U.S. Government Can't Deal With Terrorism

A Failed Anti-Terror Strategy – by Jamie Glazov

Posted By Jamie Glazov On January 4, 2010

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch ^[1]. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) ^[2] and The Truth About Muhammad ^[3]. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran ^[4], is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).

FP: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

What do you see as the key lessons of the failed terror attempt on Northwest Flight 253?

Spencer: The chief lesson of the attempted jihad attack on Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day is that our entire anti-terror strategy is a huge and abject failure. Flight 253 revealed a massive failure not only of airline security procedures, but also of the larger strategy that America and the West has been pursuing against jihad terrorism.

As for airline security procedures, Abdulmutallab was able to get on the airplane without a passport, and with ingredients for an explosive that would have destroyed the plane and killed everyone in it.

TSA officials are busy tightening security procedures with new Abdulmutallab-inspired rules such as forcing passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of the flight, but these new measures will do nothing to prevent another attack. One thing we have seen over the years since 9/11 is that airport security is always one step behind the jihadists: after jihadist Richard Reid attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his shoes, we all have to take off our shoes and send them through security scanners.

After a group of jihadists tried to sneak onto planes explosive chemicals hidden in drink bottles, we can’t carry drinks through airport security terminals. Because Abdulmutallab attempted his jihad attack just before the plane landed, now we can’t get up during the last hour of the flight.

The one thing that the TSA should have learned, but hasn’t, is that next time the jihadists will do something else, not just repeat what they did before. And even if every passenger were given a full body cavity search, they will find some way to get around it.

But attempt a new approach based on sensible profiling? The TSA would rather fold up shop altogether.

FP: Liberals love to portray Islamic terror (this is when they are forced to even admit it exists) as the result of American capitalism and imperialism and how it has subjected poor people into misery. But Abdul Mutallab doesn’t fall into this narrative very neatly. Maybe it has something to do with some stuff he was reading while he was enjoying material wealth, personal comfort and relaxation thanks to capitalism?

Spencer: They constantly ignore the possibility that the jihadis might not always be reacting to things America has done, but may hate us for reasons of their own, independent of our actions. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a classic recipient of Western largesse designed to win over the loyalties of Muslims – he was educated at the British International School in Lome, Togo. Yet contact with solicitous and friendly non-Muslim Westerners obviously did nothing to quell his jihadist fervor. And the son of a rich man (who notified American authorities about his jihadist sentiments, to no avail), Abdulmutallab once again proves false the idea that poverty causes terrorism. The myriad aid programs that are based on this false assumption have done nothing to stop or even slow jihad terrorism, and they never will.

Abdulmutallab was, in all likelihood, “radicalized” not by Western oppression but by the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. All the concerted efforts by the State Department and DHS to ignore the jihad doctrine and reach out to people they deemed to be “moderate Muslims” have likewise not worked.

According to the Nigerian newspaper This Day, when Abdulmutallab was at the British International School, “he was known for preaching about Islam to his schoolmates and he was popularly called ‘Alfa,’ a local coinage for Islamic scholar.” This illustrates yet again that, contrary to the popular view, Islamic jihadists present themselves among their fellow Muslims as the exponents of authentic Islam, making their case from the Qur’an and Sunnah — and those Muslims who oppose jihadist violence and Islamic supremacism have never successfully refuted their arguments.

Outreach to moderate Muslims has not aided in this effort, and has deceived the general public into thinking that the influence of peaceful Muslims over jihadists is much larger than it actually is.

FP: Your thoughts on Obama and Napolitano in terms of how they are handling this this attempted terror attack?

Spencer: Napolitano’s initial statement that “the system worked” was incredible, and Obama’s slowness to respond and failure to break off his vacation inexcusable — as was his later reference to this apparent Al-Qaeda operative as an “isolated extremist.” Their abysmal failure to come to grips with the jihad doctrine has left us vulnerable to attacks from quarters they consider safe, as Abdulmutallab himself illustrates: as a rich man’s well educated son, he fits none of the conventional non-Islamic explanations for jihad violence that prevail among government and media analysts. He should be the cause of a wholesale reevaluation of our policies and procedures. But that isn’t going to happen.

