If interest rates fall in the economy, but no one notices . . .

Here is a thoughtful mass email I received today from Alan Grayson:

Dear Erich: Yesterday, the 10-year Treasury note hit its lowest interest rate in history. For the third day in a row. I didn't hear that reported. Did you? Treasury notes started trading in substantial amounts during World War I, almost 100 years ago. Until Wednesday of this week, the lowest interest rate in history on 10-year notes was 1.672%. That was in February 1946, twelve years before I was born. (That rate re-appeared, for a few brief moments, last September.) On Tuesday, the rate for 10-year notes closed at 1.73%. On Wednesday, the rate dropped past the all-time low, and kept going, finishing at 1.62%. Thursday set a new all-time low, finishing at 1.58%. On Friday, the rate for 10-year notes finished at 1.47%. That's a 15% drop. In three days. The yield on 10-year Treasury notes actually plunged all the way down to 1.44% during Friday trading. That's the new all-time low. Until Monday, at least. Here are some questions that come to mind: Why is this happening? Is this good news or bad news? (Hint to Obama Administration: you can take credit for it.) Will the trend continue? What does it mean for the middle class? For mortgages and car loans? For corporate profits? For fiscal policy? Who gains and who loses? Unfortunately, there are no answers to any of these questions today, because reaching a 100-year low in interest rates is not considered news. Here are the headlines yesterday from the Associated Press: The unemployment rate rose from 8.1% to 8.2%. The UN Human Rights Council voted to condemn Syria. There was a large fire in New Mexico (video!). A black bear wondered into a schoolyard (more video!). Here are the headlines yesterday from ABC News: A teacher slapped a student. A roommate issued a humorous apology for taking someone else's milk from the fridge. "Why Idiot Humans Are Best Cyber Weapon" A new record was set for world's longest Ferris Wheel ride. A mother choked a bully. I hate to be a scold. I really do. But important things are happening. Can someone in the media, or among our so-called leaders, please pay some attention? Please? You can't lead people anywhere if your eyes are closed. Courage, Alan Grayson

Continue ReadingIf interest rates fall in the economy, but no one notices . . .

Ralph Nader on Obama’s drone wars

Ralph Nader asks why we aren't hearing an outcry by lawyers, whose duty it is to be the first responders when a politician shreds the Constitution.

The drones have killed civilians, families with small children, and even allied soldiers in this undeclared war based on secret “facts” and local grudges (getting even). These attacks are justified by secret legal memos claiming that the president, without any Congressional authorization, can without any limitations other than his say-so, target far and wide assassinations of any “suspected terrorist,” including American citizens. The bombings by Mr. Obama, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, trample proper constitutional authority, separation of powers, and checks and balances and constitute repeated impeachable offenses. That is, if a pathetic Congress ever decided to uphold its constitutional responsibility, including and beyond Article I, section 8’s war-declaring powers. ... Sadly, the bulk of our profession, as individuals and through their bar associations, has remained quietly on the sidelines. They have turned away from their role as “first-responders” to protect the Constitution from its official violators. [The New York Times recently] reported that a weekly role of the president is to personally select and order a “kill list” of suspected terrorists or militants via drone strikes or other means. The reporters wrote that this personal role of Obama’s is “without precedent in presidential history.” Adversaries are pulling him into more and more countries – Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other territories.

Continue ReadingRalph Nader on Obama’s drone wars

Darwin’s unifying idea applied to cultural evolution.

In this video, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins discuss Darwin's dangerous idea May 9, 2012 at Oxford. Then the conversation turns to memes and cultural evolution. Language appears to be the key, according to Dennett. "Words themselves have replicative norms." Check out Dennett's neologism at the 12 minute mark: "Thinko," which is a mental version (an incorrect sub-routine) of a "typo." Dennett gives an update on the "Clergy Project" (in-the-closet clergy) at the 31 minute mark. As Dennett explains, there are actually two distinct projects in the Clergy Project. The first project involves detailed interview of active clergy. The second project consists of 200 members (50 of them are active clergy), with a waiting list of 60. It functions as a support group.

Continue ReadingDarwin’s unifying idea applied to cultural evolution.

Democracy is attacked when the federal government prosecutes Wikileaks.

As Glenn Greenwald explains, an attack on Wikileaks is an attack on traditional investigative journalism.

A coalition of leading journalists and media outlets in Australia have explained: WikiLeaks “is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret” and prosecuting them “would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press“; they added: “To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks . . . is a serious threat to democracy.” The Committee to Protect Journalists sent a letter to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder expressing “deep concern” over “reports about a potential WikiLeaks prosecution,” which “would threaten grave damage to the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and the press.” Although American journalists were reluctant at first to speak out, even they have come around to recognizing what a profound threat an Assange indictment would be to press freedoms, with The Washington Post Editorial Page denouncing any indictment on the ground that it “would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations,” and even editors of the Guardian and Keller himself — with whom Assange has feuded — are now vowing to defend Assange if he were to be prosecuted.
To take it a step further, an attack on investigative journalism is an invitation for the government to act unaccountably, in secret, which is absolutely in conflict with the notion that the U.S. government is being run by the citizens. To connect the dots, a federal criminal prosecution of Wikileaks is an attack on democracy. For more see this post, and see this article demonstrating that Wikileaks is doing nothing different than the New York Times when the Times is doing its job well.

Continue ReadingDemocracy is attacked when the federal government prosecutes Wikileaks.