WND column

Never Enough

In his book, "Liberal Fascism," Jonah Goldberg explains that the primary mechanism utilized by progressives in restructuring society to their liking is to disassociate every step in the program from the preceding and following ones. "It's just this one little brick," they explain to the conservative who is opposed to the idea of the proposed wall. "Don't be so paranoid ... you didn't mean to take it seriously when we said we intended to build an entire wall. What's the matter with this one brick?"

Of course, the minute that the conservative foolishly accedes to progressive blandishments and allows the brick to be placed, the progressive immediately declares the pressing need to move on to the next brick in the wall. Climategate notwithstanding, Al Gore must feel that the present brick is being satisfactorily laid at Copenhagen, because he has already moved on to declaring the need to further handicap the global economy by reducing the carbon emissions 25 percent more than the climate agreement that will be announced next week.

Comments ()

Two RGD reviews

CM reviews RGD on Amazon:

If you've been a reader of Vox Day, you know his dry humor, and you also know his intellectual rigor - both are present in spades in RGD. If you haven't read his stuff before now, you're in for a treat. Did articles on the subprime mortgage crisis leave you thinking you had listened to people speaking in tongues? This will explain the process of how banks were enticed to jump off the cliff and the underlying political/economic assumptions of our time that led up to the jump. Furthermore, you'll have the big picture, too, for Day is a fan of history as well as economics.

Ron Anderson reviews RGD at This Is Reno:

For the more politically minded, anyone still wondering what all the fuss over Ron Paul was about last year, this book provides the answers. It includes the best argument from the right against Reagan era monetarism that I’ve ever read. Like Keynesianism, monetarism requires government intervention and top-down management of the economy. For those on the left, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich comes through looking fairly reasonable, while Paul Krugman’s critique of Austrian theory is mercilessly dismembered point by point. There is also a nice section on the early development of Austrian theory, it being a response to the German scientific method that was being adopted by 20th Century fascists.

In fairness, I'm not sure my sense of humor can reasonably be described as "dry". My friends usually refer to it as either "morbid" or "a deeper shade of black".

Comments ()

VPFL week 12

97 Judean Front (10-2)
25 Valders Valkyries (5-7)

48 Alamo City Spartans (9-3)
44 Burns Redbeards (3-9)

79 Mounds View Meerkats (7-5)
64 Masonville Marauders (5-7)

79 Winston Reverends (6-6)
69 Bane Silvers (6-6)

59 Black Mouth Curs (5-7)
50 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-8)


VP-AFL

98.85 South Plains Storm (5-6)
81.80 Lesbian Dorito Night (8-3)

112.55 Lambs (3-8)
79.25 Brave Sir Robins (7-4)

145.30 COS Paper Tigers (4-7)
101.10 Village Valkyries (6-5)

115.85 Ocean Sprayer (6-5)
113.50 Cranberry Bogs (5-6)

116.45 Supernaut's Jihad (5-6)
114.45 The Choking Thunder (6-5)

Comments ()

Joyful music

I used to listen to this CD nearly non-stop for a while 10 years ago. This is my favorite song on it; it has an excellent groove combined with a lovely melody. I'm not normally a big fan of world music, but if you like Enigma or Deep Forest, then this bagpipe music should hold more than a little appeal for you.

Comments ()

Letter to Common Sense Atheism VI

Dear Luke,

I am sorry it took me so long to respond to your previous letter. As you know, I recently published a book and have been more than a little occupied with the various interviews that were requested as a result. And, to be honest, the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 hasn't exactly helped my daily productivity although I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that I've mastered both the UMP-45 and the SCAR-H. However, I also found myself at a bit of a loss regarding the best way to respond to your most recent letter, because I was not entirely sure which aspects of your previous letters remain operable and which have been negated by the “reboot”. But, I will attempt to make some reasonable assumptions and I have no doubt you will be willing to correct me if I prove to be mistaken.

Now, you noted yourself the inherent contradiction between your original willingness to postulate that the theistic case is true and your subsequent return to a defense of metaphysical naturalism in order to assert that the theistic case is false. This is not any sort of problem in itself, since we both understood that you were merely postulating the truth of the theistic case for the sake of argument. Well and good. But, if you are “ill-prepared to defend the explanatory virtues of supernatural worldviews” you do not actually defend, as you stated in your most recent letter, this raises the question of whether you are capable of ascertaining which of the competing theistic explanations of (S) “Humans often take pleasure in the involuntary and undeserved suffering of others” is the one best supported by the observable evidence. Are you conceding the other theistic explanations now in a willingness to stand or fall on the relative merits of the case for metaphysical naturalism vis-a-vis Christianity? That is, after all, what you appear to be implying here.