FP: What we need is profiling, yes? And our culture won’t allow. Tell us the psychology here that leaves us tragically vulnerable.

Spencer: We have, as a culture, been sold a bill of goods by leftist ideologues who have convinced us that to make a realistic appraisal of the source of a threat and to react accordingly would constitute “racism” and “bigotry.”

Islamic terrorists are generally not grandmothers from middle America — why should everyone be subjected to increasingly annoying and futile airline security procedures when we know what group is committing these attacks, but just don’t want to admit it?

Profiling is flawed and will not be a perfect solution, as there is no common racial or any other characteristic that the jihadis share. But a sensibly educated TSA would be able to spot people who might constitute a greater risk, and respond accordingly.

Unfortunately, no matter how many young Muslim men blow things up or try to do so, we cannot even have this conversation as a nation, because the race wolf-criers have completely dominated the field.

FP: Concluding thoughts? What concerns you the most in what you see happening? What are the grave consequences if we don’t get it right?

Spencer: One thing is certain, Jamie: nothing we are doing now will make a recurrence of the Flight 253 incident any less likely. New security methods are needed, as are new strategies to combat the global jihad. But instead, we just keep reapplying the same old failed policies. And they will continue to fail, because of a continuing failure to evaluate realistically the situation we’re in.

FP: Robert Spencer, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Obama Not Serious About Terrorist Threat

Frontpage Interview’s guest today (2009-12-31) is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a columnist for National Review and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

First things first, let me ask you this.

If our government was serious about fighting Islamic terrorism and saving lives, wouldn’t Abdul Mutallab be getting water-boarded just about now?

We know that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which included waterboarding – forced KSM to give up crucial information that ended up preventing countless terrorist attacks and saving an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

But now, thanks to the Obama administration and its approach to the terror war, Abdul Mutallab will probably be getting a lawyer and not have to say anything. This, naturally, drastically increases, rather than minimizes, the possibilities of a future terror attack on our soil and against our citizens.

Your thoughts?

Hanson: I don’t think right now the question is over interrogation techniques, but rather not giving this foreign national would-be mass murderer full rights, as if he were a common criminal rather than a non-uniformed soldier at war.

Mutallab apparently, has been happy to tell all he knows without even being interrogated formally, which makes the entire foiled attack even more absurd: a Nigerian radical Muslim buys with cash a one-way ticket, carries no check-in luggage, was previously reported by his own father as a threat to America, and boards a plane to America after previous stays in Yemen?

Before we even get to questions of interrogation, how about first some sanity? And in reaction to all this, Secretary Napolitano nonchalantly talks about the system working like “clockwork”? I think very soon we will hear of no more “overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters”—and no more Janet Napolitano as head of our homeland security.

And when the next official struts and says “Bush did it”, the public will sigh “Thank God, he did”, since in comparison with the seriousness with which the prior administration dealt with terrorism, the Obama team seems to consider radical Islam an interesting catalyst for a civil liberties debate. “Reset” button probably won’t be used any more either—the phrase is too ironic now, and would mean going back to our anti-terrorism policies from 2001-9, which are preferable to the present mess. In political terms, one cannot ask millions of Americans to take off their belts and shoes, and then not put someone like Mutallab on a no-fly list.

FP: The fate of Gitmo?

Hanson: With over 100 Yemenis in Guantanamo, I doubt the facility will be closed; perhaps it will be virtually closed like the Iranian deadlines to stop building a bomb, or the health-care deadlines. I doubt too that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is ever tried in New York; that partisan gambit will be quietly Guatanamoized.

The present Obama diffidence—trash the Bush anti-terrorism protocols, bow, and apologize abroad, contextualize the US in the Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech, promise to try KSM in New York, shut down Guantanamo—does not quite work in the context of a new series of human IEDs being unleashed against the US. Surely there are one or two astute advisors who will take the President aside and quietly say, “Your present rhetoric and policy are nuts! And you will destroy the Democratic Party for 30 years if you continue!”

FP: Abdul Mutallab doesn’t seem to come from the ranks of the poor, the oppressed and the downtrodden. What does this do to the Left’s belief that the devil made them do it when it comes to our enemies?

