300 million people, those figures aren't too bad. And they certainly don't seem to warrant the panicked coverage given by our media. When you consider that the normal influenza killed 83 children in 2008, the hysteria is even more puzzling.

But what if I told you that every year, around 40,000 otherwise healthy Americans are killed from one particular cause? Before I could even finish the sentence, Sanjay Gupta would reflexively gear up his hazmat suit, pack a few Ensures and prepare himself for 18 hour shifts on CNN. Fox News would create a special music intro with drums and electric guitars for reports on the topic.

Can you imagine their disappointment when I tell them that the cause was traffic accidents?

Over the past few years, deaths have ranged from the low 40,000s to a near-record low of 37,000 in 2008. But no one really cares. Why?

First, its old news. Traffic accidents might go slightly up, or might go slightly down - but no one is going to make a horror movie out of traffic accidents (although Duel was a great old school film) and the media knows its not going to be able to frighten the bejesus out of the masses with the reports. If it won't increase ratings, then why report on it?

Second - and this is related to the first - people, rationally or irrationally, internalize certain dangers, treating them as a fixed cost of living. We like driving, we like living in the suburbs, we like getting places fast, trucks deliver things to us - its a shame that people also die, but overall the benefits outweigh the costs. Over time, people just begin accepting the fact that there are going to be a lot of deaths from traffic accidents and stop asking why.

Not TWO.

When one considers that a quarter of a million people marched on Washington to oppose abortion, that 2,000 people protested the execution of a convicted killer in Texas, that New York spends roughly $50 million per year to prevent disease and premature death due to cigarette smoking, that the entire nation - including both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court - fiercely debated the life or death of a single woman, the only inference is that our culture places a high degree of value on life and its protection.

From afar, then, it must look quite odd that we allow nearly anyone to drive 3,000 pound vehicles at high rates of speed in opposite directions, separated by just a few feet and a painted line.

Some simple steps, in addition to wearing a seat belt, to reduce the likelihood of accident deaths:

1) Substantial dividers or spacial separation on highways. Crashes at high speeds are always dangerous, but head on collisions are far more deadly. There is no reason why any road should be built where cars travel over 50 mph in opposite directions with just a double yellow line separating them.

2) Stricter driving tests for teenagers. Driving should not be considered a right of passage. Lack of coordination or lack of maturity are great reasons to keep kids off of the road unless they are with a parent or a driving instructor.

3) Stricter rules for kids under 21. Inexperienced drivers cause a disproportionate amount of damage. As such, laws should be geared to address this segment of the population. At the risk of sounding over the top, I think that governors on engines, restrictions on driving with friends and at night, and limitations on highway driving are all reasonable steps to take. If a driver under 21 goes a period of time without incident, then some of these rules can be eased. Immaturity and distraction can be deadly.

4) Stricter rules for people over 70. As people lose their motor skills/concentration, they become a liability on the road. Requiring a test every 5 years or after any driving related incident would help weed out potentially dangerous drivers.

5) Revoke people's licenses for egregious behavior. For some reason, we are willing to sentence babbling meth-heads and cocaine peddlers to 30 years, but allow drunks to get DUI after DUI with mere slaps on the wrist. Why should this ever happen? Look, minor traffic accidents and speeding tickets are understandable. But people should only be allowed to endanger other peoples' lives a couple of times before they get moved to the passenger's seat.

In conclusion, "We are in the midst of a national epidemic....if this many people were to die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine."

Midweek Ombudsman: Some Admin

Midweek update, mostly to push WHTNEP and my own facebook popularity:

1) TWO's friend WHTNEP wants you to help Jessica Alba. See this. We're not sure of the reason, but we think that WHTNEP briefly dated Jessica Alba in middle school. The relationship was ruined by an unfortunate incident at a school dance involving golf cleats, Vicks vapo-rub and two packs of Baja California Fruit Starbursts. Don't ask him about it.

2) Become TWO's facebook friend. Search World's Ombudsman and add! I have an esteemed, elite and somewhat sensual group of friends. About half speak English, and an oddly large portion are from Indonesia. Fact.

In conclusion, TWO honors Oddibe McDowell once a year by driving to his birthplace, Hollywood, Florida, and throwing baseball cards into the ocean.

Prediction Ombudsman: Coming Clean

Making bold predictions is risky.

Last week I predicted "Hatton in an upset win over Pacquaio." One time, ESPN's fantasy football guru, Matthew Berry, told the world to bench Adrian Peterson against the Chargers because of the Chargers' stiff rushing defense. Peterson went on to rush for an NFL record 296 yards and 3 touchdowns. Aside from that, my Hatton prediction may have been the worst prediction ever. Rarely has a fight between two great fighters been so utterly lopsided. Pacquaio-Hatton was a 140 lb version of Tyson -Spinks.

