tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73461982024-03-07T00:12:31.796-08:00News For Real<b>News With Nuts</b>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comBlogger368125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-7553079932321497782021-01-07T08:57:00.001-08:002021-01-07T08:57:40.591-08:00The Capitol I Once Knew and Loved<p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;"><br />by Stephen P. Pizzo</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">http://www.stephen.pizzo.com </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Yesterday's insurrection at our Capitol startled and depressed me in several ways. But mostly it sent my mind back a quarter-century or more.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">When I awoke this morning I found myself musing about my early days as a reporter...back in the late 80s and thru the 90s ... when I traveled often to DC. It was, of course, way before 9/11, and the Capitol was wide open.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">If I had business at the Capitol, I would just bounce up the steps and walk right into the rotunda, no metal detectors, nothing. One day, a friend with a House aide dragged me to the dead center of the rotunda and pointed up to the dome. "Whenever I get discouraged with how things go around here," he said, "I come and stand here and I look up. At that moment I tell myself, 'I am standing on the most powerful spot on the planet.'"</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">And I felt it. It felt pretty damn good.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Then he took me to an obscure corner of the rotunda and opened an equally obscure door. Behind it, very old and worn white marble steps descended. Before I could step forward he grabbed my arm and said, "Wait, I want you to know something about these steps. Abe Lincoln used these steps whenever he came to the Capitol." I stepped down them as slowly and full of purpose as I have ever walked down any set of steps. And it felt amazing to be so personally in touch with that particular part of our history.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Then I rambled around in the bowels of the Capitol until I came upon the trolly that takes members of congress the short hop from the Capitol to their offices across the street. I was heading there any way to interview a member of the House, so I jumped aboard. There I was, this insignificant little reporter, sitting arm to arm with members of Congress, one among equal travelers.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Again, no one stopped me. No one challenged me. The Capitol...the "People's House" was open to the people. Wide-open. And I felt that ownership.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">The same conditions existed over at the Rayburn building where I was headed. I jumped into an elevator where, once again, the high and mighty and the lowly, stood arm to arm, equals, if for only a minute. The doors opened into long shiny white marble hallways that stretched on and on. American and state flags stood outside each member's office door. And all those doors were wide open. I could, and did, walk into any of them I chose and was greeted politely and professionally by a receptionist.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Of course, after 9/11 all that changed in an instant. And now, after yesterday, security will be tightened another dozen notches as American of old goes into the history books and the new security state is further reinforced. With each tightening caused by acts of terror, Americans are pushed farther and farther away from their House, their Senate, their White House, their Supreme Court. And this during a time when what's needed is for Americans to be able to feel what I felt all those years ago...a sense of pride and ownership.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">It's all unimaginable ... but in light of what happened yesterday, sadly unavoidable. For example, if the Secret Service is not talking about moving Biden's inauguration indoors, they are making a big mistake. These right-wing nutters know all about sniper rifles, and some own them. Surely some of those who participated in yesterday's riot are veterans of our Middle Eastern wars, so they know all about snipers.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">Well, anyway, thanks for letting me stretch out on your couch and get all this off my chest. I may not have liked covering G. W. Bush or the WH antics of Bill Clinton, but I sure did like Washington DC of those times.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">It made me feel proud, rather than ashamed and apprehensive.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;"><br /><br /></p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-50759600393146102322021-01-01T16:27:00.001-08:002021-01-01T16:27:57.378-08:00Riding the Fiscal Tiger<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">By Stephen P. Pizzo</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">www.stephen.pizzo.com</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">As I write this the Senate is arguing over whether to increase cash aid to those hard hit by the pandemic from $600 to $2000. There's no doubt among those of us out here in the real world that even two grand is not going be enough for many. But, as serious as things are right now, this is a small matter when compared to the fiscal mess America faces going forward, as hard decisions collide with even harder facts.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">While being a deficit hawk is considered a “Republican thing,” I am a lifelong progressive, and I worry a great deal about two things: 1) ever-expanding deficits, and 2) the Fed responding to every major economic crisis by flooding the markets with virtually free “fiat currency.” (</span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="color: grey;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp</span></span></u></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> )</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Businesses, banks, and Wall Streeters have become addicted to the Fed's flood of liquidity as if it were heroin. Evidence lays in their response any time the Fed tries to bump up rates or threatens to turn the money faucet off. When that happens, or even the hint it might happen, Wall Street firms panic, and the hue and cries from the corporate bond world is deafening. And for good reason, the Fed is buying a lot of their corporate debt.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The Fed holds an expansive list of other companies indirectly, including names like Apple and Goldman Sachs, through exchange-traded funds it has purchased. In addition, it has purchased bonds in speculative-grade companies as well as ETFs, including the SPDR Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Bond, a fund in which the Fed holds a $412 billion position.”</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/the-fed-is-buying-some-of-the-biggest-companies-bonds-raising-questions-over-why.html</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Meanwhile, even as the Fed floods markets with liquidity, the vast majority of working Americans haven't seen much of it and instead remains stuck with incomes that have not seen an inflation-adjusted jump in over four decades.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212).”</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">So, where is all this funny-money going? Look no further than the stock market. Even in the throws of the worst pandemic in a century, stocks reach new highs almost daily. Should the Fed turn the money machine off, stocks would drop by a terrifying amount...40%...maybe 50%. So it's like riding a tiger...you would love to get off, but dare not.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The Fed's actions have essentially made mainstream alternatives to stocks impractical for most investors. Those who want to keep cash available can expect little or no interest at all, and with inflation still positive, that means savers are losing purchasing power every month on their cash savings... Low rates are also bolstering the case for other high-risk assets.” ( ie: stocks and corporate debt.)</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/12/16/the-fed-just-gave-stock-market-green-light-2021/</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">But flooding the markets with liquidity isn't a solution, but a treatment, a treatment that has its natural limits...not unlike in physics...sooner or later you hit a point of diminishing returns. As we reach that tipping point, no amount of liquidity will bring this sick patient around. At that point, unless something different is done, you get depression...the real kind.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Also at that very moment, the growing federal deficit becomes a very real anchor around the country's neck. No matter how much money the Fed pumps out, it not only no longer boosts but actually starts hurting the economy. Dollars are like stock...the more of them in circulation, the less each is worth. So the dollar plummets in value, requiring more dollars to buy the same amount of anything. It's not hyper-inflation, yet, but either the Fed has to stop pumping funny-money into the system or hyperinflation is the only outcome.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Add to all this the continuing stream of annual federal budget deficits, which for 2020 came in at a breathtaking $3.1 trillion.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">At this point the overall federal deficit is becoming a fiscal Chernobyl...a hard-to-control core meltdown, where </span></span><strong class="western"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">$27.6 trillion </span></span></strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">or more obligations accrue hundreds of billions in interest payments to the deficit, meaning that, even if the Fed turned off the printing presses, the deficit would continue to balloon all on its own. https://www.usdebtclock.org</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The federal deficit represents the money we owe to both foreign bond investors, (China holds over 5% of US debt,) (https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3112343/us-debt-china-how-big-it-and-why-it-important) and to ourselves (bonds sold to Americans.)</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">There is a “cheap” way to pay down we owe, but it would require the Fed sparking raging inflation, slashing the value of the dollar. And, since we must repay all those bonds in dollars, it effectively slashes the actual cost of repayment.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Of course, as the old saying warns, “every shortcut has its rent,” and the rent for that short cut would be unacceptably high. Bond investors would be very unhappy, and unlikely to consider US bonds a safe harbor in the future. The Fed could attract them back, but that too would be unacceptably high. The Fed could significantly raise interest rates. But that in turn would strangle any recovery by raising the cost of borrowing for already struggling businesses. It would also significantly raise the cost of government borrowing, which in turn would further increase the deficit.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Once more we learn, the hard way, that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">With those moves off the table, the only other apparent option would be for the government to significantly slash spending. But at a moment when federal relief spending is the only thing that keeps millions of Americans' heads above water, that option would be cruel in the extreme.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">So, as the nation battles a budget-busting, deficit exploding national emergency, what's the answer to this dilemma. There is one solution, unused and vilified by all conservatives and even some centrist Democrats...raise taxes.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">You won't hear many in Congress pushing for tax hikes, even among Democrats. Instead, most of the talk is how much more to add to the deficit to pay for worthy stuff now while worrying about the deficit sometime down the road.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">But higher taxes on those who can afford them, and who have garnered so much from previous tax cuts, it the only sane answer. Those tax cuts for the rich have also helped feed the federal deficit while enriching the already filthy rich:</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">By the end of 2025, the tally of tax cuts will grow to $10.6 trillion. Nearly $2 trillion of this amount will have gone to the richest 1 percent. By then, the total impact on the deficit will be $13.6 trillion, including interest payments.”</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><span style="color: grey;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">https://itep.org/federal-tax-cuts-in-the-bush-obama-and-trump-years/</span></span></u></span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">So the Biden administration needs to quickly and </span></span><strong class="western"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">strongly </span></span></strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">propose revoking most of the tax cuts for the rich passed by Republicans from George W. Bush to Donald Trump. On top of that an emergency review of the US tax code is required to ferret out and close (really close) tax code loopholes.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">That would start the process of refilling the federal coffers with enough money to begin paying down the federal deficit. That has only been tried once in my lifetime, and that was during the Bill Clinton administration. Clinton raised taxes on corporations and top earners and, for the first time since Eisenhower was president we had enough surplus to begin paying down the deficit.</span></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Revoking many if not most of the tax cuts passed during the W. Bush and Trump terms really are the only sustainable solution. Will the Biden administration, and Democrats have the guts to grab this “third-rail” and take the necessary heat to get this done … for the good of the nation and future generations? We'll see.</span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">If they don't, and instead keep “kicking the can down the road,” we'll be coming to a sorry dead-end.</span></p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-70427372203130342932016-03-11T09:43:00.003-08:002016-03-11T10:02:35.764-08:00Once Again I Solve Everthing<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By Stephen P. Pizzo</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
http://www.stephen.pizzo.com</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Unaffordable Life-Saving Drugs:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How about creating an<span style="font-family: STIXGeneral-Bold; font-size: 19px;">"eminent domain."</span> doctrine for life-saving drugs?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's an idea that's time has come, and
for many of the very same reasons that eminent domain laws were
passed to allow local and state governments to force the sale of a
piece of property needed for important public purposes.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Over the past decade life-saving drugs
have been priced out of the reach of many who desperately need them.