One of the problems that has appeared during your continuing pursuit of clarification is that in this process, you appear to have inadvertently conceded the legitimacy of the basis for my personal belief in the truth of Christianity despite your rejection of the concept of objective evil upon which it is founded. I realize that was far from your intent, of course, and your post facto rejection of the theistic case negates it, but let me point out what has developed in order to prevent it from happening again as we consider whether Christianity, metaphysical naturalism, or some other religion best explains the existence of (S), which for me is simply one of many of the various forms of observable, objective evil.

1.You postulated that the theistic arguments succeed and the atheistic arguments fail.

2.I explained that my belief in Christianity is based primarily on observing objective evil that I find to be best predicted and explained by the Christian worldview as expressed in the Bible and mainstream Christian theology.

3.You pointed out that there are a wide variety of competing theistic explanations for evil.

4.I agreed and noted that due to my academic background in history and East Asian Studies, I have even studied a few of those competing religions. In fact, familiarity with those religions was one of the things that led me to believe the Christian explanation for the observable existence of evil was the correct one.

5.You asserted that you are not prepared to defend the explanatory virtues of the various supernatural worldviews, implying that you are not sufficiently prepared to adjudicate between them either.

6. Ergo, there is no competition for the foundation of my belief in the truth of Christianity.

This doesn't prove that my beliefs are correct, of course, merely that you had no rational basis for questioning the legitimacy of my belief in the truth of Christianity without reopening the matter of metaphysical naturalism. Which you have now done. So, unless you would like to reopen the matter of competing theistic explanations, I shall focus on addressing only the competing explanations of Christianity and metaphysical naturalism.

The metaphysical naturalism perspective dictates that Man is merely an animal, possessed of almost exactly the same substance as any other highly evolved mammal, constituted of DNA that is more similar to the great apes than the apes are to the monkeys, let alone dogs or cats. Since we are so little different from other mammals, we cannot possess any attributes that are materially and substantively different from those possessed by them, we can only possess quantitative differences. A man may pilot a fighter jet over enemy territory while a chimpanzee only hits a rival with a stick, but both mammals are doing essentially the same thing in using a tool for the purposes of harming another. A woman may become the president of a world-reknowned university while a female gorilla may only become the dominant female in its troop, but again, both mammals are doing essentially the same thing in jockeying for primate primacy. And what blogger can be unaware of the human proclivity for flinging metaphorical feces in the electronic form of ritual primate combat?

However, I think there is a definite substantive and non-quantitative distinction between the human and the animal when it comes to (S). While the animal is capable of distinguishing between pleasure and pain, is able to experience pleasure, inflict pain, and can perceive the existence of pain in others, in my experience, I have never seen an animal derive direct personal pleasure solely from the pain of another animal. Any pain that is involved in the interaction, whether it is a dog asserting its alpha status in the local neighborhood or a cat tormenting a mouse, appears to be nothing more than a consequence of the animal's primary purpose rather than the purpose itself. Unfortunately, humans, all too often inflict pain primarily for the sake of the pleasure it brings them. This can be observed at a very early age; young children learn the pleasure of cruelty long before they are capable of understanding how to use the infliction of emotional and physical pain as a means of protecting and enhancing their social status. This is the first hurdle that metaphysical naturalism must surmount.

The second hurdle that the naturalistic perspective must address is the divided nature of the human mind. Leaving the larger question of the nature of human consciousness aside for the mystery it remains for priests and scientists alike, it is an observable and experiential fact as well as longstanding theory that the human mind does not function in the same unified way in which we understand animal minds to operate, driven solely by instinct, experience, and desire. I am no great fan of Sigmund Freud's or what I believe to be the profoundly unscientific pseudoscience of psychology that he created, but even I am willing to recognize that his development of the tripartite concept of the id, the ego, and the superego was driven by observational exigencies; it was his attempt to articulate and explain what he was observing in his patients.