A couple of thoughts. First, TWO was actually in Las Vegas for the fight. Was TWO at the glitzy MGM Grand watching in person? Absolutely not. TWO was at Treasure Island's somewhat bushleague theater watching on closed circuit with 1,000 screaming, flag-waving Philipinos. Thats how I roll. TWO is a man of the people. Anyway, the night before the fight, while sauntering through the Bellagio, TWO met and spoke with Bert Sugar, arguably the world's most famous boxing columnist. Interestingly, Bert Sugar held the same opinion as TWO that the betting odds against Hatton (paying about +220, Pacquaio was -300) were off, that the fight would be much closer than most anticipated and that Hatton was a much better bet based on the odds. While that shows that TWO has his finger on the pulse of the boxing intelligentsia, it does little to mitigate the overall result of the fight. In addition to being a man of great physical strength, TWO is also a man of great integrity, and will admit that he was wrong.

Second, never has the result of a sporting event stirred such sympathy in TWO for a losing party than this fight. Perhaps it is because Hatton is such a great champion, or because he is such a likeable figure, or perhaps it is because of the fan loyalty and the party atmosphere that had heretofore followed him through 45 wins and just one loss (to the world's best fighter at the time)... but the way he was beaten was so thorough, so quick and so complete that I felt quite sad for him. Being punished and eventually knocked unconscious for five minutes in front of your fiance, parents, thousands of devoted fans and millions of viewers had to be totally humiliating for someone of Hatton's pride. To be clear, TWO is not saying that Hatton SHOULD feel humiliated (losing to two fighters both considered the pound for pound best in the world at the time is nothing to be ashamed of), but you know that Hatton is beside himself over the result of the fight.

In conclusion, TWO is a risk taker.

Weekend Ombudsman: NFL Draft and Boxing

Boxing and football.

Two weekend reflections:

1) The Redskins' Draft. Most people, including TWO, were pleased with the Redskins draft. That does not mean that it was a good draft, it just means that Dan Snyder's plans to ruin the franchise were thwarted and we literally were forced into making a good decision (Brian Orakpo) with our first round pick. Vinny Cerrato's inability to correctly pronounce Orakpo (he kept saying Orapko) at the post-draft press conference at first seems like a funny/harmless slip up until you consider the fact that this man is charged with vigorously and thoroughly researching the minutia of all potential players that could be drafted and thus determine the franchise's future. And Vinny doesn't know the last name of our first round pick?

If that isn't evidence enough of our scant research, consider that the Redskins also selected a LB, Cody Glenn, who had pedestrian stats and was injured/suspended for most of his senior season. When questioned about the reason for the suspension - he lied. Hey - he's an average athlete and injury prone, but at least he's dishonest! In the 7th round, we picked a wide receiver described as having "failed to impress the NFL scouts." Guess which scouts were apparently totally impressed? Vinny & co.

Hail.

2. Carl Froch - Jermaine Taylor. Arguably one of the best fights of the year came and went with very little fanfare because of the NFL draft and NBA & NHL playoff series. Taylor dominated the early part of the fight, knocking down the undefeated Froch for the first time in his career, but Froch came back and scored a TKO with 14 seconds left in the 12th and final round to win. Taylor was ahead on all cards and would have won the fight otherwise. A couple of things. First, people compared the stoppage of the fight to a fight 19 years ago involving a different Taylor. The famous 1990 Meldrick Taylor - Julio Cesar Chavez fight probably shouldn't have been stopped. However, the Froch-Taylor fight was different. TWO, who was rooting for Jermaine Taylor, believes that the fight was correctly stopped as Taylor literally could not defend himself at all -- a defenseless fighter can sustain serious damage in just a few seconds, let alone 14.

Second, Jermaine Taylor is one of those guys who is frustrating to root for. He is similar to Zab Judah, in that he is faster and more talented than almost all of his opponents. Both Judah and Taylor do not have the requisite stamina to do well against top competition in fights that go past 7 rounds. Judah also has serious lapses in concentration and some behavioral issues, which adds to his problems. Taylor, meanwhile, is incredibly likeable which makes it all the more difficult to stomach what appears to be a lack of adequate preparation. If you look at Taylor's losses, he was faster than and should have knocked out Kelly Pavlik in Taylor-Pavlik I and lost a close fight in Taylor-Pavlik II. Taylor was clearly the faster and more powerful boxer through the first half of the Froch fight. Had he not completely collapsed in the 12th round - literally, anything short of a knockout or stoppage - he wins the fight. Zab Judah, meanwhile, has been outclassed by two fighters - Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto (the latter just barely). His four other losses, in TWO's opinion, have been due to failure to adequately prepare or lapses in concentration. Even the Kostya Tszyu fight generally favored Zab, until he took 4 seconds off at the end of the 2nd round, got punched in the mouth and then staggered around jabbering to the referree like a drunk businessman hitting on a flight attendant on a turbulent plane.

