SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SiouxPal who wrote (162572)3/8/2009 10:17:17 PM
From: Skywatcher1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361839
 
Bush's big lies
Behind the sordid memos that purported to give legal justification for the war on terror.
Rosa Brooks

March 5, 2009

How did they ever get away with it?

On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002 by lawyers in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship.

Collectively, they declare that if the U.S. military were deployed against suspected terrorists inside the United States, even U.S. citizens wouldn't be protected by the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. They also conclude that citizens and noncitizens could be designated "unlawful enemy combatants" by the president on the basis of secret evidence. And once that happens, they could be locked up indefinitely and tortured, without charge, access to counsel or any procedure through which to challenge the detention or treatment.

I know: All this is old hat. With so many leaks over the years, who doesn't know by now that the Bush administration sought virtually unlimited executive power to monitor, detain and use force against individuals anywhere around the globe in the name of the "war on terror"?

But even today, it's still shocking to see it laid out in black and white.

In a way, what's most shocking is just how outrageously bad the office's legal arguments were. The 2001-2002 memos mischaracterize previous Supreme Court decisions, ignore crucial legal precedents and contain gaping holes in logic. To accept the theories the Office of Legal Counsel came up with, you need to assume that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it all wrong when they rebelled against Britain's King George III in 1776. You need to believe, more or less, that the 225 years of American jurisprudence between 1776 and 2001 amounted to one giant mistake.

The memos are so embarrassingly foolish that the Office of Legal Counsel itself was ultimately forced to repudiate them. In October 2008, the office advised that "caution should be exercised before relying in any respect" on its own previous advice about domestic surveillance or the domestic use of the military. A week before President Obama's inauguration, the office issued another "never mind" memo, stating that "certain propositions stated in several memos respecting ... matters of war and national security do not reflect the current views of this office."

Better late than never, I guess.

But all this raises the question: How did such dangerously bad legal memos ever get taken seriously in the first place?

One answer is suggested by the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler. Ordinary people "more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie," wrote Hitler, "since they themselves often tell small lies ... but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

In other words: Paradoxically, the more outrageous the claim, the more apt we are to assume there must be some truth to it. Just as some banks and insurance companies are apparently "too big to fail," some claims from those with political power seem to strike us as "too big to disbelieve." "That seems so outrageous it must be right," we tell ourselves. "The important people keep saying it -- they must know something I don't know."

That's the only explanation I can come up with for why the 2001-2002 memos stood as Bush administration doctrine for as long as they did. (The Big Lie theory also helps explain why other manifestly false Bush administration claims prevailed in the face of the evidence: Recall, for instance, how we were assured that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the war would be a cakewalk?)

Big lies prevail because we can't bring ourselves to believe that our leaders could be so dishonest or deluded. And big lies can do terrible damage, of course. The Bush administration's big legal lies paved the way for some of the most shameful episodes in our history, including the official authorization of torture.

In the end, thankfully, all big lies collapse under their own weight. We're in a new era: The early memos produced by the office have been repudiated, and the Bush administration was sent packing with rock-bottom public approval ratings.

But don't think we're out of the woods. As Hitler demonstrated, some small part of the most "impudent lies" will always remain and stick. Big lies leave little lies in their wake, changing the political discourse in enduring, difficult-to-detect ways.

And that's the challenge we now face: tracing the barely visible effects of the Bush administration's now-repudiated big lies -- through our legal system, our constitutional system, our foreign policy -- and undoing all the damage.

It will take a generation.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com



To: SiouxPal who wrote (162572)3/9/2009 2:23:14 AM
From: Asymmetric  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361839
 
Dow 5000? A Bearish Possibility
Strategists Still See Rally, but Earnings Point to 1995 Levels for Stocks
.
By ANNELENA LOBB / WSJ March 9, 2009

Just how low can stocks go?

Despite Friday's small gain, the Dow Jones Industrial Average marked its fourth consecutive week of losses as it tumbled through the 7000-point mark and spiraled to new 12-year lows. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is trading below 700 for the first time since 1996.

As earnings estimates are ratcheted down and hopes for a quick economic fix fade, the once-inconceivable notion of returning to Dow 5000 or S&P 500 at 500 looks a little less far-fetched.

A decline to 500 on the S&P is 183.38 points and 27% away. The index already has lost 881.77 points, or 56%, since its peak in October 2007. The index, which lost 7% last week, hasn't been below 500 since 1995, when the tech-stock bubble was just beginning. After dropping 6.2% last week, the Dow is 1626.94 points and 25% above 5000, a level it also hasn't seen since 1995.