The more life-threatening the disease, the higher the drug is priced
– a sick twist on the old gag, <i>“Your money or life?”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I could launch into a Sanders-like
diatribe about the excesses of free markets and capitalism but, in
this case, there's a simple solution, one that can satisfy all sides.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
First let's understand an important,
and little mentioned, fact about the R&D end of the
pharmaceutical business. Drug companies like to complain that they
have to spend millions do develop groundbreaking drugs. What they
fail to mention is that, even before they get their hands on those
formulas, US taxpayers have already dumped tens of millions into
their development.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“A new report
shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but
it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits. In one
case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer
drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it
was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in
1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the
fight against ovarian and breast cancer.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
Since then,
Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide,
according the the General Accounting Office report released today.
The National Institutes of Health have received just $35 million in
royalties from Bristol-Myers, however.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
The Medicare
program alone paid nearly $700 million over a five-year period, to
buy a drug the government helped develop.”<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651"> (Source)</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So the government usually has a lot of
skin in the game long before drug companies start to test and market
a new drug, something they don't like to talk about. Some of that
government funding even goes directly to pharmaceutical company-run
laboratories.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Okay, so to the solution;<b>
pharmaceutical</b> eminent domain<b>:</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Any life-saving drug that is put on the
market at a price an independent medical panel deems largely beyond
the reach of average patients, would be sent to an arbitration board
that would set a fair market price for the purchase by the US
Government of that drugs patent(s).
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Pharmaceutical companies would be paid
a fair price, a price high enough for the patent that it would
continue to encourage drug companies development of new drugs.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This would create an entirely new
calculation for drug companies. Rather than pricing new life-saving
drugs a the highest possible price, they would have to calculate what
they could earn selling the patent to the US Government against what
they could earn over the years if they priced the drug below the
level that would trigger an imminent domain action against that
particular drug.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Drugs that become the property of the
government through this imminent domain process would be administered
and marketed by Medicare, priced on a sliding scale of a patient's
ability to pay. (We are, after all, talking about <u>life-saving</u>
drugs here.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Without an pharmaceutica eminent domain option hanging over drug companies, they will always go for
the gold when pricing new, life-saving, drugs because, what do they
have to lose? Nothing.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What do you have to lose? Your life.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Iraq and Afghanistan</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Even though most US troops have been
withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, there are still many there and,
if some folks in DC have their way, more will follow in the months
and years ahead. This is a continuation of what seems to be a
shockingly flat learning curve.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There really are not great arguments
for remaining militarily engaged in any part of that terminally
dysfunctional region. But, when confronted with the many good
arguments against such ongoing engagements, proponents of engagement
drag out their last weapon: the guilt-trip.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
They say that, maybe it was our
invasion of Iraq that unleashed this spiral of never-ending violence.
And even if it wasn't, the fighting that followed our invasions
killed and injured hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroyed
what little public and private infrastructure they had. So we can't
just pack up and leave now. We need to help them put their Humpty
Dumpty back together again.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To which I say, hogwash.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
True, citizens of both Iraq and
Afghanistan have suffered terribly from the events kicked off by
George W. and his sidekick, Dick. But we too have paid a price for it
all, and will continue paying it for decades to come. Already the
cost of those two wars have been estimated on th low end at at least
<b>$2 trillion</b> and, when costs of veteran care and other ongoing
costs, it could top <b>$4 trillion </b>– money that could have, and
should have, gone to fill very real and growing public and
humanitarian needs here at home.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On top of that, over 6,800 US service
members and over 6,900 contractors have died in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And an unusually high percentage of young veterans have
died since returning home, many as a result of drug overdoses,
vehicle crashes, or suicide.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, as the song goes, <i>“You gotta
know when to hold-em, and know when to fold-em.”</i> And it high
time to fold-em...both of them, Afghanistan and Iraq. And throw Syria
into that mix as well, since there seems to be a growing itch to jump
into that Middle East tarpit as well.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As long as the combatants and
politicians in those troubled countries think they can sucker the US
into sending money, arms and troops to play their sectarian games,
they have no incentive whatsoever to seek other solutions. <i>(I
shudder to think how many Swiss bank accounts are brimming over with
US aide money, but I would wager it would reach well into the
hundreds of billions of dollars. Wanna bet?)</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, out now. <i>All the way out.</i>
And then stay out. Everyone has paid a terrible price for this “bring
democracy to the Middle East” folly. Time to call and end to it and
let them figure out exactly what is they want, and are willing to
live with.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Israel & Palestine</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Here's another bit on never-ending
trouble we need to clean our skirts of once and for all. If you're
looking for either pure victims or pure heroes, look elsewhere, you
won't find ANY here.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On one side we have a bunch of largely
Europeans, packing 5000 year-old Biblical title reports that show
they once owned the entire area from the sea to the borders of Jordan
and Syria. And they are now here to reclaim it..all of it.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On the other side are the
Palestinians... a group that, as it has been said, and proven many
times<i>, “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”</i>
Time and again, when some kind of agreement appeared at hand, the
Palestinians' leadership (a term I use loosely) sabotaged the deals.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Here again we see American
interventions produce more, not less trouble. <i>(“Hi, I'm from
America, and I'm here to help.” </i><i><b>Run!</b></i><i>)</i> And,
like the wars we just discussed, our involvement with this
never-ending pissing match has cost us dearly.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
U.S. military aid to Israel was <b>$2.775
billion </b>in 2010, <b>$3 billion in 2011, $3.07 billion in 2012</b>
(and <b>$3.15 billion per year from 2013-2018.</b>) Washington also
provides aid to Palestine totaling, on average, <b>$875 million
annually.</b> (Imagine what that money could pay for here at home.
And you will have to imagine that, since it didn't provide squat here
at home.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
The Israel lobby
wheels out a battery of arguments in favor of arming and funding
Israel, including the assertion that a step back from such aid for
Israel would signify a "retreat" into "isolationism."
But would the United States, a global hegemon busily engaged in
nearly every aspect world affairs, be "isolated" if it
ceased giving lavish military aid to Israel? Was the United States
"isolated" before 1967 when it expanded that aid in a major
way? These questions answer themselves.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
"If it
weren't for US support for Israel, this conflict would have been
resolved a long time ago," says Josh Ruebner.(national advocacy
director for the US Campaign to End the Occupation and author of
Shattered Hopes: Obama’s Failure to Broker Israeli-Palestinian Peace)<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/us-israel-foreign-aid-military-bankroll"> (Source)</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Israel has become so accustomed to the
US caving to their demands, it now lobbies our Congress directly,
like a de facto US state, encouraging opposition forces in Congress
to reject the policies of a sitting US President. Imagine that. <a href="http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/one-year-later-looking-back-bibis-speech-congress">Oh,wait, you don't have to imagine it, do you:</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, the solution agaun is clear:
<b>Walkaway. Stay away.
</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What would happen, you ask? Well, on
the Palestinian side what would happen is they would realize that no
one was going to come to their rescue the next time they dig their
heels in and refuse to accept anything less than the entire loaf. And
that they themselves will have to rein in their Hamas factions before
those nuts get the entire Palestinian population embroiled in another
bloody war with Israel...which would likely be the last one.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For Israel our total disengagement
would also send a message: <b>Game Over. </b>So, you don't want to
get out of the West Bank? Fine. It's yours. In which case Israel's
ever thinning democratic veneer would be stripped away. Once stuck
with all those Palestinians – who are outbreeding Israelis by a
long shot -- then officially part of Israel, they would have to
decide...<i> do we let them vote? </i>If they do let them vote,
Palestinians will out-vote white Israelis and would like rally much
support form Israeli Arabs as well. Don't let them vote and Israel
would become a full-fledged apartheid regime....and good luck with
that.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By announcing we're out of ideas and
out of patience with both sides, both sides will be tossed hot
potatoes they will have to juggle themselves. Then let self-interests
shape their decisions, unencumbered by hopes some outside force will
charge to their rescue.