What a simile!

In conclusion, Hatton in an upset over Pacquiao this weekend.

NFL Draft Ombudsman: Matt Franchez & Mel Kiper

Every day is an opportunity to make bad decisions.

And that is what its like being a Washington Redskins fan these days. TWO will reflect on the sad state of his favorite team and a quick Mel Kiper musing in his draft preview.

1) The Redskins. It is hard enough to win in this league as it is - you have to deal with injuries, coaching and players moving around - and even the best, most efficiently run teams play close games and lose and sometimes even miss the playoffs. But what if you had an owner who took active steps to worsen your favorite team? Welcome to my world. Being a Redskins fan is like watching a horror movie in a theater where the main character is clearly making a terrible decision that will lead to her bloody death but there is nothing you can do to stop her. Even when the obligatory fat black lady sitting near you says loudly "B*tch you better get out that house!" there is no effect...the script has already been written.

And in the Matt "Franchez" Sanchez sweepstakes, Danny Snyder is that main character clearly making a terrible decision, and all of us are the fat black woman yelling. Again, to be clear, all of us are fat black women. Anyway, the Redskins have at least a serviceable quarterback in Jason Campbell. What they don't have is a starting DE, an OLB, or an OT. When I say we don't have an outside linebacker, I literally mean that the Redskins might start the season off with a wild-eyed and disoriented Vinny Cerrato as a linebacker on our 53 man roster. There are also needs at center and several backup positions.

And yet, with all of our needs, Snyder is looking to do something that will further shake up a team that for the last 4 years has not had a chance to play under the same offensive system. And this goes beyond continuity - this could be a devastatingly bad pick: there is no guarantee that quarterbacks selected towards the top of the draft will be good. This is basic stuff, and Redskins fans are left wondering - is Snyder stupid - does he really think that you can just move pieces around interchangeably like a video game? Does he just like attention? Shouldn't someone who was so successful in their other business ventures have learned something about football over the past 10 years?

There is also a total lack of accountability. Last season, the Redskins traded a 2009 2nd round pick for Jason Taylor, who played about 10 games and then was released. This is not a small deal - essentially, we could have had the 40th best player in college football as a part of our team for a number of years, and instead, now, we have no player. That was the effect of that move. Here is Vinny Cerrato's quote when questioned a couple of days ago: "It is what it is. We made a trade last year with our second-round pick. We wish Jason [Taylor] would have stayed healthy, but it is what it is."

"It is what it is" is a tell-tale sign of being a fool. That is the equivalent of using the defined word in its definition: Q: whats a fool? A: Well, its basically someone who acts like a fool. Q: Vinny - what about trading a 2nd round pick for a guy who played 10 games? Vinny: Well, it is what it is...meaning that its a situation where we traded a 2nd round pick for a guy who played 10 games. "It is what it is" is the sibling of "Thats just Manny being Manny" and is the cousin of "He's just doing his thing" and "He just does what he does." TWO suggests any athlete or commentator using any of these phrases be banned from giving their opinions for one year.

Anyway, expect the Redskins to do whatever they can to mess up their own draft. The same duo that picked 2 wide receivers and a TE in 3 2nd round picks last year (when we had almost no defensive linemen) is totally capable of being toyed with and trading Clinton Portis, all of our first round picks until 2015 and FedEx Field for Matt Sanchez. The Redskins will be playing home games on the Montgomery Mall parking lot in Rockville, Maryland.

2) Mel Kiper. A couple of things to watch from Mel Kiper on draft day:

First, Mel, a man who would be selling elixers out of a covered wagon if this were the 19th century, will claim that he "had him going about there" no matter who is taken in what place. Mel releases so many mock drafts - most of them drastically conflicting, that at some point every player is in nearly every draft slot. Gregg Easterbrook's review from a couple years back (under the "Mel Kiper Watch" heading) sums Mel up perfectly.

