Who responsible for subprime burst?

Erza Klein looked at the system via Michael Lewis’s new book. First, those labeling mortgage bonds with “AAA” status, thinking each were individual items. Problem was: One the introductory lending rate ended and the real rate kicked in, these bonds became time bombs as the homeowners started defaulting. Then came the bankers for selling and stockpiling these bonds with no obvious knowledge how they behaved. The act was complete short-term. Then there were the homeowners themselves. They got suckered into things far above their pay-grade with the predatory lending scheme the bankers advertised.

Klein soundly concluded:

In this case, it’s not that there’s plenty of blame to go around. It’s that there’s too much blame to go around. There is not one single piece of the system that worked the way it was supposed to. Consumers did not make smart decisions, nor did banks or ratings agencies or institutional investors or regulators. Everything failed. And that caught us unprepared, because in the run-up to the crisis, we’d looked at these people and pronounced them geniuses. Alan Greenspan, who we’d nicknamed “the Oracle.” The titans of Wall Street, who had so much more money than we did that it seemed obvious they knew something we didn’t. The banks, which were staffed with the best of the Ivy Leagues.

The system simply failed because at every level, not a single smart man stood up. And none to be found. They all bit the baits and deluded themselves that (1) they knew what they were doing and (2) should they fail, someone else will come and pick up the pieces.

But the existence of seemingly endless idiots at every level of the financial system is much more important than the frustration of a small handful of clear-eyed doomsayers. Like the poor, idiots will always be with us. In fact, we’ll frequently be among them. The seductions of group-think, the tendency to trust experts, the incentives for employees to go along with their bosses rather than contradict them and the need to deliver short-term profits even at the cost of long-term risk are more powerful than any regulation and will exist long after the visceral lessons of the subprime meltdown are gone.

So we’re left where Summers started: There are idiots. And if you look around, it turns out that they’re everywhere: In the banks, at the Federal Reserve, running the rating agencies, and selling mortgages. You can’t idiot-proof a system run by idiots.

And to boot: Wall Street is resisting the changes needed to up the standard of their practices. What more idiotic than that?

Silence at the Reef

The Chinese government and its official mouthpiece of a newspaper had been rather quiet about the grounding of a coal tanker off the Australian’s Great Barrier Reef. The most substantial question is damning to the Chinese: How can a tanker be 12 miles off the designated course? The environmental possible, negative impact the incident could trigger an awkward moment between the two already-tensed governments after the Rio Tinto trial.

The looming question remains: How can a big tanker, with its GPS technology, landed in a spot miles and miles off the designated path? The Australian government promised a full investigation on what they deemed as a violation on its national treasure. Oh, the drama.

Fog of War

This morning, long after the Wikileaks video made the round, I looked up to see what other influential voices had to say about the matter. Andrew Sullivan had several items on it, just as James Fallows. Missing from this list was Tom Ricks. Here is a reporter I admired, with deep grasp on the war, and he has not post anything about it. Ricks might have done an admirable thing by reserving judgment on the video. I plan to do the same.

For now, I am going to take issue with what I know and not what I think I know. The video showed two separate attacks from the American helicopter gunner. The first engagement looked justified, with the gunner suspected the civilians to have RPGs and AKs-47. The second attack was on a van that arrived with two Iraqis taking a wounded onto the van. The helicopter gunner opened up and destroyed the van.

I am going to practice every sense of caution as I write this: The second attack was indefensible even if you don’t know the Rules of Engagement or the Geneva Convention. No one from the van fired at the Apache. The two men did not look armed. They posed no threat.

What the video showed was the most gritty fog of war there is. Those on the air had no clue what those on the ground were doing. The American forces, in the larger context, were attacked from this area previously and so they assumed, fairly, that the men on the ground were threats. Experienced dictated the gunner’s real-time analysis: A bunch of men, some are armed, one had something resembled a missile launcher, trouble. But experience also had to dictate that the RPG must be longer than what one of them were having. Perhaps the gunner was callous because of the violence he witnessed and looking at this video, we, as the audience, is so far removed from the heat of combat to make an accurate assessment of the matter.

The gunner here clearly made a bad call. I am not going to call for his war crime trial, not on the first attack. The second attack, however, should be looked and reexamined carefully because even on the second viewing, I could not find the justification for firing at non-threat entities.

