"My people have been in this game for 25 years . . . They are losing their jobs": I thought Wall Streeters were paid big money because they took big risks. Capitalism, etc. But when those risks actually materialize, and the Wall Streeters are actually threatened with large losses that might change their lifestyles, Jim Cramer shows up to demand that the government bail out his friends. ... P.S.: bhTV take. ... P.P.S.: The Cramer/Crystal Method mash-up gets better a couple of minutes in. ... [via bhTV commenter Namazu] 1:34 P.M.
Fred Kaplan expresses what seems like the sound position on Iraq: The surge is unlikely to be enough to create a stable, unitary nation given the sectarian animosity. The prudent course is to move to Plan B right now, while we still have to troops and time to carry it out:
Before they withdraw, U.S. troops could try to help minorities relocate into areas where their ethnic brethren are in the majority—providing the means of transportation and, to the extent possible, safe passage.
I'm not sure how to read Kaplan's next sentence, though:
Iraqi troops and police may be very keen to assist, if not lead the way, in this mission—at least if Shiite forces are called on to help Shiites, Sunni forces to help Sunnis.
Does he mean that Shiite forces would be keen to help Shiites relocate? At the moment, Shiite forces seem most keen on helping Sunnis relocate. It's not clear to me why they would want to assist in the de facto cleansing of their own people--in effect, surrendering a piece of turf to their rivals. Likewise, why would Sunnis help Baghdad become a wholly Shiite city? ...
P.S.: One way to characterize Bush's second term in domestic policy is that he's consistently moved to Plan B too late to salvage anything from the demise of his Plan A. That was certainly the case on Social Security reform, and in all probability will be the final story on immigration. Will he replicate that misjudgment on Iraq? ... 1:07 A.M. link