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-36125078816207569082015-12-12T09:41:00.002-08:002015-12-12T09:41:11.065-08:00Might A House Divided Be A Better House?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By Stephen P. Pizzo,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Racontuer-at-Large</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Those of us who paid attention in
school may remember Lincoln's warning that “a house divided cannot
stand.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
True then, but now? I'm beginning to
think not, not now, not today.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While a lot has also remained the same
since Lincoln's warning, today the consequences are even more
serious.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Many, maybe most, in the deep south
still chaff under the yoke of a Yankee-dominated central government
seated in Washington, DC. And now those Yankees have heaped one
final insult to their defeated secessional ambitions... exiling their
beloved Confederate battle flag.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Slavery is gone, but racial tensions
are as high as ever, not just in the deep south, but in every major
city in the Union.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Christianity, once the dominate faith
from coast to coast, north to south, is still strong, but rapidly
losing its grip on that dominance, and they don't like it.
Increasingly the term “persecution” laces their angst-filled
protests. And here too, those “liberal Yankees” have heaped one
final insult upon the faithful; letting men marry men, and women
marry other women.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Science has made enormous strides over
the past century and half, the fruits of such that make our lives
better fed, better housed, healthier, more productive and less
burdensome. Yet science has joined the “suspicious” central
government as a major source of angst and distrust among millions;
they suspect conspiracies are afoot, see scientists as concocters of
lies and disinformation and demonic attackers of religious scripture.
Even vaccines, which have saved countless billions of lives over the
decades, are now under suspicion among many.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Then there's the battles over our
shared physical environment. Even as it decays before our very eyes,
millions of otherwise sane American citizens deny it and, rather than
rising to the occasion, cling furiously to the very activities that
lay at the center of those declines.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLm5A9OUeeEFo63aTp60UMr1jUeULPlfIeAnObECN4PJ9Z0cK-lbK0UL0ErnacluWrQ89XSi9aIHzUIhYwUN9q7f3QJRsJTLhmM9h9Jywg1s6Cb3du2xnBMGvf8fdi1W3pF5wOmg/s1600/us-flag-divided.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLm5A9OUeeEFo63aTp60UMr1jUeULPlfIeAnObECN4PJ9Z0cK-lbK0UL0ErnacluWrQ89XSi9aIHzUIhYwUN9q7f3QJRsJTLhmM9h9Jywg1s6Cb3du2xnBMGvf8fdi1W3pF5wOmg/s320/us-flag-divided.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Of course I could go on and on;
resistance to gun regulation, even as rivers of blood flow in our
streets, resistance to strong financial market regulations, even as
the bills from numerous previous financial meltdowns accrue interest
in our burgeoning national debt.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yet there are major constituencies on
both sides of every single one of these issues. Both sides believe,
unshakably in most cases, that they are completely right and the
other side, the “Libs” or “Right Wingers,” are completely
wrong. And they're not about to change their minds, not about any of
it, not now, not ever.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, since that's the case, both sides
will do whatever it takes to gum up the works so the other side
cannot prevail.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which brings us back to Lincoln's
admonition, and an opportunity to evaluate it in terms of our own
times. He was of course right, though his goal was to preserve a
single union. But looking at that statement today leaves me to
wonder. Today the nation is still divided, but it's the House where
that division threatens most. Our House is, both figuratively and
literally, divided, as is the US Senate. And, at the bottom of it
all, the electorate. And it should now be becoming abundantly clear
that this House cannot stand. In fact, it is already not standing,
but failing, completely.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which begs the question: If this house
cannot stand, due to the host of intractable disagreements on
policies, fiscal, social and military, might it not be wise to divide
this house, this time peacefully, thoughtfully, purposefully.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What would be the advantages to such a
separation? Without getting into the fine points of where the borders
would be drawn, let's just assume it's, once done, there would be a
Red State and Blue State assemblage. <i>(Of course many voters would
find themselves on the wrong side of a border and will, over time,
either accept their minority voting status or move. Time will take
care of that.)</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
First, both new entities would finally
get federal governments that reflected their citizens world, social,
fiscal views. That would, in turn, create legislatures that could
function. Citizens would finally get to see their views translated
into policies they can see and feel.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Second – and I consider this the most
important – both liberals and conservatives would at last have an
opportunity to field test their most precious beliefs. Reds could
slash taxes on corporations, cut social programs to the bone, outlaw
abortions, ban same-sex marriages, repeal all affirmative action
laws, bar foreign immigrants, deport undocumented aliens in wholesale
lots. Blues could increase taxes on corporations and the rich, use
the extra tax revenues to boost their social safety nets, modernize
their infrastructure, and outlaw greenhouse gas producing fuels.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I think I know which side would shine
over the coming 50- to 100-years but, who knows. The issue is that
nothing...and I mean <u>nothing</u>, is going to get done under the
current state of dis-union. Conservatives and liberals are, quite
simply, “wired” differently. There is no chance of reconciliation
here. This marriage is over, all but for the divorce.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Since the end of the Civil War the
notion of breaking up the Union has been the ultimate sacrilege. But
now, today, look around. Think carefully. If we can no longer
function as a single family, why not mutually agreeable separation,
with visitation rights?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Why not allow both the Right and the
Left a chance to find out, once and for all, which has the best
workable solutions to our modern-day challenges? Surely neither has
all the answers. Each will have some successes and some failures.
Scientists would call this a “controlled experiment,” which is,
of course, the only kind of experiment that yield results which can
be trusted.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Or we can just keep doing what we've
been doing. Which means we will keep getting what we've got; a
central government that does not function, that cannot come to grips
with the serious, even life-on-earth threatening events, facing the
nation. A central government that fiddles while Rome burns.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-46783372655947089982015-11-15T10:59:00.001-08:002015-11-15T10:59:13.878-08:00Paris, huh. What now?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By Stephen P. Pizzo </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Will this week’s Paris attacks become just the latest in pop-up
terrorist attacks where we mourn the dead and move on, until the next one?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Likely.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But … and this is becoming a bigger
and bigger “<i>but” </i>with each such event ... maybe not. Maybe
this time someone will come up with an actual effective response.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After all, since these fundamentalist,
nihilist groups thrive in their 10th-century throwback religious,
cultural venues, they will not be going away. Instead they will
continue their barbarian-like crusade(s) against those they decide
are unworthy of liberty or life.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sure developed societies have more
economic vim and vigor, superior infrastructures and large modern
military machines. These jihadists can pose no genuine strategic
threat, right?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Actually, no. They can. And, in some
ways they already have. And, if they continue pulling off stunts
like 9/11, Madrid and London train/subway bombings, Mumbai attack,
the downing of airliners and now Paris, they will succeed. They will
not succeed in taking over developed nations, but rather ruining
them, destroying everything that makes them worth fighting for:
freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly and the
machinery of “business-as-usual” that lubricates the very gears
of of all that in free societies.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For example, if airliners keep falling
out of the sky, filling TV screens at home with the latest horror,
how many ordinary folk will still want to fly to Orlando for a week
at Disney World? Will happy newlyweds eagerly climb aboard a plane in
Newark to honeymoon in Hawaii? How many business travelers will put
up with wasting hours of their valuable time standing in increasingly
intrusive security checkpoints at every port or entry or exit?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Airlines, which almost always operate
on the thinnest of margins, will not be able to raise fares to make
up for the dramatic plunge in revenues. And once all checked in
luggage will have to be searched, all ot it, not just the 5% that are
searched now, you and your luggage may never meet again, at least not
at your intended destination.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It would not be more than a decade of
this and the only remaining airline would be nationalized just to
enable developed nations could cling to an ever-shaky claim of
normality, that “the terrorists aren't winning.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Planes will not be the only form of
public transport affected. Buses, trains, urban subway systems, each
offer terrorists the most bountiful of killing grounds. Imagine a New
York City where working folk are too terrified to go to work because,
to get there, they have to literally risk their lives underground
locked in a metal tube every day. How many will take that risk just
for a paycheck?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And so-call public venues will become
increasingly un-public venues as attacks on large crowds chill such
gatherings. The “public square” Americans are so found of
celebrating... well forget about that too after more public squares
run red with public blood. Rock concerts, campaign gatherings,
protest marches; each suddenly takes on the potential of becoming
fatal, causing even the most hardened activist to rethink their
activism; “Yeah, I know I have said I am willing to die for this
cause, but I'm sure as hell not willing to die for that, whatever the
hell '<i>that' </i>is.” And so once vibrant democracies become less
and less vibrant.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
No business venture is more fraught
with risk than the restaurant. Even in the best of cases, restaurants
come and go like buses at a bus stop. Once terrorists shoot up or
bomb enough restaurants, those who do dare dining will be seated at
tables far from windows or doors, to make them less attractive
targets. And al fresco dining? Forget about it. Who wants to eat an
meal while feeling like a sitting duck in a carnival shooting booth?