Why do we wish to do what we are absolutely determined not to do? Why do we refuse to do what we are absolutely convinced that we must do? From where do these competing desires stem? The Christian explanation is an elegant one; even those who do not believe in it will readily admit that the explanation of the continuous competition of a man's unregenerate fallen nature and his redeemable spiritual nature provides a rational and reasonable explanation for the rival forces that exist within a single human mind.

This leads to the third hurdle that metaphysical naturalism must eventually address, which is why (S) should be viewed any differently from any other sort of pleasure. The Disturbed song Divide asks the question in a characteristically confrontational manner:

I am a little more provocative than you might be,
It's your shock and then your horror on which I feed
So can you tell me what exactly does freedom mean,
If I'm not free to be as twisted as I wanna be?

This is not an argument from consequence here, merely an observation that (S) is almost uninformly considered to be undesirable even by those who happen to be inclined towards it from time to time, so the strength and ubiquity of what must be logically be considered a nonsensical view from a naturalistic perspective requires explaining. Obviously the Christian worldview has little problem in explaining its declaration of (S) being unequivocally evil; contra the fevered visions of the Christian God as a deity with a torture fetish that one occasionally encounters among atheists and Christians alike, there is no evidence that God takes any particular pleasure in the destruction of the wicked except in that the necessary justice is done. Actually, the various parables of the wheat and the chaff and the sheep and the goats tend to indicate that God has no more sadistic interest in the Hellbound soul than the average human does in the trash he is taking out to await the weekly garbage pickup.

As for the latter part of your letter, I have no objection to your suggestions regarding “explanation”, “hypothesis” and “theory”, I will await your response to these three (S)-related hurdles with interest.

Best regards,
Vox

This was written in response to the 6th Letter to Vox Day

Comments ()

Tiger and Foxy Knoxy: the explosive truth!

It's a more explosive story than Climategate! Why did Elin Woods go after her husband's car with "a golf club"? Look, the Official Story is ludicrous. The former Swedish model obviously knew about her husband's various women from the start; it's not as if Scandinavians even bother with marriage anymore. By the time the final count of Tiger's affairs is complete, he'll probably be confirmed to have more mistresses than major tropies. More importantly, the photos of the car showed unmistakable signs of residue from an outdated chemical compound manufactured only in Germany from 1936 to 1944.

What really happened is that Elin discovered text messages between Tiger and Amanda Knox proving that he had been involved with Knox, who killed Kercher in a fit of jealousy over Kercher's parallel affair with Woods. Tiger's secret plan to pay off the judge with a $1 million bribe, thus securing Knox's silence, had failed because Knox made the mistake of bringing in Sollecito, a well-known knifeman of the Napolese Gomorra, instead of lending Kercher the Buick Enclave with the sabotaged brakes which Tiger gave her for that purpose. Sollecito's involvement backfired on Knox after the judge declined the bribe due to the assassination of his brother, a Mafia prosecutor for the city of Salerno, during the Mani Pulite affair of the mid-1990s.

But now that Knox has been convicted she has no reason to keep quiet any longer, which is why Tiger's lawyers are presently waging a desperate battle to prevent him from being extradited to Italy. And the failure of the judicial bribe was the real reason why Tiger was attempting to flee his house and seek asylum in Cuba; Elin, knowing that his arrest and conviction would provide her with a more favorable divorce settlement, prevented his escape by using a "golf club" that was actually a functioning Panzerfaust borrowed from the collection of their nearby neighbor, World War II enthusiast Curt Schilling.

In other, much less important news, six more U.S. banks with $13.5 billion in assets were seized yesterday as the world's leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen in order to decide what percentage of the global serfdom will be permitted to continue exhaling carbon dioxide.

Comments ()

I can't wait

To see what the Sports Guy has to say about this column arguing for women playing in the NBA one day:

5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

• David Stern thinks it will happen. On Tuesday in the conference room outside his NBA office in Manhattan, I asked the commissioner whether we'll see a woman playing in his league someday.

"Sure," he said matter-of-factly. "I think that's well within the range of probability."

Speaking as a former NCAA D1 sprinter and martial artist, my opinion is that the Chicago Bears will start five women on the offensive line at the same time a woman wins a spot in the regular rotation of an NBA team. People understand that women are weaker, but they never seem to grasp that women are incredibly slow compared to men. And it's not top speed where the difference is greatest, but quickness and acceleration.

