Current bear: age 16.4 months

I think I'll try to remember to post these awesome charts from Doug Short at dshort.com every week. (Mr. Short updates these daily.) They give some perspective on where the market is compared to historical bears and they provide a sense of where we're at in depth and duration of our current bear.

Four Bad Bears



And the Bear Bottoming Process:

Jindahl is brilliant

The result of Gov. Jindahl's decision to refuse some of the federal aid to unemployed workers might be that his state's unemployed will leave Louisiana and head elsewhere. (Look out, Texas.)

Bank Nationalization

Deroy Murdock of the Hoover Institution deploring Greenspan’s, Graham’s and McCain’s (allegedly, I haven’t heard McCain say it) call for the possibility of Bank Nationalization at NRO:

Regarding nationalization, America’s free market has devolved in half a year from unsullied maiden to street-corner whore. This sad truth is one more reason for the American Right to repudiate the Bush-Rove-Paulson borrow-spend-and-bailout model and its architects, as if severing and discarding an infected appendix.

I’m not sure she was completely unsullied last Labor Day but I loved the paragraph.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Caught this last weekend at an early showing. Early showing was important because this is a very, very long movie. The first couple of hours were slow. Very slow. Did I say that it was slow? Whether or not I liked it or thought it was good was overshadowed by how many times I looked at my watch. Another example - I normally never leave the theater during a movie. If I need a bathroom break, I just wait. I'm always afraid I'll miss something. I didn't have that problem here. I was extremely confident that no matter how long it took me to get there and back, I wasn't really going to miss anything. And I didn't.

OK - enough about the length. I, along with those sitting near us, found it humorous that this film was based upon a short story (sorry, I couldn't help myself). I'm not a big Brad Pitt fan, so I wasn't expecting much from him. So I guess he delivered. My impression is that he followed what has become a trend in Hollywood lately to get yourself either (1) overweight and/or (2) in not very attractive make-up and presto, Oscar nomination. Charlize Theron, Kate Winslet, Robert Downey Jr, etc. The story was semi-interesting, but only near the end for me as Pitt had to become younger. And the relationship he had with his love interest as their ages converged gave the movie whatever pop for me it could. Both C and I were underwhelmed and surprised that it was nominated, but then again, it fit the formula that Hollywood loves to promote. If this wins anything major, I will be surprised and disappointed.

Truth in budgeting

Yay. Obama has done away with Bush's underhanded approach of leaving select items out of the official federal budget, thereby obscuring exactly how much the deficit was. It's a gutsy move; a less honest man might instead have opted to leave, say, stimulus spending off the budget using Bush's rationale for leaving the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars off the books.

The Reader

This is a Best Picture nominee, which also includes my favorite actress - Kate Winslet. I read the book many years ago, so I knew the plot and I was curious to see how the film would work in Ralph Fiennes. My recall of his character in the book was that it was somewhat small, yet in the movie, he is much more prominent than Kate. In fact, Fiennes character as a young boy has more screen time than she does. I've read that many in the film industry feel as if this was more of a supporting role for Winslet and she should have been nominated for Best Actress for "Revolutionary Road" (which C and I will be seeing this weekend). The movie itself is a tad slow and while the performances were all good, I came away feeling that the movie itself wasn't. That being said, Winslet was very good in this. She really shows her skill because she doesn't have all that many lines of dialogue - she does most of her acting with looks, with expressions, with body language. You read all the time about how many women have negative feelings about their bodies - you can tell from her words and roles that she doesn't. It's obvious that she is very much in tune with her body, so she has the freedom to use it (use all of it) to express inner emotions and feelings through it. She really is at the top of her game right now, which for her is saying something.

An interesting side-note to this film is that the movie couldn't start production until the young man that is Winslet's love interest turned 18, due to the sex scenes and frontal nudity (for both of them). I think this is the year that Kate finally wins a Oscar - one that she should have won years ago. I just hope she doesn't blubber and studder during her speech pretending to be shocked and not have prepared anything. Please....she has been picking up awards for the last couple of months, so she has to have an idea that she MIGHT win.

LJ's Best Picture Film Festival

I've been, correctly I must say, called out for not blogging lately about my Oscar nominated film festival. In my defense, I've been spending most of my "free time" trying to get through the final season of The Soprano's, doing our 2008 tax return, and researching/planning a vacation C and I are taking in early April. However, I should be able to find time to follow through on this.....

Several weeks ago, C and I saw "Doubt". This isn't one of the Best Picture nominees, but we wanted to see this because of the 2 leads (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep) and to see if someone who is in only 1 scene of a movie could be good enough to get an Oscar nomination (Viola Davis - Best Supporting Actress). This film is adapted from a play and it did have a play-ish feel to it. The story was really good and the acting was very good and while Viola Davis was in only 1 scene (actually, technically 2), the scene(s) was an important one and she WAS great in it. Amy Adams has also been nominated for Best Supporting Actress in this and while she has more scenes, she didn't stand out at all to me. I'm sure that anyone who went to a Catholic school in the 50's - 60's had some serious flashbacks, especially in relation to Streeps' character. In the end, the audience has just as many "doubts" as Streep does, from the main question of the plot, but also of faith, of justifications, of styles, of just about everything. This movie does what I think most good/great films should do - giving you ample ammunition for discussions and conversations hours after seeing it.

And because it is the subject of Today in History

in that thing over on the right. Gallipoli was one of my favorite movies of my misspent youth.