<i>(“Please pre-pay for your meal in case you have to flee before
finishing.”)</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Little by little, unchecked, terrorist
attacks on all things modern, Western, democratic and financial, will
force one developed society after another to become less and less
open, less and less efficient, less and less risk-oriented, less and
less fearless, less and less free.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, if what you ever wondered if
terrorism could ever pose a genuine strategic threat to modern
societies, there it is. It is not a process in which modern cultures
reach down raise backward cultures out of darkness, but one in which
backward cultures reach out and pull modern cultures , down into
their familiar darkness, their sectarian and social dysfunction, down
into their hell.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I began by asking if the latest Paris
attacks would spark a fresh response, or just more of the same. Well,
I don't know. I tend to doubt this particular attack will result in
any spectacular changes. It may take more before every nation
affected understands they are the fogs in a classic “boiling-a-frog”
process, as I described above.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But when the change in tactics by those
being attacked does come, what on earth could it be? After all, we've
tried bombing the crap out of them already. We tried ground invasions
and occupations. We tried lavishing billions in cash on terrorist
breeding ground regions. We tried buying off their politicians and
generals. Not only has none of that worked, but it's only made
matters worse.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So what's left to try? It's good to
remember that every time developed nations have tried to sort out
secular issues and redrawn borders “for them,” it only made
matters worse for the generations that followed. Short of killing
every man, woman and child in the entire region, what can/should be
done?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I don't know. After attacks like the
most recent one in Paris, my Sicilian genes vote loudly for the
killing the whole lot of them and being done with it. Of course, once
I calm down, I understand that is not a choice on anyone's to-do
list. <i>(Okay, maybe Dick Cheney.)</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I do think though that, if not a nailed
down solution, we can at least come up with a list of things that
need to happen, one way or another:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Stop trying to accommodate the
mass exodus flooding Europe with refugees from these troubled lands.
Not because I think they pose a danger to Europe, but because
letting them all leave Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, is bleeding
those nations, not of their terrorists, but of the very educated
professional and small business classes they will need to rebuild.
If allowed to continue the only people left in these countries will
those who only know war, those filled with free-floating hatred
of... whatever. So stop it. Yes, it will cruel to force these masses
to continue living in those war zones. But they represent the future
of those countries. Without them, there is no future. The other
reason to make them stay is they may well prove a more effective
counter-force to the ISIS types. Forced to stay they will also be
forced to take stands, to fight, to organized, to resist, from
within. It is, after all, their countries, their people, their wars.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Most European countries now have
large Muslim communities. These communities tend to be separate from
their host countries. This is natural and expected. Immigrants like
to hang with folks that speak their native tongue, have the same
customs etc. And being a non-white immigrant in a predominantly
white country brings with a long list of hurdles, some expected and
many unjust. Nevertheless, these Muslim communities still share a
responsibility to the country housing them. If they expect to stay
and work and send their kinds of public schools in the hope they
will have better lives they have had, then they need to start
policing their own communities, They need to aggressively finger
individuals or groups within their communities that not only
threaten their host country's citizens, but threaten their own
dreams for a better life. If they refuse to do so then they can't
complain when rightwing politicians point them out as part of the
problem, and start passing laws they won't like very much.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
France, England, Germany and
Brussels all have long lists of their own Muslim citizens who have
gone to the Middle East to join ISIS or al Qaeda, and worry about
what will happen when they return home. Which begs the question; why
do they have to be allowed to return home in the first place? If
they have evidence that a citizen trying to return to Europe has
been working at any level with terrorist groups, then refuse them
reentry. Revoke their citizenship and let them figure out how best
to get back into the good graces of the civilized world. Meanwhile
them not returning home means the already overstretched security
services will have one less suspect to keep an eye on. Finally, now
stranded in the very “caliph” hell scape they left home to fight
for, their online whining will serve a warning to anyone else
thinking of taking a similar leap into that abyss.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's long past time to reel in our
so-called “allies” the Saudis. Their insistence on continuing to
fund its radical and violent Whabbai version of Islam has been, and
continues to be, a part of the problem. Any any Saudi “prince”
caught funding terrorist activities or groups, needs to be
blacklisted from any and all travel or financial dealings with the
rest of the world. Bang. Just like that. No more coddling that pack
of spoiled wastrels.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's a start, not a solution, but a
start. We have to be ready to try different things, things that have,
for diplomatic reasons and political correctness have been off the
table. Because if we just decide the Paris attacks and others are
just part of our “new normal,” we will not care much for the
world it creates, and not in some distant dystopian future, but
quickly, in our own lifetimes.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, if it is allowed to get that bad,
citizens in affected developed – devolving – societies, will get
very angry. And that in turn will force politicians in those
countries to an all-out military response, ala World War II. Millions
will die, citizens in cities like Damascus will get a taste of what
it was like to have lived in Dresden in 1945. And then what?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, once that dust settles we'd find
ourselves back in 1918, when Britain, France and Germany decided to
divide up the Middle East to suit themselves, drawing borders where
they liked, ignoring tribal lands, sectarian divides or the needs or
wants of the indigenous populations. And all they accomplished was to
set the stage for today's chaos.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, short of “killing every man,
woman and child” in that region, we need to figure this out, and
soon. More of the same just ain't gonna cut it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-67678644447799782072015-09-21T09:38:00.001-07:002015-09-21T09:38:31.832-07:00News For Real: Why The One-Percenters Keep Winning<a href="http://newsforreal.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-one-percenters-keep-winning.html">News For Real: Why The One-Percenters Keep Winning</a>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-76334496569133550552015-09-21T09:34:00.000-07:002015-09-21T09:34:01.147-07:00Why The One-Percenters Keep Winning<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By Stephen P. Pizzo,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Raconteur-at-Large</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Those of us who have been life-long
liberal/progressives have long complained about the influence of
money and vested interests in politics. It’s our meme, what the dogmas of “trickle-down economics” and tax cuts are to
the conservative camp. <i>(Never mind that decades of data show's
neither actually works...)</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But conservatives have something that
does work, and its worked for centuries. It's what makes the Koch
brothers and their ilk such successful bulwarks against much needed
change. This tool, or weapon, if you will, is well described by
Francis Fukuyama in his book, <u><b>The Origins of Political Order.</b></u></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“Any institution
or system of institutions benefits certain groups in a society, often
at the expense of others, even if on the whole the political system
provides public goods like domestic peace and property rights. Those
groups favoted by the state may feel more secure in their person and
property, them may collect rents as result of their favored access to
power, or them may receive recognition and social status. Those elite
groups have a stake in existing institutional arrangements and will
defend the status quo as long as they remain cohesive. <b>Even when
society as a whole would benefit from institutional change, such as
raising taxes in order to pay for defense against an external threat,
well-organized groups will be able to veto change because for them
the net gain is negative.”</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is probably a
good time now to point out that Fukuyama wrote these lines in the
chapter of his book entitled <i style="font-weight: normal;">“Political Decay.” </i><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">He
calls this stage of a political evolution, “stable dysfunctional equilibrium,
since none of the players will individually gain from changing the
underlying” status quo they have no intention of allowing change to happen, no matter how dysfunctional that renders </span>governance:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“...the fact
that societies are so enormously conservative with regard to
(preserving existing) institutions means that when the original
conditions leading to the creation or adoption of an institution
change, the institution fails to adjust quickly to meet the new
circumstances. The disjunction in rates of change between institution
and the external environment then accounts for political decay...”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This, he writes, is a naturally
occurring accretion of power into the hands of fewer and fewer within
a state. And the more powerful the few become, the easier it is for
them to defeat demands for change from the many below them:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“This kind of
collective “action-failure" is well understood by
economists....entrenched interest groups tend to accumulate in any
society over time, which aggregate into rent-seeking coalitions in
order to defend their narrow privileges. They are much better
organized than the broad masses, whose interests often fail to be
represented in the political system.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The results of this disproportionate
sway over the political apparatus can be seen today in the
dysfunction in Washington. Though “dysfunction” is actually a
misnomer. It would be better called “mandated dysfunction.” What we are seeing is not a failure to act, but a mandate
not to act. That mandate being enforced by the handful at the very
top of the domestic fiscal mountain. They have no need for change,
since everything is working just fine for them. In fact, the only
thing that threatens “their thing,” as the Mafia called their
rackets, is <u>change</u>. Change is enemy. So it is to be stopped dead in
its tracks wherever it tries to emerge.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Besides the obvious and growing
disparity in distribution of wealth, this condition risks more than
human suffering. With climate change beginning to wreak havoc around
the globe, the elite see any shift to alternative solutions as direct
threats to their long-established and still profitable enterprises.