Hanson: Well that debate was over long ago, when we learned of the past profiles of the 9/11 killers, the West Bank suicide monsters, and many of the human bombs who went off in Iraq.

The angriest at the West are those with enough money, and education to have developed a full sense of inferiority, self-disappointment, envy, and jealousy. A Major Hasan or Mutallab or Atta inside the West sees the prosperity, liberality, informality, and success around him, begins to figure that no such thing exists in the world of the Middle East and Islamic world, and, presto, believes America and the Jews ensured that there is no resurgent majestic caliphate. We excite the appetites in these characters faster than radical Islam can repress them. That we too often apologize and convey a sense of shame about our own culture only emboldens these killers in their fantasies.

Every bit as important as our military response and vigilance, is our moral tone, which should be along the following lines: “Dear radical Muslims, you, not us, created your present misery through religious intolerance, gender apartheid, statism, corruption, tribalism, anti-scientific fundamentalism, and autocracy, and we have neither regrets about our own success nor responsibilities for your own self-induced miseries, unfortunate as they are.” Until they get that message, we will have the sort of image conveyed by Obama in Cairo and his Al Arabiya interviews: pleasing to the world, but a signal to those who despise the US that we really do not believe in our own exceptional history and institutions.

FP: You mentioned Napolitano, her moronic statements, and how she might not be around much longer. What’s the psychology here of this administration and its overall dance with denial?

Hanson: They seem very naive and inexperienced, almost as if to say: “This is not supposed to be happening to me; I was elected to undo George Bush’s anti-constitutional, so-called war against terror, not actually fight real life terrorists.” In this administration everything is “isolated” and “allegedly”, unless you’re the Cambridge police, and then we really can snap to instantaneous judgement.

Again, I think the Obama administration felt that it would prance in, and end the bad war in Iraq, finish off the good war in Afghanistan, and dismantle the unnecessary Bush crusade against mythical dragons. Instead, they learned that Iraq was essentially won by Bush, Afghanistan is heating up, and there are thousands of al Qaeda terrorists who hate us for who we are, and don’t give a damn that our President’s middle name is Hussein. We are no longer dealing here with college deans and TV pundits who are wowed by split-the-difference, hope-and-change soaring rhetoric.

FP: Two of the four leaders behind the Northwest Airlines passenger jet appear now to have been released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007. Significance?

Hanson: It reminds us of what happens when the Bush administration caved to the popular slur that Guantanamo was a veritable Gulag, and also reminds us that those in Guantanamo were there for a reason.

We have this la-la land fantasy that there are perfectly good and bad choices. But there are no such things. We are targeted by premodern killers, out of uniform, who are keen students of Western doubt and guilt. And in dealing with them, there are no easy solutions, as is always true when the postmodern meets the premodern.

Guantanamo was a bad solution amid far worse alternatives. Candidate Obama demogogued the issue, as he did tribunals, renditions, and the Patriot Act, and now, invested with responsibility rather than mere rhetoric, can’t close it when he promised. ‘Guantanamoize’ is a good verb for incessant rhetorical deadlines that are never met. Ask Ahmadinejad.

FP: Concluding thoughts? What most worries you about the threat we face and the people who are supposedly overseeing our protection?

Hanson: Our well intentioned leaders see radical Islam more as an alternative world view that has grievances, rather than a sick, perverted Nazi-like creed that wants to take the world back to a 7th century theocracy, where freedom is denied, heretics and gays stoned, and women relegated to servile status–all overseen by rather creepy autocrats that destroy almost any modern institution they encounter.

Too often Obama, Biden, Holder, Napolitano, etc. see terrorists in terms of domestic criminals, not as enemy combatants. But once one wades into that legalistic mess of war being a judicial circus, nothing good comes from it: is it a supposed sin to water-board the confessed architect of 9/11 to find out about future mass murdering, but OK in legal terms to be district attorney, judge, jury, and executioner in a nanno-second when sending Predator drone hellfire missiles into the mud-brick compounds of suspect terrorists and their families in Waziristan?