Second, and this is related to the first, Mel hates Todd McShay. Watch for palpable anger, and possibly a fistfight, when the two of them spar. Before Todd McShay, Kiper was the only draft guru. He was free to shoot from the hip, because frankly no one (other than Easterbrook that one time) bothered to fact check or keep all of his mock drafts straight. But now, McShay is in there keeping him in line. And Mel hates it. For example, yesterday on Sports Center, Mel Kiper incredibly choose Josh Freeman as both his most likely draft bust AND his most likely draft boom! In years past, no one would have said anything, but McShay called him out and asked him to explain. Mel got flustered, mumbled something about upside and then tried to sell Hannah Storm a magic potion to cure her ailments before they cut to commercial.

In conclusion, at least I have this.

Common Sense Ombudsman: Guns

Bang bang.

10 years have past since Columbine, and the effect of that day on our culture is still debated. Certain corners of the media are wondering aloud today why support for gun control "petered out" in the decade since the massacre. Meanwhile, other groups long for a United States where we celebrate national holidays, including U.N. Day, by firing automatic weapons into the air. A microcosm of how foolish we've become about guns is the recent Sixty Minutes piece titled The Way of the Gun, which I had hoped would somehow involve Bruce Lee, but didn't. Despite having a reasonable central theme (closing the gunshow loophole) Leslie Stahl still came across as slanted and shrill, and the pro-gun guy countered Stahl's "Couldn't we....make every state require a background check?" with a witty "Or we could make every state not require a background check."

The media is partially to blame. Whenever there is a Virginia Tech or a Columbine, the media coverage is overwhelming and hacky journalists browbeat and lecture the public about gun control. This is distasteful for two reasons. First, tragedy should not be used as a convenient spring board for forwarding a political agenda. Second, TWO has long wondered why the media treats 25 people killed in the same place as more important than 25 people killed in different locations around the country. If gun violence is rampant and unacceptable then it's newsworthy. It shouldn't take an anomalous event to stir journalists from their torpor.

The people are also to blame. When something enters the "culture war" realm, forget about having any serious discussion on the merits. Aside from discussions about abortion and gay marriage or any debate occurring within six months of a presidential election, an intelligent dialogue about guns is one of the most difficult to come by. No one really cares any more about what the actual utility to society is of gun availability and gun control. Arguments boil down to "We need to ban guns to protect ourselves from the gun violence!" and "We need more guns to protect ourselves from the gun violence!" and never get much further. And, in the end, both are really just guises for saying "I'm a liberal" and "I hate liberals", respectively.

This is reflected not only in things like the Sixty Minutes piece, but also in the information universities, lobbying groups, government institutions and think tanks produce. TWO was amazed, when researching for this entry, how little meaningful information there was that could contribute to a discussion on gun control. Figures about crimes committed with legally held guns versus illegally held guns are, aside from anecdotes, virtually non-existent. There are no real estimates on how illegally held guns become illegal. Are they smuggled into the country? Purchased privately? Aside from vague anecdotes, no one knows. While there is some good info here and here and here, there is not a lot, in my opinion, that would help quantify and predict the effect on society of more or less gun control.

Below I present some basic facts and a premise that reasonable people should accept and then three suggestions for improvement. I realize that this may come across as a bit preachy, but then again, you are reading my blog.

1) Accept the basic facts:

- Citizens have a right to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment is clearly written and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as providing an individual right.

- Legally owned weapons are involved in so few crimes and accidents that it should really be viewed as negligible.

- Under current laws, an increase in legal guns equals an increase in illegal guns. When the gunshow loop hole (described in link above) is combined with straw purchasers (people with clear FBI background checks who purchase weapons for criminals) there are essentially no actual barriers to criminals purchasing firearms.

2) Accepting the above as facts, and operating under the premise that reasonable people want others to be able to protect themselves but want to minimize the likelihood of gun violence, TWO offers the following:

- The gunshow loophole must be closed. The gunshow loophole, as described above, is a crazy exception to the rule that all purchasers at a gunshow must have FBI background checks -- that is, if you buy from a private person (not a dealer) at a gunshow, you do NOT have to have your background checked. In the Sixty Minutes clip, the gun guy's only argument against this was that the 2nd amendment doesn't require a background check. I half expected him to put on an oversized styrofoam hat and start shooting pistols in the air.

Yosemite Sam aside, there are all kinds of federal gun laws on the books that limit people's ability to own and transfer guns. A law primarily geared to stop sales of guns to people who are already ineligible to use them would seem to not further infringe anyone's gun rights. And the limitation on sales by the legal owner is not more onerous than already existing laws. All reasonable people should support federal laws closing the gunshow loophole.