So the very existence of our species may
depend on figuring out ways to unsaddle these overlords of the status
quo:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“The ability of
societies to innovate institutionally thus depends on whether they
can neutralized existing political stakeholders holding vetos over
reform.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Opportunity does eventually emerge to
do just that when this process of power-accretion moves from the
“dysfunctional equilibrium,” to <u>unstable</u> dysfunctional
equilibrium. But then the choices get a bit unsettling for most progressives.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“The stability
of dysfunctional equilibria suggest why violence has played
such an important role in institutional innovation and reform.
Violence is classically seen as the problem that politics seeks to
solve, but sometimes violence is the only way to displace entrenched
stakeholders who are blocking change. The fear of violent death is a
stronger emotion than the desire for material gain and is capable of
motivating more far-reaching changes in behavior.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And therein lays the rub. Liberals and
Progressives tend to eschew violence as way to solve social problems.
And we are proud of that, and rightfully so. Violence is one of those
“shove all the chips on the table” moves. One can never be certain it
will turn out to their advantage. It may go the other way, making the
oligarchs even more powerful, more oppressive. So instead, we try reason. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which leaves us with a
dilemma:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.49in;">
“It is not
clear that democratic societies can always solve this type of problem
peacefully...This means that the burden of institutional innovation
and reform will fall on other, nonviolent mechanisms... or that those
societies will continue to experience political decay.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And that, my friends, is why the
One-percent continue to win;-when push comes to shove, we don't shove
back hard enough. </div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-82523563545184083772015-08-24T08:03:00.003-07:002015-08-24T08:03:35.709-07:00Wall Street's Borg Collective<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By Stephen Pizzo, News For Real</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
08/24/2015 -- The world’s stock markets are in a
tailspin. Another tailspin. Market crashes, which used to be a
once-every-generation affair, now seem to visit us about once every
seven or eight years.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Why?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Are the world's workers becoming less
and less productive? No, just the opposite, they're working harder,
for longer and for less money every year.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Are companies less profitable? Nope.
Just the opposite there too, for the most part.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So what's up doc?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Blame it on the very technology you're
using to read this now. The Internet, and related networking
technologies, have changed how money in these markets flow.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the past investors were like herds
of roaming bison, in search for the next green pasture. They were
widely dispersed. Separate herds went off in their own directions,
following their own instincts, in search for their next buffet. Some
did better than others. And, by the time word got out that some other
herd had found a bonanza, by the time the others got there the bounty
had been pretty much consumed.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which is why those herds of investors
back in the day were considerably less reactionary and more stable
than we see today.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Today what we have is a
hyper-connected, worldwide investing “blob” that moves as a
single herd, able to move en-mass, almost instantly, to exploit a new
real, or imagined, opportunity. They are the investment world's
version of Star Trek's “Borg Collective.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So one quarter everyone wants to be in
bonds, the next the herd gets a whiff of smoke (a Fed move up on
rates,) and the entire herd stampedes, running mindlessly in all
directions until it comes to a collective agreement on what they
believe the next big opportunity might be. Then they all head to it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the short run such behavior creates
it's own affirmation. After all, when everyone whats to buy the same
thing, at the same time, the price of that thing shoots up. And so
the herd is happy and, as long as it stays happy, the price keeps
going up.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But, as they say on Wall Street, “trees
don't grow to the sky,” so, sooner or later the greater-fool theory
breaks down as fewer and fewer buyers are willing to buy at
increasingly ridiculous valuations. And then it crashes.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the past crash in one market
segment, while unpleasant, was rarely catastrophic to overall market
as there were “other herds” grazing happily there. But no more.
Now all the money heads where the Borg Collective has decided to in
its collective “wisdom.” And why not? Even those who know what's
likely to eventually happen, they also know that, when this mega-herd
moves, prices move up. So why not pocket some sure money while it
lasts?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Of course that's the trick in this new
markets normal; how long to stay with the herd. When to hold-em, and
when to fold-em. In the end way too few fold-em while there's still
money to made. So most of the collective herd panic all at once when
the obvious becomes, well, obvious.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's it. That's why the market dove a
thousand points at its opening this morning. Of course it will go
back up again. The collective herd, while in panic mode now, is
already on a search for the next market(s) they can pump for all
they're worth.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And remember; resistance is futile.
Those markets will be assimilated, exploited, gutted.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-44512906746505208682015-08-22T08:53:00.000-07:002015-08-22T08:53:01.265-07:00Memo To My Progressive Friends<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The past few weeks I've been sitting
here at my computer watching many of my closest friends wrestling
with their own convictions. I know these friends well, so I know what
their real convictions are, and I share them. They are progressives,
old progressives, veterans from half a century of the most important
social struggles of the age; Vietnam, civil rights, voting rights,
women's liberation, the environment. They are among the best amongst
us.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yet they seem to have found themselves stuck with a Hobson’s Choice, and it’s caused them to kind of
lose their progressive GPS signal a bit. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not
condemning them, just observing. I do understand the conundrum that's
causing the static. They have a terribly flawed candidate for
President, Hillary Clinton, currently in the lead for her party’s
nomination -- if only because no other party big shot has challenged
her. Against her is arrayed a small herd of Republican candidates
that no satirist (or doomsayers) could have dredged from the darkest
corners of their fevered minds.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
These good friends, rightfully, fear
that if their lead candidate does not prevail, all manner of awful
things will descend upon us; Supreme Court, environmental disasters,
a gutting of our national regulatory apparatus, rollbacks in civil
rights and voting rights, restrictions on women's health choices,
war, etc.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And yes, a GOP victory in 2016 would,
to one extent or another, likely result in much, if not all, the
above.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So I understand, and do not condemn my
old progressive buddies for their steadfast support of Hillary
Clinton. They're scared. And, with 2016, probably the most unsettled
and dangerous election I can remember since the Nixon days, I'm
scared too. And, if you're not, you're not paying enough attention.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Still I have to say that, acting on
fear has been something I've tried to avoid my entire life. Fear is
the parking brake of life. You either release it, or you're not going
anywhere. And I'd like them to release it now. Because, while they
feel that supporting Hillary is the best way to insure that none of
the GOP wing-nuts never get within spitting distance of the Oval
Office they, in the process, are jettisoning their most core values
and beliefs. And doing so erodes the power of those values at a time we need the pursued even more vigorously.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So I ask them, and you, just do this for a moment: change shoes. Make Hillary the leading GOP candidate (not too much of stretch.) Now go
through what we've learned about her and her values and her governing
principles. Remember the “scandals,” real or contrived. Remember how her husband governed. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
First, we know she, like her husband, believes rules that prevent her from getting what she wants, are for not rules, but obstacles to over come. So she walks the razors’ edge of right and wrong.
And, as always happens to those who think they are above it all, she often
slips off that edge ending up on the <i>wrong</i> side.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Emails? Yeah, that's the most recent
example, but there are plenty of others, large and small, that go all
the way back to her disastrous and hubris-driven belief that she and
she alone could repair America's broken healthcare system, in secret,
behind closed doors, with the help and financial support of many of
the same big medical and pharma players who caused, and profited
from, the mess to begin with. That failure set healthcare reform back
by two decades.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To see Hillary as a progressive is also
a stretch. Her best friends (and contributors) a from the far-upper
crust of America's financial world like Goldman Sachs. Her husband
signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which contributed to the massive
financial collapse in 2008. And just last week Hillary, when asked
about that, supported that repeal, claiming it had nothing to do with
the troubles that followed.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
She supported, and continues to support, NAFTA, which was no favor to working Americans, to put it mildly. Now she supports the pending TransPacific Partnership trade deal as well. Some protector of the working class. And the Tar Sands pipeline from Canada? She won’t say, but we know, don’t we.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Once “dead broke,” she is now
richer than Imelda Marcos was when she was in the clover... the
similarity between the two also nags at me, though everyone tells me
I'm crazy. Maybe.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Don't worry, I'm not going to drag you
through the Clinton Chronicles of Horribles and Incidentals, from
Whitewater forward. You remember, I'm sure. When I think of the
Clinton's the image that always flashes in my head is of Pigpen, the
Shultz charger who, in every frame in the cartoon, trails a cloud of dust and dirt along with him. That's Hillary.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Then she never takes personal
responsibility for any of it. It’s aways one kind of "conspiracy" against her or another. There is something in that too that unsettles
me about her. I once knew a woman who later proved to be a borderline
psychopath. (Oh boy, now I've done it – crossed the line into truly
nutty territory, right?) Well, I'm not saying Hillary is a
psychopath. All I am saying is that one of the key traits this other
woman displayed was that nothing that went wrong in her life was ever her
fault. She always had a excuse, and explanation, no matter how much
it strained credulity, she never took personal responsibility. <i>(She
eventually was sent to prison for embezzlement.)