We are in a race between sober people around Obama trying to apprise him of the danger, and his natural Carter-like take on America’s partial culpability for world tensions. Let us hope that the serious people win.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

See: http://frontpagemag.com/

Austrian School of Economics is Not Dead!

See Through the Headlines
Peter Schiff

The good news that everyone has been waiting for apparently came in the form of the recent better than expected jobs report. With the official unemployment rate lowered to 10.0% from 10.2% (Bloomberg, Dec. 2009), investors assume that the economy is improving. As a result, the feeling is that the Fed will accelerate the timetable for its highly anticipated "exit strategy," which will supposedly withdraw the excess liquidly that has driven the dollar lower and gold higher. This belief propelled the U.S. dollar to one of its best days in recent memory and set up gold for a fall of over $100 per ounce. However, the conclusions sparked by the jobs report are wrong on several counts.

First, the economy is not improving. All that has happened is that we have gone deeper into debt by borrowing and spending more money that we don't have. A closer look at the jobs numbers confirms that the areas that showed the greatest strength were those that benefitted the most from federal monetary or fiscal support. The Fed cannot remove the liquidity without cutting the legs out from under this phony “recovery.” The Fed likely knows this, as evidenced by Bernanke's subsequent testimony. As it has shown in countless past episodes, the Fed has no intention of removing the punch bowl.

Even if Bernanke & Co. were to slowly tighten, it would be too little too late to help the dollar or restrain gold. To make a meaningful impact on the trajectory of these mega-trends, the Fed would likely need to pursue aggressive interest rate hikes and sell down its holdings of treasuries and other toxic debt. However, such a sensible, yet politically untenable, policy seems completely off the table. Even if the Fed did pursue such a strategy, the dollar might rise initially, but would likely sell off as the phony economy collapsed as a result of higher interest rates and tighter monetary policy.

We have once again made the same trade-off we did during the last recession. We have decided to defer the pain of an economic rebalancing by adopting aggressive monetary and physical stimulus which merely lays the foundation for an even greater economic disaster down the road. It's shocking how few observers note the repeating pattern.

The vast majority of economists take it on faith that the stimulus can be withdrawn without pushing the economy back into recession. But based on the distortive affect of stimuli and bailouts, our economy has adapted to a climate where cheap credit is plentiful. As a result, our economy is less able than ever to survive in a world in which stimulus is removed. But eventually, the cheap credit will dry up. Not because the Fed decides it should, but because our foreign creditors stop lending. When that happens, our downturn will be even more debilitating in the future than it was in the past.

We will never have a sustainable recovery until all the imbalances are allowed to be worked out, but as long as the government keeps stimulating, this will never happen. Instead, we will have a string of crises escalating in magnitude until a complete collapse of the dollar brings the process to a halt.

In the meantime, I believe pullbacks in the price of gold should be viewed as buying opportunities, and any rallies in the dollar as a chance to add to your foreign investments. Remember that in trending markets, the biggest moves usually occur in the opposite direction, at least until the climactic end. This keeps the speculators in check and the timid on the sidelines. However, those who understand the fundamentals will stay with the trends until the doubters finally throw caution to the wind and join the party -- just as it's getting ready to end.

Why Big Banks Can't Work

Our banks are beyond the control of mere mortals

By John Kay

---

08 July 2009 Financial Times

Great and enduringly successful organisations are not stages on which geniuses can strut. They are structures that make the most of the ordinary talents of ordinary people.

At Oxford university, I often hear people say there is nothing wrong with the system: the problem is the vice-chancellor/master/bursar/ university officials. And, in a sense, they are right. If the vice-chancellor had the wisdom of Socrates, the political skills of Machiavelli and the leadership qualities of Winston Churchill, not to mention the patience of Job, he or she would be very likely to be able to fulfil the conflicting demands of the post. But such paragons are few and far between. In the meantime we must try to find structures that can be operated by ordinary mortals.

In the same way, the claim that the fault with the banking system lies not with the structure of banks but with the boards and executives that claimed to run them is both correct and absurd. In one sense, the claim is correct: boards and executives did not successfully perform the tasks assigned to them – tasks that not only did they claim to be discharging, but for which they frequently paid themselves very large sums of money.