Throw in the lack of durability, especially related to the female ACL, and there is no chance of this happening. One can't rule out a woman making an NBA roster; if the Basketball Godfather elects to go a particularly stupid marketing route then I wouldn't be surprised to see mandated female players. The truly interesting aspect to this article is the way it reveals the asinine extent to which male public figures are willing to go in order to be politically correct.

Comments ()

Give the man his flag

I like John Scalzi, I simply don't happen to agree with him very often. But give him his due. Every now and then, he simply knocks one out of the park:

Dear homeowners association: When a Medal of Honor recipient wants to have a flagpole in his front yard, you say “Yes, sir. By all means. Thank you, sir.” Because you know what? Dude’s earned that damn flagpole, and you all look like officious pricks for telling him he can’t have it because it messes with your neighborhood’s feng shui.

I think Heinlein may have taken things a bit far with suggesting that only veterans should vote, although it increasingly appears that his idea would almost certainly work better than the current concept of the universal 18+ franchise sans felons. But Scalzi is right. A Medal of Honor winner's opinion about the suitability of a flag display absolutely trumps those of the persnickety sort of individuals who invariably fill the ranks of the homeowners associations of America.

Forget his flagpole. If a 90 year-old Medal of Honor winner tells you to put up a flag on your own house, the correct response is: "Yes sir, right away sir." Combat service doesn't make a man right, but it means he merits proper respect even when he's wrong.

Comments ()

Sander's sensible move

This is one of the few times you will ever see me speak well of a socialist politician's actions:

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders said on Wednesday that he was placing a hold on Ben Bernanke's nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman, a move that could slow the confirmation process. If the hold is not withdrawn, the move by Sanders, an independent from Vermont, means that Senate leaders will not be able to bring up the nomination for a vote by unanimous consent. Instead, they may need to garner 60 votes in order to consider the nomination.

There is no question that Bernanke should not be reconfirmed. He is a charlatan cut from precisely the same cloth as the fraudulent Climategate "scientists", who are claiming to be saving the world from global warming in much the same way that Bernanke claims to have saved the USA from a second Great Depression. He didn't, he hasn't, he has only made the situation much worse through his bankers-first policies of extend and pretend.

Mike Shedlock presents a dialogue that is a great case against Bernanke:

Bernanke: For many Americans, the financial crisis, and the recession it spawned, have been devastating -- jobs, homes, savings lost. Understandably, many people are calling for change.

Mish: Ben, the reason people are calling for a change is that you and the Fed wrecked the economy. You did not see a housing bubble, nor did you foresee a recession. I would also like to point out your selective memory loss about your role in bailouts.

Bernanke: Yet change needs to be about creating a system that works better, not just differently. As a nation, our challenge is to design a system of financial oversight that will embody the lessons of the past two years and provide a robust framework for preventing future crises and the economic damage they cause.

Mish: No Ben, we need a system that works differently. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you and the Fed are incompetent and cannot be trusted. Ben, here is a compilation of your own statements made from 2005-2007 proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

Understand that the Federal Reserve system is going to collapse at some point regardless of what action is taken by the Congress. But Fed's end will be much less catastrophic to the U.S. economy if it is intentionally and deliberately shut down as happened with each of the three previous American central banks than if it is left alone to collapse under the weight of its horrific economic contradictions. Denying a second term to Bernanke would be small first step towards winding down the current monetary system and replacing it with something more stable.

And when even something as flimsy and rife for abuse as a pure paper government currency is more stable, you know the present system can't possibly survive.

Comments ()

Digging deeper

Malcolm Gladwell simply isn't smart enough to know when it's time to throw in the towel:

First, the editorial in question made a number of other arguments that, I think, most observers would agree fall on one end of the nature-nurture continuum: that all IQ tests measure the same thing, that heredity is more important that environment in determining it, that group differences are relatively unaffected by schooling or socioeconomic factors. It also said that the IQs of different races cluster at different points, with the average IQ of blacks falling about a standard deviation lower than that of whites, and that these differences show no sign of converging over time.

Actually, first should have been Gladwell admitting that his statement about there being "no connection" between NFL draft order and quarterback performance is completely, utterly and provably false. But let's summarize the points Gladwell makes in his continuing attempt to steer the discussion away from his egregious blunder by attacking "Stephen" Pinker. (The man's name is actually Steven Pinker - you'd think Gladwell could get it straight by his second letter addressing Pinker's criticism.)