</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, there you are. My friends want me
to stop harping on Hillary’s glaring progressive shortcomings. They say that I, and
others like me, are “undermining” her. (Though her own behaviors seem to be doing that without much help from us.) But that if I and progressives like me don’t knock it off we are going to end up putting another Republican
in the White House.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I too am faced
with a conundrum. To support Hillary Clinton I would have to jettison
the very core values that formed and continue to form my life and
politics:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I abhor a liar. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I don’t like people who cheat. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I hate
people who talk one way, and live another. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I do not trust
“triangulating” opportunists. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I am dislike and distrust those who
insult my intelligence by feeding me a line of self-serving bull
instead of the truth. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
- I am not buying the claim that a candidate
worth millions of dollars and who runs with Wall Street’s top dogs,
knows or cares a damn thing about ordinary, working Americans.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And I am not going to let fear change
<u>any</u> of that. Which means I can't, and won't, vote for Hillary Clinton
if she ends up the nominee. I will just skip that box on the ballot.
There are some things that are simply more important than a single election.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Because, if it's the current corrupt
system you want to change, you don’t get there by voting for it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-83321702131742524772015-05-20T10:15:00.002-07:002015-05-20T10:44:40.564-07:00<h2>
Help Me Out Here</h2>
By Stephen Pizzo<br />
stephen@pizzo.com<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Like the rest of you, I just have to
sit and watch and listen to the news from the Middle East and wonder
who's right and who's wrong. Clearly from the state of affairs over
there, most everyone has been wrong – at least those of us in the
West who keep thinking we can “fix” that ever-so broken region.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Anyway, as we now see Iraq falling
apart (for the umpteenth time in recent memory) we are hearing the
hawks on the right complaining that “Obama's strategies have lost
the Middle East.” And, they suggest, it's time to put more US
“boots on the ground.” That term is starting to ring familiar,
like ones from earlier failed imperialistic conflicts. Remember
“light at the end of the tunnel?”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I have tried to see both sides of this
argument. But for the life of me I can't see what US strategic
interests need protecting in those arguments. In fact, the more I
learn, the less and less I believe there are any. And, as such, my
solution of choice has become “benign neglect.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Here's my thinking – and if you
disagree, I'd love to hear why and what you would do instead. But for
now, here's my take:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Iraq:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I keep hearing from the right that we
need to force some kind of “political solution,” there. Trouble
is this is not a political problem, it's a tribal/religious problem.
It's not Democrats fighting with Republicans, it's Sunnis fighting
Shia and visa versa, and the Kurds fighting both. The three groups
don't want to get along, any more than the Bloods and the Crips want
to sit in a circle and sing camp songs of love and acceptance. They
want to kill one another, hopefully in wholesale lots.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How do we craft a “political solution”
to that? You don't. You can't. We tried... several times now. It's
simply not going to happen. Ever.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That leaves only two logical responses,
and each lives at the extreme ends of the list of possible solutions.
The first, leave them alone. Let them fight all they want. Stay out
of it. Let them live with the full implications of their deepest
desires for as long as it takes for them to either get it out of
their systems -- or for them to finish off one of the sides. Since only
the Kurds are worth an ounce of Western concern or support, make sure
they have enough firepower to defend the areas they've carved out for
themselves already, but otherwise, stay out of it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The other way is the “all in”
option. And when I say all in, I mean ALL in. NATO, the whole
group... 500,000 to a million troops from all NATO countries plus
Arab “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Flood Iraq with
multi-national forces, partition the country into three areas
(already really happened) and help the Sunnies and Shia and Kurds set
up their own independent countries... no more Iraq. Gone. If they
want to form some kind of regional coalition years later when
everyone has calmed the hell down, fine. But for now, get into the
region you prefer, mind your own business (now that you have your own
businesses) and “deal” with those who don’t comply.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When it's a raging fire, you throw
everything you have at it, you don't plink around the edges. Those
who want to “fix” the mess in Iraq need to understand that...
understand that it takes an all out, no-holds-barred response, not
just some boots on the ground and some careful surgical airstrikes.
It means lots and lots and lots of people, most of them civilians,
will die.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Personally I vote for Option 1: Stay
out of it... all of it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Because, no matter which option we
choose, Iraqi civilians will die in the tens of thousands. They are
doing that right now. They've done that, to varying degrees, for 1500
years. And they are highly likely to continue doing just that for
many decades to come. That's not pessimism, it's realism. It's
history. Recent history too.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The difference, (and it's a damn big
one,) is that with Option 1 we are not accomplices in mass murder.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Europeans went through this kind
religion-fueled internal warfare hundreds of years ago. When
Catholics and Protestants got tired of killing one another, it
ended... if only recently in N.Ireland. That's how you end these kind
of Hatfield/McCoy religious feuds – you let them burn themselves
out. If others keep jumping in a putting just enough water on the
flames to knock them down, then leave, it all just starts up again.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And that's where we are in Iraq. A
forced partition would be a repeat of what created this mess in the
beginning; the British and French drawing borders in that region that
suited them, while ignoring the long smoldering fires of religious
hatred and tribalism.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So I rest my case for benign neglect.
Step away. Watchful waiting. Let the waring parties wear themselves
out. Let the region reorder itself in ways that make sense to them,
not us. If Iran wants to own the Shia area of Iraq, they are welcome
to it. It would serve them right.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's it. What do you think? I'm open
to a better idea... tho I seriously doubt there is one.</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-89576393182554465452015-04-05T14:24:00.003-07:002015-04-05T14:24:47.636-07:00<big style="color: #990000; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; text-align: center;"><big><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Special Report</span></big></big></big><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; text-align: center;">by Stephen P.Pizzo</span><br />
October 2007<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">
You may have noticed that we were recently treated to a full-scale Bill and Hillary charm offensive. Bill has been touting his charitable juggernaut --immodestly branded with the Clinton logo as "<a href="http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=387&srcid=346&gclid=CJf3gLzT9Y4CFSKgYAod3j7nMA">The Clinton Global Initiative.</a>" And he has a new book out -- just in time for the primary campaign season -- with the warm and fuzzy title, <a href="http://giving.clintonfoundation.org/shareyourstory?gclid=CLOW5Oyy9Y4CFRtHYAodEgP6Lg">"Giving.</a>"<br />
<br />
All that dovetailed nicely with Hillary's blitz of the mainstream media Sunday talk shows where, in a single morning, she held a rapid-fire round of high profile, prime time satellite interviews with every network that matters. She smiled - a lot, looked relaxed and laughed - a lot.<br />
<br />
It was a Clinton Inc. media tour de force. This power couple have always been a team, and they still are. Anyone who thinks the timing of Bill's goodness offensive and Hillary's race for the Democratic Party nomination are mere coincidence just haven't been paying attention for the last twenty years or so.<br />
<br />
As the couple knew they would, the media took bait. The Clintons called the tune and as they twirled to the that tune a real story lurked right under their lazy noses -- a story that says a lot more about the Clintons than the puffy "did she laugh too much" pablum the media spun for public consumption.<br />
<br />
It was during the height of that Hill-Bill media blitz that an email popped into my box. It was from a well-connected old friend on the east coast. He wrote he was at a Clinton fund raiser rubbing elbows with, to quote him -- “an old friend of yours.” Knowing this guy as I do I sensed sarcasm, and I was right.<br />
<br />
“It's <span style="font-weight: bold;">Farhad Azima,</span>” he announced, knowing, I am sure, that the very mention of this character in any setting would get my attention, but at Clinton fund raiser! <span style="font-style: italic;">Holy cow!</span><br />
<br />
I shot him an email back asking what <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>guy was doing anywhere near a Hillary Clinton fund raiser.<br />
<br />
He replied,<span style="font-style: italic;"> “Not Hillary. Bill.”</span><br />
<br />
Ah, yes, it was one of Bill Clinton's Global Innovative fund raisers. The whole previous week had been all CGI all the time, as Bill hosted the rich and powerful from around the world all looking to do well by doing good.<br />
<br />
But the question remained; what was Farhad Azima, doing there? Why would the Clintons expose themselves to bad publicity just a couple of weeks after Hillary was forced to return nearly a million bucks she took from felonious fugitive,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hsu"> Norman Hsu?</a> (Another instance where a single Nexis/Lexis search by a curious reporter would have broken that story months ago.)<br />
<br />
Admittedly Azima is a bit of a different kind of problem since he's never been charged or convicted of any crimes,as Hsu had. But, as you will see if you read on, there might be a reason for that, a quite extraordinary reason. Still a few Google searches would net the curious reporter some pretty startling allegations -- and lots of them. Sure it's just smoke, but so much smoke it would trigger a five-alarm response from any fire department worths it's salt.<br />