But, in another sense, the claim is absurd: if the failures are both as widespread and as persistent as it appears, the problem is in the job specification rather than with the incumbent. If you employ an alchemist who fails to turn base metal into gold, the alchemist is certainly a fool and a fraud but the greater fool is the patron.

The bank executives pilloried by the UK’s Treasury select committee of MPs were all exceptional people. The vilified Sir Fred Goodwin was an effective manager who had slashed through the National Westminster bureaucracy and revived a failing institution – a task that had defeated many able men before him. His chairman, Sir Tom McKillop, offered experience and ability that met every possible specification for such a role in a big international corporation. As chairman of HBOS, Lord Stevenson was Britain’s supreme networker. This skill is a particularly valuable attribute in an environment where the essence of banking is to extract very large sums of taxpayers’ money while giving as little as possible in return. His chief executive, Andy Hornby, was criticised for being a retailer. But Halifax, half of HBOS, needed retail expertise. The only thing it needed to know about complex securitised products was that there was no good reason to buy them.

Like Sir Fred, Sir Tom, Lord Stevenson and Mr Hornby, most of the people who sat on the boards of failed banks were individuals whose services other companies would have been delighted to attract. If there was a problem of board composition, it is not an issue just for financial services companies but for the UK corporate sector as a whole. Perhaps there is such a problem, but the restructuring of financial services will not wait for its identification and solution.

The hapless four were criticised for their lack of banking expertise but it is, in fact, not clear what modern banking expertise is. The world of modern banking requires all the skills of these gentlemen, plus some others, and no one can expect to have all these attributes.

It has been said of Jamie Dimon (who does not have a banking qualification) that his dominance exists because at every meeting all the participants know that he could do each of their jobs better than they could. But the business world cannot operate at all if it can operate only with individuals of the calibre of Mr Dimon. Better, as so often, to follow an aphorism of Warren Buffett’s: invest only in businesses that an idiot can run, because sooner or later an idiot will.

Our banks were not run by idiots. They were run by able men who were out of their depth. If their aspirations were beyond their capacity it is because they were probably beyond anyone’s capacity. We could continue the search for Superman or Superwoman. But we would be wiser to look for a simpler world, more resilient to human error and the inevitable misjudgments. Great and enduringly successful organisations are not stages on which geniuses can strut. They are structures that make the most of the ordinary talents of ordinary people.

U.S. Economic Decline

The GMO Quarterly Letter (2009 October) by Jeremy Grantham titled Just Deserts and Markets Being Silly Again is an extremely informed comment on the current U.S. economic situation. It identifies the causes for the coming economic decline that the incompetence of the current Washington administration has guaranteed. Additionally, the letter concludes with a Special Topic report titled Lesson Not Learned: On Redesigning Our Current Financial System. The Special Topic report is extremely prescient and worth reading in detail. Both reports are detailed and somewhat lengthy --- consequently, not for the faint of heart.

We're All Goina Die - More Sooner Than Later!

PAUL B. FARRELL

Dec. 1, 2009, 12:01 a.m. EST

Obama's 'predictably irrational' economic policies

14 reasons Obama's love of Wall Street will trigger the Great Depression 2

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- First: Kiss the rally good-bye, says Jeremy Grantham, legendary CEO of the $101 billion GMO money-management firm.

Why? The market is overvalued 25%. A minimum 15% correction is coming in 2010, putting the Dow in the 8,000-9,000 range. The S&P 500? Not at 666 like last spring; maybe 800. Why a top? Black Friday? Dubai? Tiger Woods? All the dark films? The "2012" end of civilization? The post-apocalyptic "The Road?" Stop guessing, timing market turns is irrational.

Grantham's shift from bull to bear appears rational. Remember, earlier this year the Dow was near 6,000, banks near bankrupt, and we were praying for the new untested president to change America. In his latest editorial Grantham reminds us why his prediction made sense in the spring: "Regardless of the fundamentals, there would be a sharp rally. After a very large decline and a period of somewhat blind panic, it is simply the nature of the beast." Get it? A rally was predictable, based on the history of cycles.