- Second, rather than forcing an automatic weapons ban (which won't pass anyway) down the throats of the NRA and the millions of Americans who want them - consider a more novel approach. Our premise was that we wanted people to be able to protect themselves while limiting gun violence. Automatic weapons are good for protection, but in the wrong hands, can be abnormally and extremely dangerous. As such, statutory or strict liability imposed on the registered owner of any automatic weapon could be very effective in thwarting haphazard gun sales and more fairly distributing blame to culpable parties. Unless reported as stolen, the registered owner (or dealer/corporation) would retain some liability for criminal acts by a third party and would likely think twice before selling to someone under the table or out the back door. While this is a somewhat progressive idea, it is not without some precedent.

- Third, a limit on bulk sales to individuals will help slow the trickle of guns to criminals through straw purchasers. A limit to one automatic weapon every 1 or 2 months is hardly draconian (shockingly, some people go their whole lives without owning a single automatic weapon) and would not prevent ordinary, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Meanwhile, it would be an important step towards limiting the availability of weapons for criminals.

In conclusion, bang bang.

Legal Ombudsman: Aspiring Hardcore Lawyers

Res ipsa loquitur.

Apparently April 14 was National Be Kind To Lawyers Day. TWO apologizes for not being au courant with lawyer holidays, but feels better knowing that his favorite legal blog, Above The Law, nearly forgot as well.

TWO has been lucky enough to befriend many young lawyers in New York who are normal, cool, friendly people. However, the very existence of National Be Kind To Lawyers Day implies that most lawyers aren't normal, cool or friendly. And that's correct. Socially awkward, insecure and, at times, angry people - what we will call hardcore lawyers - make up a majority of the profession, at least among big law firms. Therefore, for aspiring young associates, particularly those in Big Law - TWO presents the following tips for becoming a hardcore lawyer:

1) Your background. Its best if your background makes others feel inferior, but it must at least illustrate that you are on par with your colleagues. If you went to a top 10 or 20 law school there's no problem. Casually bring up your law school when you tell hilarious stories about drinking with your "Columbia Law friends" in Harlem. Harlem!!! If you went to a lower tier law school, always provide some sort of disclaimer, implying that you could have gone to nearly any other law school were it not for this particular circumstance. "Oh - Harvard? Yeah a ton of my friends went to law school there. I got a scholarship at Northeastern though, so...." Specialization is also a good trick: "I went to Brooklyn Law. Yeah, I was really interested in maritime law when I was looking at schools, and they have a great program there. I love the seas."

2) Your appearance. If you're a male, it is crucial that you pay a custom clothier, probably the one who wanders around your office from time to time, to make you a couple of outfits. That way, when someone asks you about where you got something you can interrupt them and say "Oh, I have a guy." This implies that the Thomas Pink, Jos. A. Bank or Brooks Brothers ensemble thrown together by the questioner just doesn't measure up to your discriminating tastes in style and fit. Also, cufflinks. Always. On every shirt. Even pajama tops.

If you're a female, always wear flats. Heels are for the hot lawyer girls who aren't as hardcore as you are, and also you hate them. An important sartorial move that says "I'm a chick lawyer making in the mid $200s" is to develop some special niche area where you will spend an inordinate amount of money. Two prominent examples are handbags and shoes. While you may not be able to wear the shoes you buy to the office, talk openly about what a huge problem you have spending way too much on shoes and then laugh, faux-self-disparagingly, at your own lack of discipline - HAHAHA. And then walk away feeling good because now other people know you have serious money from being a hardcore lawyer.

3)Your workload. You're incredibly busy. And the people should know. Accomplish this by remarking to everyone who happens into your office that you are totally exhausted from last night's due diligence/waiting for the client's mark up/seamless web mishap, whatever. You can never be well-rested. Tell law clerks and first year associates that you hate your job. This will give them the impression that you're just a normal guy or girl who doesn't like staying up late. But you know, and they probably do too, that you love it because it makes you feel serious. Finally - and this is an important step - regularly update your facebook status if you're in the office on a weekend or after 11pm on a weekday: "Sam Sweet is drafting an intercreditor agreement [1:31 am-Comment-Like]" and "Blossom Russo is document requests [11:04 pm-Comment-Like]" and "Jan Hammer hates working on a Sunday but is looking forward to his reunion w law school friends from Temple (where he got a scholarship)!!! [3:24pm-Comment-Like]"

4) Your expertise. By the time you're a third year associate, start playing up your expertise. When a deal you've been assigned to closes, take full credit. Say things like "I just closed a 1.1 billion dollar deal" even though in reality you were sent to a closing room somewhere and made to sit in an office with signature pages until a partner or senior associate, who actually closed the deal, called you and told you that you could return. Another move is to begin offering financial commentary. Despite the fact that your first few years as a lawyer have consisted primarily of word processing, quickly looking over organizational documents and avoiding pro bono assignments, you should give the impression that you have somehow acquired nuanced insights into financial markets unavailable to the layman. Tell people you're "bearish on equities" and bullish on something something. It can be anything. People will nod, look at your cufflinks, and think "This guy is a serious businessman!"

