MatthewMaynard.net

(posthumous)

Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, 149th Infantry, 38th Infantry Division. Place and date: Zambales Mountains Luzon, Philippine Islands, 22 April 1945. Entered service at: Ypsilanti, Mich. Birth. Wynne, Ark. G.O. No.: 81, 24 September 1945. Citation: He was a member of the leading squad of Company B, which was attacking along a narrow, wooded ridge. The enemy strongly entrenched in camouflaged emplacements on the hill beyond directed heavy fire and hurled explosive charges on the attacking riflemen. Pfc. Thomas, an automatic rifleman, was struck by 1 of these charges, which blew off both his legs below the knees. He refused medical aid and evacuation, and continued to fire at the enemy until his weapon was put out of action by an enemy bullet. Still refusing aid, he threw his last 2 grenades. He destroyed 3 of the enemy after suffering the wounds from which he died later that day. The effective fire of Pfc. Thomas prevented the repulse of his platoon and assured the capture of the hostile position. His magnificent courage and heroic devotion to duty provided a lasting inspiration for his comrades.

Another reason I’m no longer a Republican – Bachus tells city and county officials he’s worried about socialists in Congress:

But he said he is worried that [Obama] is being steered too far by the Congress: “Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists.”

Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists.

Seventeen, he said, but he’s not willing at this time to name names. I think he’s just grandstanding for attention. Not to discount his claim that there are socialists – after all, Vermont’s junior senator is a self described democratic socialist. I don’t understand how you can be democratic and socialist at the same time, but I do understand how you can be a Democrat and a Socialist at the same time. Anyway, his count is, if anything, too low. He doesn’t want to get in too much trouble with the opposition party, so he’s not naming the scoundrels.

More importantly, don’t let his McCarthy-era rhetoric eclipse his stance on guns. See the last paragraph:

Bachus did not support small city officials who asked if he would oppose all gun bans. Instead, he said, it may be necessary to support some assault weapon bans in order to keep all guns from being outlawed.

Bachus has done us a great favor; he has revealed how future anti-gun legislation will proceed. When the traitors in Congress finally move against guns, they will push forward something like HR 45, requiring registration and permission slips and all sorts of other nonsense. Then, when the NRA has had their impotent fit over that bill, they will put forward something more “bipartisan” (meaning something both stupid and evil), like an assault weapons ban – something that tramples on us but not as much as the previous suggestion did. Out front will be Bachus, right up there with the other “pragmatic” politicians, telling us we need to surrender some of our rights or the other side will demand we surrender all our rights.

Sorry, guys, I’m in Firefly mode on this: I’m done running, and I aim to misbehave.

Three items of recent note in the banking world:

• Fed Said to Order Banks to Stay Mum on ‘Stress Test’ Results
• Treasury To Delay Reporting Bank Stress Test Results
• Bank Stress Test Results Delayed For Earnings

There are two possibile results of the stress tests concealed by the government. Either (1) the banks are capable of withstanding additional stresses yet to come, or (2) they are incapable. So how can we determine which it is based on what we know from the two articles above?

The government has a vested interest in amplyfying good news. If the banks are stress-capable, then the government would want to hold back on the results. This allows the banks to use the recent mark-to-market rule change to artificially inflate their balance sheets and cause an increase in stock valuation. Then, after earnings season, the government releases the stress test results and gives the markets an additional boost. Their withholding of results now makes the market anticipate bad news; when countered with good news later, the market will increase in valuation. Once this occurs, the government can step in and say “Crisis over! Let’s solve the next problem, the lack of gun control!” Having consolidated power in DC, they will continue to do so in another area.

The government also has a vested interest in damping bad news. If the banks are stress-incapable, the government will allow maximum time for the banks to recover before it pulls the plug on the party machine. Again, the mark-to-market rule change allows for an artifically strong balance sheet and increased stock price. Then the government releases the bad news after the banks have made the most of the “good” news and brought in money that will be used to cover their bad assets.

Delaying the results also allows the government to come up with more changes to the accounting rules so as to conceal more bad news at the banks.

So which is it, are the banks stress capable or incapable? Given what we know of government motivations, I’m hard pressed to say either way. But don’t discount the possibility that we have the worst of both worlds: the banks are stress-incapable but the government says otherwise.