1. Something Gladwell thinks about what most people would agree about an article. Who cares what Gladwell thinks about what people would agree with or not? And what does this old editorial have to do with Gladwell's hypothesis about NFL quarterbacks anyhow? Irrelevant.

2. Only one-third of the editorial board signed the statement. BFD, especially since Gladwell doesn't know the others "declined" to sign it, he only knows they didn't sign it. Conclusion unsupported by facts.

3. The editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal! Well, then it must be false, right? Genetic fallacy. And still irrelevant.

4. 14 of 52 signatories had received funding from an organization that Gladwell doesn't like. Genetic fallacy #2. And, yes, still irrelevant.

5. I don't know enough about a 1996 APA report on intelligence to judge if Gladwell's summary of it is correct or not. But regardless, what does what Gladwell describes as its oppposition to "IQ fundamentalism" have to do with NFL quarterbacks and draft position anyway? All Gladwell has managed to prove proves is how far he is willing to stray from the original subject in attempting to poison the well against Pinker's correct criticism of his egregious blunder regarding NFL quarterbacks.

However, Steve Sailer insists that there is method to Gladwell's seeming madness:

[Y]ou've got to admit that Gladwell has a point: if people can make more accurate than random predictions about which college quarterbacks will be better than other college quarterbacks, then they can make predictions about more politically incorrect things, too. Thus, Gladwell wages relentless war upon predictions, upon quantitative thinking, upon science, indeed, upon that ultimate evil: knowledge.

It is no surprise that Gladwell is predisposed to attack both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how it is eminently clear that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

Comments ()

Climategate grows

Now that Jon Stewart has weighed in, all hopes for a media stonewall on Climategate have disappeared. Scientists Hide Global Warming Data. I won't be surprised if we see some so-called scientists going to jail over this; they have certainly stolen enough taxpayer money under false pretenses to justify long sentences.

Also, Copenhagen should be all the more interesting now that it has been reported that Denmark is the center of a carbon-trading tax scam. Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper. Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries. And the fraud may be of massive proportions.

That shouldn't be a big surprise considering that it was apparently my old friends at Enron who originally came up with the idea of cap-and-trade. Of course, this scam is still several orders of magnitude smaller than the scam that is the AGW/CC/GG industry. The fact that Australia voted down a proposed carbon trading scheme is the first indication that the charlatans are on the defensive.

Comments ()

Betraying the betrayers

The City belatedly realizes that when they sold out the British people, they sold themselves too. Chancellor Darling's desperate plea for Brussels to leave London's financial sector alone has a distinct "please don't hit me" tone to it and is certain to fall on stone-deaf Franco-German ears:

It is too simplistic to argue that financial centres in Europe are just competing among themselves. The reality is the real competition to Europe’s financial centres comes from outside our borders. And that London, whether others like it or not, is New York’s only rival as a truly global financial centre. No other centre in Europe offers the same range of services: banking, insurance, fund management, law and accountancy. It is in all of Europe’s interests that they prosper alongside their close European partners.

Oh, it is too simplistic? Yes, surely that sophisticated argument will convince the unelected EU ruling class, who are openly drooling at the thought of taking their cut of great river of money flowing through the City, to leave London's financial firms untouched. Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy lost no time in declaring what the end of British sovereignty yesterday would mean for the City: "Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]? I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism."

In every revolution and betrayal, there is that intriguing moment when the now-useless revolutionary or traitor suddenly realizes that he's been used and is about to be discarded. I think there are more than a few staunchly Europhilic politicians and bankers who are astonished today at the realization that they are not to be included among the masters of Eutopia.

Comments ()

Addio Albion

The bankers and bureaucrats of Brussels have accomplished what Julius Caesar, Philip II, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler could not do:

From today, as the Lisbon treaty comes into force, we are no longer masters in our own house. Our prime minister, as a member of the European Council, is obligated under this new treaty to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union, over and above those of the UK, and is bound by the rules of the Union.

Of course, this will make no immediate difference. It simply renders de jure what has been de facto for several decades, but the coming into force of the treaty marks an important symbolic turning point. We are no longer an independent country, de jure. Our prime minister and his government are now working for an alien government, based in Brussels.