5) Your superiority. One thing the hardcore lawyer does is to furiously vent to other lawyers about other law firms and law schools, either in person, over email or by leaving angry comments on legal blogs. Here is a quick guide. Every law school or law firm that is ranked behind yours in the Vault Rankings, whether by one spot or 100 spots, should be referred to as TTT - third tier toilet. This can be done outright or by cleverly inserting it into the name of the institution you wish to denigrate: "Ha! I would never work for CovingTTTon!" This uproarious rhetorical device never gets old and will be absolutely hilarious to other hardcore lawyers. Any law firm ranked better than yours should be treated with unfettered, undiluted hatred. If you can find a story about a case they ruined, bring it up constantly and sound amazed that they could be considered better than your shop. That reminds me - sometimes you should refer to law firms as "shops." Shhh shhh shhh don't ask why just do it. Finally, if all else fails on a legal blog, try to find a typo in an earlier post.

Follow these steps and you'll be on your way to shedding your useless traits and acquiring the important ones. Once you've done that, invite me to a summer lunch at Gramercy Tavern.

In conclusion, Marc Dreier and I are taking out some clients this weekend if anyone wants to join.

Weekend Ombudsman: Musings

I have varied interests.

TWO spent a lot of time thinking this weekend. Here are some musings:

1) The Masters. Is there any other sport where the fans dress exactly like the athletes? Golfers all have their own style, from the understated, to the full-vest/visor accoutrement ensemble, to the late great Payne Stewart, who did his own thing. Here Payne appears to be playing golf for the Chicago Bears. I miss Payne Stewart.

But back to the issue. So I will accept the actual golfers wearing whatever they feel they need to to compete. But why is it necessary for fans (ignore numbering) to dress the same way? Yeah, honey - I've got tickets to the Masters...have you seen my golf pants, three button shirt, functionless golf vest and PING sun visor - I should probably bring my glove too, just in case.

Its as if each fan is hoping that, against all odds, Phil Mickelson might turn to them in the gallery and say - "Hey... you...yeah....you look like you know golf. Why don't you come out here and talk to me about this next hole. Hell - do you want to hit for me?"

"Why YES! Its a good thing I wore all my golf gear!"

Can you imagine this in any other sport? Do you see fans at a basketball game wearing high tops, ankles taped, headbands on, mouth guards in? Are women in the stands at Wimbledon wearing wristbands and tennis skirts - like a tennis match could break out at any point on their way to the ladies room and concession stand?

2. Economics. Two things interested TWO this weekend: price stickiness and stock market projections.

First, free market proponents (of which TWO is one) hail the ability of prices to fluctuate relatively quickly to reflect market conditions. However there are some areas where this does not happen. One area - a particularly troubling one - is commercial real estate. In New York City for example, where unemployment is skyrocketing, incomes and spending are falling, and businesses are failing, one would expect that rents charged to commercial tenants would decrease across the board. They have not. Many landlords have increased their rents up to 6%. As a result, businesses are closing their doors all over the city. Why?

The answer is that commercial rents typically lag well behind residential rents. Most of the commercial landlords have earned so much money from rents over the life of their holdings, that they can afford to receive no rent for extended periods of time. Banking on the fact that the economy will recover eventually, these landlords would rather get nothing for a year or so than lower rents and lock themselves into a 10 year lease at a rate that will be, in a few years, viewed as beneath market value.

While the landlords' behavior could be viewed as rational on a certain time horizon, it undeniably acts to sink us deeper into recession. TWO knows of a number of entrepreneurs interested in starting new businesses that have not been able to because of unreasonably high rents. The aggregated effects of this are immense when one considers that more than half (51% in 2004) of all employed people work for small businesses (defined as companies with less than 500 employees).

Second, many of you may have heard about investment houses issuing internal projections of 10% or more gains in equities by the end of 2009. Many think that this signals the beginning of the end of the economic downturn. They should think again.

