[L]ife's not like that and people know that. We know in our heart that it's not black and white ... and yet we pretend with the public that it's absolutely this policy and it will deliver what we want. Politics needs to change in that respect." But will it? Is it imaginable that a prime minister could stand up one day and say: "Look, I think this will work, and I'm going to give it a try, but frankly, I'm not sure."
Some parts of public life also function, less noisily, with subtlety and honesty about the real dilemmas. But we tend to hear less of them than the trumpet blasts of self-assurance. Is it the public that demands certainty, craving bedtime stories to help us sleep soundly rather than face up to the rather obvious fact that the future - and to some extent the present - is unknown? Or is it the fault of journalists who would rip into any minister who confessed to being unsure?Some years ago, the former Archbishop of York John Hapgood suggested - with one eye on the politics of the time - that the lust for certainty could be a sin.
Tendai Biti, an opposition leader in Zimbabwe, said Obama's victory was inspiring and so was the concession by John McCain, whose fellow Republican George W. Bush will leave the White House on Jan. 20.
"If in Africa, incumbents would accept defeat and would graciously depart from the seat of power, this would be a different continent, and indeed Zimbabwe would be a different place," said Biti, whose party is deadlocked in power-sharing talks with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
Whoever wins, it will be nice to have an energy policy that wasn't drafted behind closed doors by Cheney and a secret list of oil cronies.U.S. presidential candidates John McCain and Barak Obama clash over tax and foreign policy, but their energy proposals are more alike than their campaign rhetoric suggests. Both offer to reduce global warming with a cap-and-trade program, "clean coal" technology and expanded use of wind and other renewable energy. But no matter who wins, energy prices are likely to climb.
There are some differences: Obama emphasizes renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign oil, while McCain puts more faith in drilling. Obama is less enamored of nuclear power than McCain. Obama supports subsidies for ethanol production while McCain would cancel them and open the market to foreign competitors. Environmentalists tend to favor Obama, while business groups favor McCain.
Can you believe the Bridge of Sighs has been turned into an advertisement for a car?
I've been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I'm talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.Why?
A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation's many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
While I'm not exactly sure I follow his full logic on access, the idea is not new. There's a very moving scene in an Elie Wiesel book where the community elders in the concentration camp put God on trial for allowing the persecution and holocaust. If I recall correctly, they find God guilty of negligence.He said God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents in Omaha, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.
Why do we all persist in treating health like a bankable asset? Is it the solidity of our flesh and bone? The lab reports that look like bank statements? Either way, the operant fiction is that with diligent adherence to expert advice, pretty much anyone can sock away a nice little stash of health for the future.In fact, though, health is the opposite of a commodity. It flits around like Tinkerbell, defying all the best intentions and predictions. No one can really articulate what the word means; no two people understand the concept in exactly the same way. And that includes you and your doctor.
David Rothkopf, a senior Commerce department official during the administration of President Bill Clinton, says the world is at a turning point. "This is a watershed," he says. "This is the end of 25 years of Reagan-Thatcherism, 'leave it to the market, less government is better government'. That is over – period."
Secretary Paulson has told us since last week that he's late, he's late for a very important date and has no time for a reasonable legislative debate (although willing to indulge in the "hello/goodbyes" of Congressional testimony, provided it doesn't take too long). But instead of following him through the looking glass, like naïve and curious Alice, let's pause and take a peek though the glass before taking the leap of faith the Treasury and Fed are asking of us.
As with Alice's Wonderland, a lot of what Bazooka Hank and Helicopter Ben are saying is lacking in detail or simply doesn't make much sense:
Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.
That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.