Worst Movie

There is a thread going on at The Corner on the worst movie ever. I can't say it's the worst ever but The Villain is the worst I ever paid money to see in a theater. I didn't walk out and demand my money back because I was young and stupid. I have done that since and have never had a theater not quickly return my money.

If you haven't seen it, it is a combination of any generic American western and a Roadrunner cartoon. Even the lovely Ms. Margaret couldn't save this disaster for a male teenager. I've forgotten her character's name but the Governator's name was "Handsome Stranger" and Kirk Douglas's name was "Cactus Jack."

Kaput

I'm calling it. Winter is done, over, kaput for this year in Minneapolis. Sure we'll have lots of snow in March and maybe a temperature dip down to zero once or twice more. But no more blocks of days that don't get above 15.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is essential reading for any serious Christian and probably for any serious student of 20th C. philosophy. I haven't read it in years and will do so again soon thanks to Stephanie's post below.

Obama, Niebuhr, and Speaking of Faith

I generally enjoy Krista Tippett's Speaking of Faith program that airs on Minnesota Public Radio. This past week, she did a show on Niebuhr's influence on Obama's philosophy in life and policy. Her show featured E.J. Dionne and David Brooks. I didn't get much of a liberal arts education in college, but I think it's a hoot to hear folks who have that kind of background show off their facility. Dionne does that in this discussion. You can hear it here.

The Fairness Doctrine

This just in: Obama STILL doesn't want to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. As Fox put it: “The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues." In other words, this is the first time he's said it since the last time he said it.

Fox followed that story with this breaking news: " Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

Money going to Responsible Home Owners

In response to the Update on Scooter's post, that inquires as to how the plan will manage to only give money to those who didn't buy more house than they knew they could afford:

It looks to me like the only cash payments that will be made under this plan would go to lenders. (I'm still reviewing it, so maybe I've missed something.) So, in a literal sense, no cash will be going to any homeowner.

Also, it doesn't look to me like there's anything in the executive summary of this plan that precludes a mortgage rework for someone who "knew" they were taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford. Part of the plan is only available if the mortgage payments exceed a given percentage of income. There's no test of "knowing"; instead, there's a percentage of income test. (That might be intended to be limited to situations in which the payments have gone up as a result of exotic loan terms, but I can't tell for sure.) There is the big and broad and vague provision (in the Exec. Summary) that calls for Treasury to develop guidelines for loan modifications across the mortgage industry. Those could include some sort of test (of affordability or of knowledge of non-affordability), but that's not spelled out in the executive summary.

In short, I think the criticism that the plan calls for a ridiculous knowledge test might be a red herring. Too soon to tell. The administration may be marketing the plan by saying that it won't help those who knowingly took on more mortgage than they could afford, and that might accurately be the result of limitations within the plan, but that doesn't mean that's the test.

Here is a link to a Fact Sheet that has a couple more details than the Executive Summary. Still, I don't see anything resembling a knowledge test.

Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan

Here is the White House's Executive Summary of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. Some of it strikes me as a good idea or at least reasonable. For example, where there are rules that currently prevent reworking a mortgage (e.g. Fannie/Freddie w/r/t mortgages that exceed 80% of the home value), I'm OK with changing the rules to allow a rework. And I may be OK with parts of the plan that provide incentives for lenders to rework mortgages (without requiring a rework).

I'm considering the rest of it, keeping in mind that doing nothing may actually cost more for all of us (in lower house values and in lost property tax revenue from boarded up housing) than doing something.

More Stanford

I knew they were big into sports sponsorships but this may cost those groups $100M. From Bloomberg:

Stanford accelerated his sports drive over the past two years by funding a $100 million cricket series, backing top golf and tennis events, and signing top athletes such as golf’s Vijay Singh and soccer’s Michael Owen to promote his financial companies. Already, cricket officials from the U.K. and Caribbean have suspended talks with Stanford over sponsorships.

Funny how small that $100M looks today. What was Enron's sponsorship of Minute Maid Park nee Enron Field?

Update from the AP via highbeam.com:

On Feb. 27, the team paid $2.1 million to take back the naming rights to the stadium _ formerly known as Enron Field _ and temporarily dubbed it Astros Field until a new sponsor steps up. The Astros purged references to Enron from their Web site that same day.

Chump change.

President Obama on Underwater Mortgages

From the NYT:

The proposal, which is more ambitious than expected, would spend $75 billion to help keep as many as four million families in their homes, and would help as many as five million more refinance their mortgages to take advantage of lower interest rates.

Wow. I hated the Medicare expansion of Bush. I was unclear at the time of Bush's TARP because it happened so fast, but have grown to hate it. I was depressed yesterday when GM and Chrysler said they'd need more money just to, in my mind, kick the bankruptcy can down the road.

Now, more money for the underwater mortgages. Pretty soon we'll be "talking about real money."

Update: Just heard a radio broadcast that said none of this money will go to those who knew they were buying more house than they could afford. How, exactly, will that be determined?

Stanford

I have an acquaintance who is a “Managing Director – Investments” for the Stanford Group. He also is an adviser to a couple of former clients of mine whose names you would recognize. They are really good people and I hope they haven’t been taken.

Frontline: Inside the Meltdown

Frontline has produced a show on the financial meltdown and TARP I. It is showing on Twin Cities Public Television tonight. It does a good job of telling the narrative of those days in November 2008. It's worth seeing if you get the chance. Eventually, it'll be available to watch on their website, but not just yet.

Obama's Justice defending Bush Gun Policy

From the WaPo:

The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors [emph. mine] to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

That is a bit misleading. It should say “visitors with concealed carry permits legally issued by the state in which the park is located”.