Analysts and investors looking at valuations, history and stock-price trends are mostly predicting the indexes will avoid plumbing those lows, although all concede that, in this market, anything is possible.

Even Wall Street strategists are crunching the numbers, while sticking to forecasts of a second-half rally.

Goldman Sachs's David Kostin in late February presented three scenarios for the S&P, including a "bear case" that put the index at 400 to 500. Although Mr. Kostin says he doesn't anticipate the index will fall that low, "these are the cases that different types of investors are making," he says.

Even though the Dow appears oversold and could rally back to around 7,400, investors should consider limiting their exposure to equities, according to Stockmarket Cycles' Peter Eliades. Stacey Delo reports.

Looking solely at valuations, namely price relative to earnings estimates, the S&P at 500 isn't necessarily a wild stretch.

The current 2009 earnings estimate for S&P companies is about $64 a share, down from about $113 last April, according to S&P. Goldman is now predicting $40, having cut its forecast from $53 in late February. Bank of America Merrill Lynch estimates $46 a share, and Citigroup is predicting $51.

At $64, the S&P is trading at about 11 times earnings. At $40, the index is at about 17 times.

According to Goldman's data, the bottom of the 1974 bear market had a forward P/E of 11.3. At the trough in 1982, it was 8.5. Put a multiple of 10 with estimates of $40 to $50 a share and the S&P comes out at 400 and 500.

Mr. Kostin himself offered his own prognosis, in which the S&P stays between 650 and 750 and possibly rises to 940 at year end. Goldman's earnings prediction includes write-downs and provisions, Mr. Kostin adds. But as financial companies recognize a significant amount of remaining losses in the next couple of quarters, investors, he says, could shift their focus to 2010 and what 2009 earnings might look like before write-downs and provisions -- a figure he puts at $63.

Whether stocks continue to fall "boils down to confidence," says Chris Guinther, president and chief investment officer of Silvant Capital Management. Mr. Guinther argues that without clear signs that the government stimulus and rescue packages are working, investors have little incentive to buy.

While Silvant sees the S&P staying in a range of 650 to 750, a decline to 500 is "definitely possible," Mr. Guinther says.

A level of 500 on the S&P is "possible, but I wouldn't put it in the realm of probable," says Thomas Lee, chief U.S. equity strategist at J.P. Morgan. Mr. Lee on March 2 removed a tentative "buy" recommendation he had placed on the S&P in February.

For Mr. Lee, the S&P at 500 "would imply that we are now in a period similar to April 1932 -- the final stages of a bear market."

Between April 8, 1932, and July 8, 1932, stocks fell 34% -- a little more than what it would take to get the S&P to 500.

A level of 500 would take declines for the S&P to 68% since its October 2007 high, compared with the peak-to-trough depression-era slump of almost 90%.

Still, Mr. Lee sees a tentative bottom for stocks in mid-2009, together with a trough in the economy. From there, he is still "really comfortable" with the prospect of the S&P heading toward 1100 by year end.

This time, the barrage of government policy prescriptions make a decline of Depression-era magnitude very unlikely, says Richard Sylla, a financial historian and economics professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

"People say [government policy] hasn't worked yet, and there have been slips in the execution, but I would say things could be much worse. It will put a bit of a floor under the declines," Mr. Sylla says. That said, he thinks stocks aren't at their lows yet, and guesses the Dow will bottom near 6000.

There are those of course, who think the whole decline is overdone.

"Analysts are just slashing numbers and people are trying to extrapolate that earnings plunge into Dante's Inferno," Citigroup's chief U.S. equity strategist, Tobias Levkovich, says. Mr. Levkovich is keeping a year-end target of 1000 on the S&P.

He says a high single-digit P/E ratio isn't necessarily a valid assumption. In other periods when stocks were similarly valued, inflation, interest rates and risk premiums all were higher, he says.

Some analysts who look at stock price trends see the indexes heading much lower.

"There's a good chance the market could keep going lower," says Bill Strazzullo, chief market strategist at Bell Curve Trading.

His firm's targets are 500 on the S&P and 5500 on the Dow, using charts of buying and selling trends. A small bounce may come around 650 for the S&P as short sellers take profits around that level, Mr. Strazzullo says. Long-term buyers have also been "active" at about those levels and may help push prices higher temporarily, he says.

"Some people may say that is the bottom, but I think there is another leg to go on this," Mr. Strazzullo says. "That last leg will probably be the general public throwing in the towel."