Trust Grantham? 100%. Back in early 2007, he warned: "The First Truly Global Bubble: From Indian antiquities to modern Chinese art; from land in Panama to Mayfair; from forestry, infrastructure, and the junkiest bonds to mundane blue chips; it's bubble time. ... Everyone, everywhere is reinforcing one another. ... The bursting of the bubble will be across all countries and all assets ... no similar global event has occurred before."

Grantham was one of a small group of industry leaders who saw a crash coming as early as 2000. But political leaders were ideologically blind: Fed Czar Ben Bernanke said the collapsing markets were "contained." Our devious Treasury Czar Henry Paulson was misleading Fortune and all America: "This is far and away the strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime." Worse, former Fed Czar Alan Greenspan was busy writing his memoirs bragging about how he invented a "New World" out of Reaganomics, Ayn Rand's New Age wishful-thinking and an unregulated $670 trillion derivatives market.

Three clueless leaders.

Grantham bearish, short-term correction, long-term disaster

Now Grantham's warning us again: America's irrational nightmare will repeat. First, the short-term correction, 15% to 25%. But then long-term, a deadly warning: Disaster ahead. Why? Because America has "learned nothing," we are "condemning ourselves to another serious financial crisis in the not too-distant future."

Yes, Americans are predictably irrational, doomed to repeat history: Grantham points us to a key chart, his "favorite example of a last hurrah after the first leg of the 1929 crash." The similarity between 1929-30 and today are obvious: "After the sharp decline in the fall of 1929, the S&P 500 rallied 46% from its low in November to the rally high of April 12, 1930, then, of course, fell by over 80%."

Familiar? You bet. We've had our rally. Next, the plunge. Our irrationality plus history guarantees another ... only bigger.

A year ago America came dangerously close to the Great Depression 2. We "learned nothing." When psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his work on irrationality in 2002, the sense was that behavioral economics would help Main Street become "less irrational," that behavioral sciences would make us all better investors, better consumers, better citizens.

Obama even made a big issue of working with behavioral scientists to minimize irrational behavior in America.

Obama gets failing grade in behavioral economics

But they turned against us. Behavioral scientists, behavioral economists and behavioral-finance experts have become the mortal enemies of Main Street America. Two ways: First, behaviorists consistently put us down by reminding us how irrational (stupid) we are. Second: They're using their minds, tools and technologies against us, helping Wall Street profile us as targets for investing products, bank customer fees, tax propaganda, etc.

They are paid mercenaries helping Wall Street scam Americans out of billions. They cannot be trusted, they have lost their independence and professional integrity. They are failing to expose the most toxic sources of irrationality: Wall Street, Congress, the White House.

And that's why when a guy like Jeremy Grantham comes along focusing us on the toxic irrationality at the top of America's leadership he deserves to be seen as one of America's best behavioral economists. He's one of the few honest behaviorists, exposing the irrationality of America's leaders.

So please listen closely to his 14-point analysis of the rampant irrationality at the highest level of American government today, because what he is also predicting is another catastrophic meltdown dead ahead.

1. Obama's shift into 'predictably irrational' economics

If Grantham ever was a fan, he's clearly disillusioned with the president. His 14 points expose the extremely irrational behavior of Obama breaking promises by turning Washington over to Wall Street, a blunder that will trigger the Great Depression 2. Grantham is cynical but subtle. If you want a more brutal attack, read Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone feature: "Obama's Big Sellout," detailing how Obama, same as Bush, turned government over to Wall Street, to the same crooks who created the mess.

2. Bernanke's reappointment, a totally irrational blunder

"The most passionate cheerleader of Greenspan's follies ... completely clueless." A blunder "like reappointing the Titanic's captain" and "a wasted opportunity."

3. Summers, Geithner: Wall Street's newest Trojan Horses

Larry Summers blew "no warning whistles of impending doom back in 2006 and 2007." Earlier as Treasury Secretary he "beat back attempts to regulate" derivatives. Tim Geithner "sat in the very engine room of the USS Disaster and helped steer her onto the rocks" as New York Fed Czar. Still an irrational Obama appointed him, as Wall Street cheered.