Perhaps in war, all insanity is sanity. However, the code of battlefield conduct is not about giving cover to any particular side. It tries to level the playing field, hence the American forces could fire on anyone who looked at least 51 percent threatening, hence it was logical for the gunner to wish one of the downed target to pick up a weapon.

I standby calling for an investigation onto the second attack, on the van, by the gunner and the commander. It is the most important detail and a damning case of the Americans’ abuse of power, akin to Abu Ghraib. And it would likely to raise a whole lot of heckle from the Arab world regarding this matter.

Apple’s business model decyphered

It is hardly a trend, but it started with iPhone and now it is working in the iPad. Apple, now more than ever, is doing a cross-over with Microsoft. Steve Jobs isn’t about to relinquish his control over the products, he just loosen some of the restrictions so others could join.

Here’s how it work. For years the reason why Windows is always the bigger pie than Apple’s OS X is because Windows, despite its flaws, was an open system. It is not as opened as Linux, but the framework was a nice balance that allowed a lot of creative ideas to flourish on the software platform. Apple, on the other hand, for years, had been the opposite. The control-freak that is Jobs always worried of smarter geeks outdoing his own game, on his own machine. And so Apple got famously isolated and proprietary.

The iPhone’s Apps Store is what had been a feature on Windows that was so fundamental, Microsoft simply did not have to advertise. To date, I believed that if Microsoft sealed the development floodgate down to just a drip drip pattern, there would not be a lot of third-party support and thus would not attract a variety of users Windows now have.

For the iPad to succeed with the apps, Apple put in a rigorous quality-assurance, which runs out from company. Microsoft did not do that. Instead, it let the app makers be responsible for their own products, which led to some of the dysfunctional in the system. Nonetheless, Windows remained successful to this day because so many apps not made by Bill Gates’ company.

So for all of the hype that Apple is unique on its thinking, it’s just that. Steve Jobs’ biggest sell to the public about the phone and the Pad is the possibility of the creative expansions push by the apps. For some, it would be good enough. For me, that barely a point worth considering. Jobs simply created the environment and charges people for it. Hoodwink is a better term. And hardly this would be the last thing I have to say about Apple.

How to fix CNN

The big conversation on journalism of late has CNN being at the butt of all jokes. The cable news network reported a big lost on the ratings, with shows like Larry King Live! taking a 40 percent dip in the audience numbers. As soon as that fact got out, the next set of talks focused on how to improve CNN.

Ross Douthat had a sharp nail on the head of the problem: CNN is truly stuck in the middle. It can’t outdo Fox News for the conservatives or can they outdo MSNBC for the liberals. Being in the middle meant they had to rely on big stories and when those stories came, CNN had the best resources. The Haiti earthquake, for instance. Douthat suggested that CNN should do what Jon Stewart did night after night: Invite people on not for their confrontational talking points, but a true debate.

No objection here. The most sensational debate Stewart had of late was a smackd own with Marc Thiessen, who claimed the CIA’s torture program killed no one. That claim hit the fact wall that is Jane Mayer so hard it withered.

I always wondered how shows like 60 Minutes became the must-watched Sunday item. It had a mixture of debates between the reporters and fact-gathering. Having talking heads on a show does neither. It just adds more friction to go along with the fiction. It makes boring time for those truly wanting to know the truth.

Today, Wikileaks released a powerful, vivid video of what Andrew Sullivan called, a “war crime.” In a future post, I’ll have something to say about it. For now, CNN should settle in a niche more like Stewart, where smart questions inform the audience, rather trying to be either Fox or MSNBC. By the way, having more experts on the show is not as same as reporting.

Bob Dylan’s East Asia tour canceled

Several narratives are making the rounds in today’s minor entertainment news; minor because aside from those who could understand his lyrics are also required to learn the context of those words to make a cultural connection. One reasoning is that the central government does not like Dylan’s subversive encouragement and intervened as soon as they saw the trouble seeping down the crack.

Or it could be that Dylan’s tour isn’t as profitable to make the effort in the first place. He canceled the entire tour, after all, rather than just a few destinations. This reasoning, to me at least, is much more favorable at first blush. These days, Western music is very much a connoisseur taste in the land, hence Dylan hardly a threat to the authoritarian regime.

Not everything in the post Google-China feud is about censorship and free speech. In fact, the Google debacle was also about money. China just did not get a good handle on that issue, thus letting the narrative to be speech-driven.

