Greenspan Sleeps Well

So I came across an article about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's thought's on the Fed's complicity in the current economic slowdown/recession (you pick).

Lots of blah, blah, blah on an issue that no one can ever really know the answer, but I did have to take a moment to appreciate these quotes.

I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve policies that we initiated back then because I think they were very professionally done

And...

Clearly, certain of our anticipations of what would happen as a consequence of those policies were off but there's no way of avoiding that.

Ok, lets play with the first one.

See, he doesn't have regrets that his policies were wrong, and may have destroyed trillions of dollars in value, and killed off whole companies, wrecked the economy and destroyed households, because these policies were "professionally" done. It's kind of like a mob hitman saying he has no regrets for killing innocent people because he did so in a "professional" manner. This is going to be my new mantra when I make a mistake. "Yeah, sure I made a terrible error, but I was a pro about it." I absolutely love that one.

And lest you think that living in the Beltway distances you from the people, go back and read the second quote. Why the empathy just oozes out of it. "Hey, we made made some bad assumptions, what can you do, right? It happens. Why is everyone so bent out of shape? You can't avoid making mistakes, that's why pencils have erasers."

Every decade has its legacy. The oughts' legacy will be the catastrophic implementation being shrugged off with a "hey, it happens, what can you do" attitude and a total disregard for consequence by both the perpetrator and the stakeholders.

Don't Believe the Hype

The great myth of science is that it settles disputes by revealing the facts about our world. The reality of science is that it is just another player in the world of opinion shaping. A world where opinions are standards that rally followers. And just another interest group lined up for government handouts. We hear calls from the cult of science that demand embryonic stem cell research saying it is THE cure for so many of our afflictions. Of course it is, just like Marlboro is THE smoke for any manly man. If you disagree with the Marlboro Man you're a wuss; if you disagree with the embryonic stem cell crowd, you're religious kook. This is the marketing of opinion, not the revelation of science.

The reality is that adult stem cell research has been yielding fruit for over a decade while embryonic stem cell research has yet to lead to a single successful therapy. Is this sufficient reason to defund all embryonic stem cell research? Of course not. But it absolutely should make you wonder why we hear so little about adult stem cell successes and so much about embryonic stem cell promises. Embryonic stem cell research is justifiably offensive to millions of Americans. Adult stem cell research is not. And seeing as there is no reason to believe that adult stem cells won't provide us all the benefits of embryonic cells that is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Bush provided a reasonable compromise. Scientists can continue to research on current lines, but more subjects will not be provided. However, the already successful road of adult stem cells is wide open. The controversial is allowed but restricted, the reasonable is encouraged if not promoted. Well done.

Bloody mess

On a blood kick, must have something to do with that weird bat that bit me.

Anyway, interesting article on medical ethics involving new critical care techniques. At issue, some folks think they have new ways to save lives, the FDA says it needs testing, which raises the question, "How do you get permission to test a new product or method on someone who is unconscious?" Toughie. The plan now, is since you can't, don't (there's a plan, but I don't see it really working. So in the end, consent is forced). Personally, I don't like it. First let me say that I understand that there was a truly exhaustive review process.

Before starting the research at each site, researchers complete a "community consultation" process. Local organizers try to notify the public about the study and gauge the reaction through public meetings, telephone surveys, Internet postings and advertisements, and through reports in local news media. Anyone who objects can get a special bracelet to alert medical workers that they refuse to participate.

The project proceeds only after also being vetted by a set of local independent reviewers known as an institutional review board. Another group of independent advisers known as a data safety monitoring board will periodically review the study for any signs of problems.

Again, I'm not a fan, but I doubt I'll get one of those cool bracelets. But if there were lots of tests and the bracelets were all different colors, I could relive my high school days. Anyway, this process seems like its taking the long way round. Rather than canvas a city like Dallas, and expecting to get anything close to market awareness and real consent without spending months and millions, why not find high risk groups and target them. Emergency personnel, NASCAR drivers, and military folks are all much smaller groups with much higher need. You can reach them all fast, and still get the tests done. Doing the presentation in Iraq, getting consent (or handing out bracelets), and starting the tests is a much faster and cheaper prospect than doing the same in Seattle. Also, you can bet there will be lawsuits the first time someone who received one of the tested procedures/medicines or a placebo dies. It would be hard to prove they saw any of the advertising and had a real chance to "opt out."

The current plan is troublesome in many ways. All of the issues are alleviated by finding smaller, higher risk groups to test.

Plus, I'm interested to see what our resident hemopussy thinks of all this.

Seriously, are they thinking of our President Bush?

Minor scandal playing out over at the World Bank involving Paul Wolfowitz (the whole thing is somewhat ironic given that cleaning up corruption was his big thing going in, but anywho). Latest twist is that the board of direcectors is going to get tough on Wolfie and send in a vote of "no confidence." Why not just fire him? Well, being foreigners (loooved both "Four" and "Records" classic, classic rock) they lack, well, guts. Rather than fire him, they decided to go with "no confidence" because,

Board members are betting that a strong expression of dissatisfaction will persuade the Bush administration to withdraw its support and urge Wolfowitz to step down.

I'm sorry, are they new to the party? Are they really thinking that Bush will bow to their cute little "no confidence" vote and withdraw support for Mr Wolfowitz? Where have they been for the last six years? I know it shouldn't, but that line of reasoning just insults me. W is a man who won't take urging from the US SENATE on his AG, even when members of his own party have "no confidence" in his man. Do they really, honestly think that W cares at all about their "confidence" in Mr Wolfowitz? They will pass the "no confidence" measure, and W will assume that the whole mess has blown over. Mr Wolfowitz did something wrong, the Board handled it with their cute little measure, and all's well.

I honestly don't care either way. But at this point, I'm rooting for the two W's. If the Board can't summon the courage to fire a boss they have "no confidence" in, and if they're homework is really so bad that they think that that vote will force W's hand, then, well, they deserve to be frustrated. That's what happens when you lack courage and are incompetent.

The good news for Stalin is that this action only builds on his argument that global institutions are completely incapable of dealing with any kind of crisis.

Golf Clap for Salazar

Ken Salazar (D-CO) made a nice little move recusing himself from a panel that was looking into the dismissal of New Mexico's Federal Prosecutor David Iglesias (why we're involved in the goings on of foreign nations is beyond me, seems like the focus should be on the American prosecutor scandal. Sheesh.).

Anyway, Sen Salazar in his former capacity as CO AG worked with Mr Iglesias so the good Sen felt that the best thing to do was to remove any appearance of impropriety. Nice move. While I'm sure Sen Salazar could remain objective, he understood that appearances do matter, and that people must have faith that the system is fair and unbiased.

Not a huge deal in any sense, but I like his move here. I would like to see more action like this from our leaders (I'm looking at you Antonin).