Not only is the empire on which the sun never set long gone, Britain itself is no more than a conquered island and a subject people. This time, no Nelson, no Wellington, no Churchill arose to defend the British people. It is a tragic moment in history, and one that will cause more tragedy in the future. James Higham explains why even a belated version of the once-promised referendum is unlikely to accomplish anything.

Comments ()

The anti-Peanuts president

Obama doesn't want to be president anymore. I don't see how you can possibly interpret his decision to embark upon his own Vietnam any other way:

The address before the United States Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday night will not only be used to announce the immediate order to deploy roughly 30,000 more troops, but the administration will also use the occasion to convey how it intends to turn the fight over to the Kabul government, the New York Times reported.

And with their reliably impeccable judgment, his PR handlers actually scheduled the speech to preempt A Charlie Brown Christmas. Whether you see this as accidental or part of the Left's ongoing War on Christmas, it's just blatantly stupid. It's bad enough to Vietnam your presidency, but allowing yourself to be identified as the anti-Peanuts president takes it to a whole new level. This guy is going to have non-black approval ratings in the single digits by the time 2012 rolls around.

If you'd like sophisticated military analysis of the decision to put an additional 30,000 troops in pointless peril, here it is in three words: never reinforce failure.

Comments ()

"Magnificent Failure"

Fred of Analytical Mind reviews Summa Elvetica on Amazon:

It is generally a good idea to read any Author's Note one comes across, but in this case it is absolutely critical to understanding what you have just read, which turns out to be all that was salvaged from a planned epic philosophical trilogy that apparently couldn't be made to work. Given such a genesis, it is amazing just how good it turns out to be!

Theodore Beale has arguably returned high fantasy to its origins, which was a medieval world dominated by a rich and powerful Roman Catholic Church. The utter separation of church from most modern fantasy has resulted in a number of idiocies that fail to withstand scrutiny: Divine Right of Kings without a Divine, priests without gods, etc. The result is one of the most fascinating fantasy worlds I've ever visited, and one I'd like to revisit again in future sequels. Mr. Beale has also given us a fascinating cast of characters that I'd like to hear more from: Marcus Valerius the still-wet-behind-the-ears scholar, Lodi the dwarf, Caitlys the Lady Shadowsong, Brother Grimfang the you-won't-believe-it-until-you-read-it, and especially Bessarias the convert. One hopes that with time Mr. Beale will see his way to producing a sequel or two, perhaps with a bit less philosophy and a bit more adventure.

It has taken me a while and two false starts that will probably turn into short stories or novellas, but I finally have a handle on how the sequel to Summa Elvetica is going to go. I'm not going to rush it or commit to a publishing date before it's complete, so I don't know when it will be finished, but I have been scribbling away at it in a desultory manner. The main problem was figuring out who was going to be the protagonist and how that character would relate to Marcus's continuing development.

But when I realized I was blithely following the model of the my previous books - something I tend to dislike in other authors - and that it would be pointless and unimaginative to repeat the Aquinas fireworks, the possibilities opened up and led to a concept that I think will work out better in the end.

Comments ()

Dubai cuts loose Dubai World

Since Dubai has announced it is going to blow off the Dubai World debt, it would seem rather obvious that Abu Dhabi isn't about to volunteer to pay it either.

Dubai revealed last week that it would seek a standstill on debt repayments for Dubai World, a sprawling company that includes property developers, investment funds and a ports operation. Dubai had previously included Dubai World’s debts within its own total sovereign debt of $80 billion but it has said it has no obligation to the company’s lenders....

Abdulrahman al-Saleh, director-general of Dubai’s Department of Finance, said: “Creditors need to take part of the responsibility for their decision to lend to the companies. They think Dubai World is part of the Government, which is not true.”

That has sparked anger among some creditors, who believe that Dubai had given an implicit guarantee that its companies were state-backed.

But... but creditors are never supposed to take responsibility for anything! Don't those backward sheikhs understand how a modern financial system works? It's heads the banks win, tails the taxpayers lose! I imagine there are many people facing foreclosure that can recall promises and implicit guarantees they were made by their real estate agents and mortgage bankers too. Isn't it interesting how banks always insist that it's only the fine print on the contract that matters, right up until that fine print doesn't serve their interests anymore. Dubai's actions are particularly interesting in light of how the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury have repeatedly covered the non-guaranteed debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

Comments ()