It’s Karma

It seemed like an eternity ago when the Democratic Party found itself on the losing end of the odds. Their national fund raising arm, the Democratic National Committee, headed by the wildly unpredictable Howard Dean, was losing dollar by dollar against the stronger, Republican counterpart.

Those were the golden days for the GOP. Now, the RNC is facing the problems of its own chairman, Michael Steel while the rival DNC skates ahead. Does the RNC has a black man problem? Does the Republican Party has a competency problem? Who cares? This election cycle hasn’t been about the conservative party at all. They chose to sit out, hoping to win by witnessing their rivals fumbled. The gamble isn’t working in their favor as the Democratic Party gained momentum followed the health care reform passage.

Between now and November 3rd is a long way. The RNC is rightfully nervous about its prospect. If they lose, at least they could fire Steele naturally, rather than drawing all of the attention for cutting the rope now—not that Steele isn’t using that rope to damn himself on his own time.

Why I’ll never read thrillers about the Church again

Having thoroughly enjoyed Angels and Demons more than Da Vinci Code, seeing how the current affairs are going on in the Church, it’s is fair to say that on balance, the Child Molestation problem is nowhere on the scale of misdeeds when paired to Brown’s conspiracy theories. But damn it, none of the “real Christ” theories match up the same damage as this.

Why has no credible writer put out something like this? They accused the Church of faking biblical texts and all, but none about this ongoing, entrenching matter? It goes to show that life, though less exciting, is enough to kill an institution that prided on having the moral high ground. Hide your boys, the priests are coming, that would make a solid take-down plot isn’t it?

The same could be said about reading thrillers on the evil corporation. We have many, many books on the evil financial world, accompanied by movies like Wall Street. But none had the imagination to go after one of a major car company with a mundane plot of covering the tests results of cars that killed their own drivers? Apparently, that is too mundane.

Photo-illustration by Jill Greenberg

Girls’ Power

Squaresoft, before it became SquareEnix, had the knack for telling stories through video games the way Pixar made their animation. Each of the installment in its flagship series, Final Fantasy, merged together the game-play, cinema, and music to produce a visceral experience found nowhere else, not in a concerto, not in a movie, and certainly not in a book.

Last winter, I borrowed a few consoles and played the installments I missed, starting with 8, onward to 9, X, X-2, 12 and 13. All were shiny gems, but the experience left me declaring that along with 7, Final Fantasy X was masterstroke, simply because it provoked subtle emotion and deep thinking without warning. In many ways, X upped the ante where 7 began. Not into the cheap laughs and one liners, X let the characters grew on the screen. These characters shifted quietly, rather than in a dramatic, loud way commonly found in Western stories like Harry Potter and Lord of the Ring. So quietly they changed that I had I go back to the key moments and re-studied. As a warning: Because of the intricacies woven so rich and at length like a Homerian epic, the synopsis below doesn’t do justice.

But if my praise can be summed up, it is this: X broke the gender wall of all conventional video games. This was not a male-lead story, but a female one. It starred a summoner who jumped off the suicidal destiny train and saved the world her own way. It had a young girl from a race that faced all sort of prejudices, and a black mage riddled with guilt for her previous failures. As for the males? They were just contributors to the thread.

Read More »

Are we all Chinese now?

My Chinese colleagues in the legal world asked a very pertinent question: If the United States pride itself to be a country of law and not men, why did not anyone going to jail for breaking the FISA law? Though I am familiar with the matter at the time, because not living in the U.S. anymore, I am completely stumped.

It’s true that anyone caught wiretapping without a warrant is subject to “a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.” The curious case of the judicial mystery is why no one from the Bush 43 administration, getting the fine, let alone the jail time? When a judge found the activities to be illegal, that there is no shortcut around the FISA court, there should have been a ripple of consequences.

But there is a lot of hush-hush so far about the conduct of the Bush administration on the warrantless wiretapping. What I do know from reading this blog is that the Obama administration is not into litigating the past, it said. This is one big omission for the executive branch. Just don’t count Congress on doing  anything about it. So the short answer is politics.

The long answer, I don’t have one.

It is, then, astute to point out that the U.S. government is not interested in upholding all of the laws and the Constitution. Just some. Just like China. The term “jungle laws,” I now learn, is a very universal, translatable phrase.