<br />
In lieu of a real media vetting of Farhad Azima has become grist for the conspiracy theorists, who have now woven him into nearly every murky event short of the Lindberg kidnapping. In the world of conspiracy theorists 6% of separation is enough to throw their own grandmothers into the mix.<br />
<br />
Maybe that's what's kept real journalists away. Anyone who's been a reporter for very long knows that the fastest way to ruin their career is to dive into one of these tales and try to sort the truth from the mis- and dis-information that swirl around characters like Farhad Azima. I personally knew two veteran reporters who were last seen following such bread crumbs sure they were onto the biggest stories of their lives. They're still out there -- somewhere.<br />
<br />
But, since I am retired and no longer have a career to ruin, what the hell.<br />
<br />
Besides, Azima and I have a history.<br />
<br />
<br />
<img align="left" alt="" hspace="9" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/fazima.jpg" style="height: 139px; width: 117px;" vspace="9" /><a href="http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=1243687&QueryID=d09dcc96-5a99-4aa4-98b0-e4eb208c6b65"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Farhad Azima:</span></a><span style="font-style: italic;"> Born in Iran in 1941, into a family that was reportedly close to the Shah. </span><br />
<br />
My first encounter with Azima was sometime back in 1987. My co-authors (Mary Fricker and Paul Muolo) and I were researching for our book<span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">, <a href="http://www.lulu.com/content/477439">Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans</a>.</span> We were trying to figure out why America's savings and loans were suddenly dropping like flies. When we looked at a small failed bank, Indian Springs State Bank in Kansas City, Mo., we found Azima on it's board of directors. We also found hundreds of thousands of dollars of the bank's money had been loaned to Azima's freight airline, Global International – loans which by then were in default.<br />
<br />
What began as a routine probe into just another case of financial shenanigans sparked by thrift deregulation, took a hard right turn into a world swirling with allegations of gun and drug running, illegal Iranian arms shipments and CIA involvement. Azima and his airline were at the center of it all. Nevertheless, we would later learn, Azima seemed to enjoy a kind of prosecutorial forbearance back then that companies like Halliburton and Blackwater Security enjoy today.<br />
<br />
As we sorted through the ashes of Indian Springs State Bank we asked the Kansas City federal prosecutor assigned the case, Lloyd Monroe, if he was investigating Azima's activities at the looted bank. He told us he had tried to open an FBI investigation into Azima and Global International, but immediately received a call form FBI headquarters in Washington.<br />
<br />
“They told me to forget about it. Azima had a get-out-of-jail-free-card.”<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000;">(Rather than drag you through that entire tale here, I suggest -- even encourage -- you to read that chapter from out book reproduced on this page. It will enhance your understanding of what follows -- I guarantee it. </span><a href="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/ij.html"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="5" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 2px solid; height: 21px; width: 42px;" /></a><span style="color: #660000;">--- <span style="font-style: italic;">Don't worry. I'll be here when you return ;-)</span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
Azima dismisses what continues to be a steady flow of allegations that his airlines (he has more than one, some held under his umbrella corporation, <a href="http://www.algkc.com/">Aviation Leasing Group, ALG</a>.) are or have ever been used for US intelligence operations -- like Reagan's illegal<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Contra"> "Iran/Contra" </a>arms shipments. It's his story and to this day, he's sticking to it.<br />
<br />
But then there's things like this that keep the curious, curious. When then-CIA director William Webster testified before Congress about the failure of Indian Springs State Bank and Global Internationals involvement, he declined to answer questions about Azima's involvement or the loans to his airline in public session. Inste<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AM6lqj1B4zYC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=farhad+azima+%22iran+contra%22&source=web&ots=SaqbgfrJ_u&sig=PdyuMKwwQeMJ84BlGqt4W_M4pFs#PPA164,M1"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a>ad he testified about in closed session before the House Intelligence Committee <span style="font-style: italic;">(October 25, 1990.)</span><br />
<br />
And then there's the fact that Azima's world seems to be one filled with the kind of strange coincidences that just don't happened to ordinary folk. For example, an SEC search of companies listing Azima as a shareholder and/or officer, shows that Farhad Azima and Huffman Aviation's Wallace J Hilliard, are heavily invested together in the same company, <a href="http://www.madcowprod.com/azima-hilliard-mansour.htm">SPATIALIGHT INC.</a>. Hilliard and Azima are<a href="http://texasmonthly.blogspot.com/2007/01/patrick-carr-murder-of-presbyterian.html"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/go.jpg" hspace="2" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a> major stockholders.. Huffman aviation, you may recall, was the flying school where Mohammad Atta studied.<br />
<br />
If your read the chapter linked above, you already know that Azima was not the only colorful character who attached himself to Indian Springs State Bank's vault. There mob money movers out of New York and one of the bank's "business development," executives was a debarred attorney for the Kansas City-based <a href="http://crimemagazine.com/kcfamily.htm">Nick Civella mob family</a>. The whole thing had a Goodfellas aire about it. Just before federal regulators closed in on the bank it's president, William Everett Lemaster, was incinerated in a single car auto accident family members claim was highly suspicious. (<span style="font-style: italic;">Lemaster and another bank executive with ties to Kansas City Civella crime family, also shared positions on Azima's Global Airways Board of advisers.</span>)<br />
<br />
In 1983 the Federal Aviation Administration suspended operations of his Global International Airways for safety reasons. Embarrassingly one of its planes carrying TV crews accompanying Reagan to Brazil had made a crash landing. Azima later put Global into bankruptcy. Another of his companies, Buffalo Airways of Waco, Texas, settled a tax lien with the Internal Revenue Service in 2000 and reportedly was fighting with the Justice<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38980a7a245c.htm"><img align="right" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a> Department over a $1.4 million bill for cargo service provided to the Pentagon during the Gulf War.<br />
<br />
A world in turmoil is a profitable world for the kinds of shadowy, no-questions-asked, airfreight operations like Azima's. (It's no coincidence, after all, that Blackwater has formed it's own, Presidential Airways:<br />
<br style="color: #660000;" />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 2007</span><span style="color: #660000;">-- Even as security contractor Blackwater USA faces scrutiny over its actions in Iraq, the U.S. government is deepening ties to its parent company by awarding an aviation affiliate a contract valued at as much as $92 million to operate a fleet of airplanes on missions throughout Central Asia. ... The four-year contract with Presidential Airways Inc. calls for the company to supply specialized airplanes, crews and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Presidential Airways is owned by Blackwater's corporate parent, Prince Group LLC.</span><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119120219033644320.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" style="color: #660000;"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 22px; width: 50px;" /></a></div>
<br />
Gunrunning allegations have swirled around Azima and his various airlines since the mid-1980s. Besides swashbuckling tales from former Global pilots of being paid with bags of cash and boxes marked as “cabbages” actually containing mortars, Azima's planes, now under the umbrella of his Aircraft Leasing Group, (ALG) have also showed up in interesting places, leased to interesting people, doing some mighty<a href="http://www.ruudleeuw.com/vbout-dostum.htm"><img align="right" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a>interesting things. Whatever Azima's airlines are, they are anything but ordinary. Example here...<br />
<br />
A public interest website in Belgium, "Clean Ostend," wants shadowy airlines, including Azima's, to stop using the former US Air Force Base:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000;">"At Ostend Airport, Johnson's Air itself shares since the end of 2003 office, station manager and PO box with HeavyLift, which is part of Christopher Foyle’s airline company Air Foyle, as recounted earlier, known from its two-year business partnership with arms dealer Victor Bout. HeavyLift seems to be the air broker, who organises from Ostend the Johnsons Air flights. However, both companies recently left the Ostend airport after a few adverse publications. ...Johnsons Air was formed in 1995 by Farhad Azima, a native of Iran, resident in the U.S. since the 1950s...At the time of HeavyLift’s shutdown, Azima was its chairman. Reputed as a mayor gunrunner, he is also suspected to have had close ties to the CIA and has been linked to the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal ... Also Race Cargo Airlines (another Azima operation) has for years an office at Ostend Airport and even a full-owned warehouse. (Lots more here -- </span><a href="http://www.cleanostend.com/" style="color: #660000;"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 20px; width: 47px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
During the years when Republicans held the White House Azima's campaign contributions flowed largely to Republican candidates and causes. That changed once Bill Clinton became President.<br />
<br />
Despite the bankruptcy of Global International Airways, Azima always seemed to have money to spread around. By 1995 Azima was back. He was head of Airline Leasing Group (ALG) with air freight operations and cargo jets scattered around the world. He also seemed to have enough excess cash on hand to grease the palms of whoever in charge at the time. And now it the Democrats and Bill and Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
Remember, we're talking 1995 now, six years after our book was released. And where was Farad Azima now? Well at the White House, of course, sipping coffee with President Bill Clinton at three of of Bill's coffee clutch awards for major DNC contributors.<br />
<br style="font-weight: bold;" />
<div style="margin-left: 80px;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">White House Coffees:</span><br />
HOST: President Clinton<br />
ATTENDING: DNC Supporters<br />
LOCATION: Map Room<br />
<br />
Farhad Azima, listed as attending on:<br />
<br />
October 2, 1995: <a href="http://216.177.7.126/RANCHO/POLITICS/COFFEEGATE.html"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a><br />
<br />