Increases in equities can not be viewed outside of the context of money supply and spending levels. The deficit is already nearly $1 trillion, only half way through 2009. This is two times the highest-ever annual deficit. Barring increases in actual production, all of this spending - mostly funded by simply printing more money - will manifest itself in inflation. Inflationary periods are typically times when the bond market suffers (creditors are hurt and debtors are helped) and equity markets can do well, in nominal terms. However, in real terms, there is no reason to think that equity gains - if any - will signify any actual improvement in our economy - and in fact there is some reason to think that it might signify a dangerously inflation.

3. Boxing. Three things. First, Paul Williams, who dominated Winky Wright on Saturday, should never lose a fight. He is a 6 foot 2 inch boxer who fights anywhere from 147 - 160. He has an 82 inch wingspan and throws over 100 punches a round. He was - somehow - upset in one fight (in the re-match Williams avenged his loss with a devastating 1st round knockout). But that fluke aside, this guy should beat everyone at 147 and 154 and possibly even 160 (although Kelly Pavlik could be a tough matchup). Look for Williams and light-heavyweight Chad Dawson (with honorable mention to welterweight Andre Berto) to be the next great American boxing stars.

I purposely did not mention Chris Arreola. I am a Chris Arreola fan - he has an aggressive and fan-friendly style in the ring and star quality (complete with amazing interviews) outside of it. But before Arreola can convince me that he is ready to be the Mexican Tyson, he will have to show up for big fights in better shape. Additionally, Arreola takes a lot of hits. It is unclear how he would fare against a Klitschko were the fight to go into the late rounds and stamina became a factor.

Third, is there any sports show better than 24/7? The new series, of course, is about Hatton and Pacquioa's May 2nd fight. My view: I would short Pacman. I think Pacman's value is a bit inflated because of his domination of a frail Oscar De La Hoya. And because of exaggerated odds, Hatton might be the better bet. Look for odds to narrow closer to fight night.

In conclusion, I could out-box most economists.

Financial Crisis Ombudsman: Accountability

Don't look at me.

Today this video is all over the internets. Its a Harvard student asking Barney Frank, current House Representative from Massachusetts and former Harvard graduate and professor, what responsibility he feels for the current economic crisis. Frank essentially mocks the student, claims conservative conspiracy and then humbly concedes that he does, in fact, regret writing a bill to regulate hedge funds but then not trying hard enough to get it passed. This last statement, of course, is the equivalent of being on a job interview and saying that your biggest fault is working too hard and caring too much about the company.

Lets take a step back. The basic role of government, at its very core, is to provide services for the people that the people could not readily provide for themselves, either individually or with non-governmental civic organization. These sorts of essential government services tend to be areas that are crucial to all citizens but require massive amounts of money, organization and/or oversight that ordinary citizens or groups of citizens could not take on by themselves. Examples include security (intelligence gathering, training, organization of large-scale military operations) and infrastructure (interstate highways, ports, air safety, energy, water). Also clearly falling into this category of basic goverment functions is financial oversight. While nearly all 300 million Americans have been effected by the fall out from the financial crisis, ordinary citizens for the most part would have no way of understanding the factors leading up to the crisis, let alone be able to take steps to remedy the problems.

It is for this reason that Americans entrust power and money to elected officials. Barney Frank was paid $169,000 and his staff was paid a total of $1.2 million in 2008, figures that are on-par with the other 435 members of the house. The understanding between elected officials and the people that elect them and pay their salaries is that they will look out for the people's interests particularly in the areas mentioned above, that are important but beyond the control of the constituents. In that sense, all elected officials have dropped the ball when it comes to the financial crisis.

But Barney Frank, in particular, had a special position that makes his tenure as an elected official even more negligent and his failure to take any responsibility even more disgraceful. Since 2003 Barney Frank has been on the House Financial Services Committee, and since 2007 has been the chairman of that committee. In its own words, "[t]he Committee oversees all components of the nation's housing and financial services sectors, including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities." This could be shortened to "the Committee is in charge of making sure a financial meltdown doesn't happen."

And yet Frank feels no responsibility. Some selected highlights of Frank's performance:

- In this 2003 hearing, Barney Frank concludes that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently regulated because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say they are. Clearly exhausted from that rigorous line of questioning, Frank concludes that there is no impending financial crisis. (see page 110).
Mr. FRANK. Let me ask Mr. Gould and Mr. Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. RAINES. No, sir.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Gould?
Mr. GOULD. No, sir.
Mr. FRANK. And let me ask now the gentleman from the Federal Home Loan Bank, do you believe that the Federal Home Loan Bank System has been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. HEHMAN. No, sir.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Schultz?
Mr. SCHULTZ. No, sir.
Mr. FRANK. Okay. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here, but we killed the afternoon anyway, so we might as well go forward.
I must say, I am inclined to agree with that. I don't see any financial crisis. You can always make things better, but I do think we should dispel the notion that we are here because there is something rotten that has gone on.