4. Idiotic, irrational, greedy mortgage borrowers

"The more misguided or reckless the borrowers, the more determined the efforts to help them out," although "these efforts had limited effect." Short-term politics, bad economics.

5. Reckless, irrational and stupid home builders

They "magnificently overbuilt" for years." Still our irrational president stimulated "even more home building by giving new house buyers $8,000 each."

6. Nation of irrational overspenders and undersavers

Americans have been "dangerously overconsuming for the last 15 years." Still, our irrational politicians "encourage consumption and penalize savers by maintaining artificially low rates" fueling the same irrational speculation that created the meltdown.

7. America's too-Irrational-to-fail' banking system

Our banking "system shows every sign of being out of control." Make it simpler, smaller, "so they can be allowed to fail." Separate the "dangerously risk-seeking hedge fund heart from the banking system." Instead Obama set up a bizarre, irrational policy ... force them to be bigger." Now they're "at extreme tilt to risk-taking: it's practically a cliff!"

8. Wall Street's unconscionable crooked mega-bonuses

"Two-thirds of Goldman's huge profits went for bonuses ... largest ever." Last year the "same guys were on the edge of a run on the bank ... saved only by government." Our irrational president upset "the formerly infallible workings of capitalism."

9. Corporate America's grossly overpaid CEOs

"Galling," says Grantham: When he came to America in 1964 "the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker was ... between 20/1 and 40/1." That had "held for the previous 30 years. By 2006, this ratio had exploded to between 400/1 and 600/1 ... obscene."

10. Our irrationally overleveraged, zombie companies

Wall Street has "so overstimulated the risk-taking environment that junky, weak, marginal companies and zombie banks" outperform, with "junk over the great blue chips." We let losers "live to compete against the companies that actually deserve to be survivors." That's "not healthy for the long-term well-being of the economy."

11. Our irrationally managed U.S. auto industry

"Most short-sighted industry of the last 20 (40?) years, and one of the worst managed."

12. A nation addicted to automobiles, dying for more oil

"We chew up a dangerously large amount of Middle Eastern oil ... ruinous for our global political well-being (and ability to avoid war)" and bad for "an overheating world." Still, our irrational politicians are subsidizing more car purchases.

13. Stock options give CEOs a legal right to steal from shareholders

They're robbing us: Corporate CEOs have a "legalized way to abscond with the stockholders' equity." If management messes up and the stock crashes, they just "rewrite the options at new low prices ... no serious attempt to match stock option ... to the building of long-term franchise value. Instead, the motto is: grab it now and run!"

14. Finally, Grantham's irrational 'old nemesis, Greenspan'

He gets "the title of Maestro in the U.S. and is knighted by the Queen ... for thoroughly demolishing the integrity of the U.S. financial system. He overtly ignored the great threat of bubbles in asset classes and, in fact, encouraged them. He Ayn Rand-ishly facilitated the progressive dismantling of governmental restrictions on financial behavior, he deliberately kept real interest rates at zero for years, etc., etc., etc. You have heard it before. ... In the good old days, he would have been set in the village stocks, and not the kind you buy and sell. And I would have been right there, Alan, with very ripe tomatoes."

In the end Grantham encourages everyone to read a John Kay article in the Financial Times. Kay's title says it all: "Our banks are beyond the control of mere mortals." He advises investors to "follow an aphorism of Warren Buffett's: 'Invest only in businesses that an idiot can run, because sooner or later an idiot will.'"

Rereading Buffett's wisdom I wonder: Perhaps America really is a "business" that nobody can run? Not the best and brightest. Nor an idiot. And certainly not our too-clever behavioral scientists.

Moreover, "people" are not the problem. The 1982 classic "In Search of Excellence" tells us that 85% of organizational failures were systemic, not people caused. "It's the system stupid." That means America, our economy, our markets, our capitalist system have become too big, too complex, too out-of-control, too unmanageable.

Our wealthy elite already know that and are grabbing what's left. The "idiot" masses could regain control, but only in a 1776-style revolution, except they're too docile, too irrational to revolt.