Incidentally, Franklin Raines was fired in 2004 for grossly overstating earnings and, along with two others, charged with 101 civil counts related to the manipulation in 2006.

- In this 2004 hearing on the safety of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank insists that serious issues with their financial statements and internal controls don't effect their safety and soundness, since they won't go immediately insolvent. (see pages 108-110).

(edited)
Mr. FALCON. Just the very fact that we have serious doubts about the accuracy of the financial statements and their books and records, the very fact that we have identified very serious internal controls——
Mr. FRANK. Well, let me ask a question.....Does any accuracy threaten the safety and soundness? That is what bothers me. There is a quality and a quantity issue here.......To throw ''safety and soundness'' around in that thing I think really is, for a regulator, irresponsible.
Mr. FALCON. Well, I think internal controls are a very serious safety and soundness concern. A breakdown or a lack of internal controls——
Mr. FRANK. Do you think the safety and soundness is at risk right now?
Mr. FALCON. Are they at risk of becoming insolvent right now? No. We have an agreement with the board in place that will address these problems, provide an adequate capital cushion. We think we——
Mr. FRANK. That is the answer. The rest is just rhetoric.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after losing $14.9 billion and facing potential insolvency, were placed under government control in 2008.

- In 2005 and 2006, Frank sponsored 34 bills. Only 2 had anything to do with subjects related to the current financial crisis (H.R. 4291 and H.R. 5712) and neither became law. Frank did find time to pass House Resolution 86, a congratulations to the New England Patriots for winning the Super Bowl.

- In 2007 and 2008, while the economy fell apart and millions lost their jobs, Frank, now chairman of the Financial Services Committee, sponsored 70 bills, 6 having to do with relevant economic issues, (HR. 1257, HR 3526, HR3838, HR 1427, HR 7321 and HR 3915). None of the six became law, but 4 did at least pass the House. Meanwhile, his Financial Services Committee saw 521 bills and 109 were passed by the house. Of those 109, maybe 4 (HR 698, HR 890, HR 5140 and HR 6312) in addition to Frank's 4 (mentioned above) were on topics at all pertinent to the financial meltdown. Other than H.R. 5140 - the 2008 Economic Stimulus (not written by Frank or anyone in the Financial Services Committee), none became law.

While the Finacial Services Committee, under Frank's guidance, could not seem to pass anything that would have saved the people of this country from economic catastrophe, they were a tour de force when it came to minting coins. TWO would like to commend the House Financial Services Committee for being instrumental in minting coins to commemorate the centennial of Mothers Day, the contributions of Indian tribes, the 50th anniversary of NASA, the contributions of singer Eddie Money, the founding of the US Army in 1775, the bicentennial of the Star Spangled Banner, the semicentennial of the Civil Rights Act, the Boy Scouts and the legacy of the US Infantry. I made up the one about Eddie Money, but he probably deserves one too.

- And now its 2009. Barney Frank and other elected officials - Republican and Democrat - are trying to cover themselves. They are pointing fingers, talking about committees they're on, how they attended important hearings and sponsored important bills.

But nothing can undo the fact that an economic disaster occurred and all we got from the Financial Services Committee were commemorative coins. And its not an accident. Voting on commemorative coins is easy. It requires no difficult due diligence. It doesn't entail understanding complex concepts, upsetting powerful institutions or risking campaign funding. And, most importantly, if the people aren't calling for it, why risk getting involved in anything that could upset the chances of reelection?

And therein lies the disconnect. The people weren't calling for oversight on banks, credit derivatives, government sponsored entities etc from 2003 - 2007 because most of them didn't realize there was a problem. Most people are working 9-5, taking their kids to school, paying bills and living their lives. They don't have the time or the means to investigate, understand or have an impact on these issues. They pay their taxes with the understanding that elected officials and their staffs will be the ones spending time asking the serious questions, doing unglamorous and painstaking research and fighting to pass bills that matter.

This is not a partisan issue. Blame lies on the Bush Administration, the Fed (particularly Allen Greenspan) and members in both houses of Congress in addition to obvious culpability (at least for recklessness) on the part of many financial institutions.

But I find it particularly disheartening, and, indeed, insulting, when an elected official specifically charged with financial oversight not only does not do his job, but, upon challenge from a constituent, has the audacity to mock and deride the questioner while at the same time accepting no accountability for his failures - as if the financial crisis were some independent, unforeseeable act of God.

In conclusion, this is further evidence that we'd be better off governed "by the first 2000 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty at Harvard."