August 6, 1996: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/coffees/080696.htm"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a><br />
<br />
March 28, 1996: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/coffees/032896.htm"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But by 1997 someone at the DNC apparently caught wind of the colorful side of their newly generous contributor and hustled to get rid of his contributions by giving him his money back. Azima was offended:<br />
<br />
<br style="font-weight: bold;" />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">MAN FORCES CASH ON DEMOCRATS </span><br />
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">DONATION WAS RETURNED UNDER CLOUD, DONOR PUSHES TO GIVE IT BACK</span><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><br />
<br style="color: #660000;" />
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">AP - Rocky Mountain News -- 10-01-1997: </span><span style="color: #660000;">Most people hire lawyers to get their money back, but Kansas City, Mo., businessman Farhad Azima used his attorney to persuade the Democratic Party to keep his $143,000 donation. In February, in the midst of its fund-raising furor, the Democratic National Committee announced that Azima's donation was among $3 million being returned because it was ``deemed inappropriate.'' Azima asked his attorney, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., ... </span></div>
<br />
Azima's attorney said he had received no explanation for why the DNC was returning his client's money, and assumed that the money was being returned because of "misleading and inaccurate news reports" about Azima's past.<br />
<br />
Azima's attorney, E. Larry Barcella, Jr., <a href="http://www.paulhastings.com/professionalDetail.aspx?ProfessionalId=2550"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a> served a US Attorney for the District of Columbia during Reagan years and later was Chief Counsel to House Republicans during the so-call <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise">“October Surprise”</a>investigation, which looked into allegations that Reagan operatives had convinced the Iranians to hold US hostages until after the Reagan/Carter presidential race... which is precisely what the Iranians did. Those who believed it, still do. Those who don't believe it, still don't. In any case, it's a tale for another day.)<br />
<br />
Azima appears determined to hedge his political bets. Not to say there weren't still some potentially useful Republicans around, like US Senatorial candidate Fred Thompson. Azima held a fund raiser for Thompson. Thompson also served, at the time on the board of one of Azima's airlines, Tennessee-based Capital Airways. Azima came to know Thompson after Azima bought Capitol Airways to Smyrna, Tenn., in 1983. Thompson served on the board of the company and also represented it in legal matters. According to Federal Election Commission records, Azima raised $9,500 for Thompson's campaign at a 1996 fund-raiser at his Missouri home. <a href="http://jimgilliam.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/wil-fred-thompson-address-his-ties-to-farhad-azim/"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a><br />
<br />
A year later, in 1997, Thompson returned about half of the money raised at the Azima fund raiser. (But FEC records show Azima and his partners at ALG, Mansour Rasnavad, contributed $1000 and $500 respectively to Thompson during the 2000 election cycle. That time Thompson kept it all.)<br />
<br />
There was apparently a flurry of reports about Azima's past and around the time Thompson gave back some of Azima's contributions because the Clinton/Gore campaign committee did so as well. Clinton/Gore returned $143,000 the campaign had accepted from Azima and his airline companies.<br />
<br />
In response to a question at the White House Daily Press Briefing, Clinton-Gore Campaign Counsel Lyn Utrecht explained the money was being returned because Azima was deemed to be “an inappropriate contributor.” <a href="http://clinton6.nara.gov/1997/03/1997-03-03-statement-in-response-to-question-in-brieifng.html"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 42px;" /></a><br />
<br />
You may recall that, at the time, Clinton was using White House access as a reward for contributions to the DNC. Clinton insider, Harold Ickes had even prepared a list of Presidential privileges that could be marketed as rewards to large contributors. including selling rides on Air Force One.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000;">“White House officials have acknowledged that they used events there to encourage and reward donors, but say no solicitation of money ever occurred at the executive mansion. It is illegal to solicit donations on federal property. The White House earlier this week released several hundred pages of documents from Ickes' files, including records showing C</span><span style="color: #660000;">linton liked proposals to use White House sleep-overs and coffees to reward big-ticket donors.”</span><a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DEMOCRATS+GIVE+BACK+MORE+IMPROPER+DONATIONS.%28News%29%28Statistical+Data...-a083857744"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 45px;" /></a></div>
<br />
Even though the DNC and the Clinton/Gore campaign had scrambled in 1997 to disgorge Azima's contributions because he was deemed “appropriate,”a year later they were apparently ready to let bygones be bygones – though they didn't appear to be particular eager to brag about it:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">Azima Donates $10,000 to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund</span><br />
<span style="color: #660000;">....Donors were required to fill in a form certifying that they met the criteria and listing their name, address, occupation, and employer. Trustees said careful efforts were taken to vet large donations. Yet, no occupations or employers were listed for several of the $10,000 donors, including some regular - and easily identified -- major political donors....For example, the occupation and employer of $10,000 donor Farhad Azima of Kansas City ... were left blank. Azima, who heads Aviation Leasing Group Inc. attended three White House coffees before the 1996 election and let Democratic National Committee party officials use his private jet on several occasions. In fact, 12 of the 39 $10,000 donors (to the Clinton legal defense fund) in the last half of 1998 attended White House coffees during the 1996 campaign.</span><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/feb99/022499g.htm" style="color: #660000;"><img align="middle" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 23px; width: 52px;" /></a><span style="color: #660000;"> </span></div>
<br />
Azima was no longer “inappropriate,” at least as far as the Clinton's were concerned. Two years later he was hosting a fund raiser for the former First Lady and would-be US Senator at his Kansas City home, at which President Bill Clinton himself made an appearance.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #660000; margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">President Clinton will attend fund-raiser in Kansas City for first lady</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Kansas City Star -- October 9, 2000 </span>-- President Clinton will visit Kansas City on Friday to raise money for his wife's campaign for the U.S. Senate from New York. The president will attend a 3:30 p.m. tea at the Ward Parkway home of Farhad Azima, an aviation executive. The suggested donation to the first lady's campaign: $1,000 a person.<br />
<br />
Azima said he expected that about 100 persons would attend, meaning that the event would raise at least $100,000 for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The first lady is in a tight race against Rep. Rick Lazio, a New York Republican.<br />
<br />
"I've been in his house many times, so he can come to my house," said Azima, who has visited the president at the White House. </div>
<br />
The DNC had also decided it was no longer inappropriate to accept money from Farhad Azima, because beginning in 2000, FEC records show, Azima donated $25,000 to the DNC -- and this time they kept the dough.<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/indivdetail.asp?Cmte=DPC&pacid=C60000254&Cycle=2000"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 21px; width: 50px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">A Global Initiative and a Presidential Library</span>I know it's been a while, so let me remind the reader what sparked this article; that email from an old friend informing me that he'd run in Azima at a fund raiser for Bill Clinton's Global Initiative. What was he doing there? A simple check of the CGI website is all it took to find the answer. There he was, Farhad Azima, listed as of September 9, 2007 as a member in good standing in Bill's CGI. <a href="http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Document.Doc?&id=108"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 45px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Why? Well, a guy owns or controls over 50 cargo jets based around the world, and had reputation for making no-questions-asked deliveries to world hotspots, could come in handy – not just to the CGI's charity efforts, but to a future President Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
Finally, what's the best way to weasle one's way into the heart of any former President? Obvious answer – cough a huge hunk of cash for his Presidential library.<br />
<br />
Bill Clinton has steadfastly refused to disclose the names of major donors to his Clinton Library. The reason for the secrecy, he claims, is that the donors were not told their names would be made public and he did not want to embarrass anyone. But enterprising reporters in Arkansas were able to discover who some of those donors were, and – yep – you guessed it. There listed among those who have donated “over $1 million” to the Clinton Presidential Library is Farhad Azima. <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8366044848.htm"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 18px; width: 43px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Now he's working on Mrs. Clinton's affections. In 2005 Azima tested the waters donating $1000 to “Friends of Hillary Clinton.” <a href="http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/farhad-azima.asp?cycle=06"><img align="middle" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 19px; width: 45px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Maybe Bill and Hillary should task one of their dozens of opposition research mavens to take the time to check up on what Farhad may be up to when not attending their fund raisers. Allegations of gun running, legal and otherwise, by Azima's many airlines, <a href="http://www2.gol.com/users/daleh/nationair/gunrun.html">abound on the web.</a> Chatter among commercial pilots on websites they maintain to share industry information also abound with references to Azima's swashbuckling airlines.<br />
<br />
In November 2006, veteran intelligence reporter and author, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen">Wayne Madsen,</a> reported on his site, Wayne Madsen Reports, the following:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">November 21, 2006</span><span style="color: #660000;"> -- On Nov. 17/18/19, 2006, WMR reported on the presence of an aircraft linked to </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout" style="color: #660000;">Viktor Bout's </a><span style="color: #660000;">international weapons smuggling network at Mogadishu airport. WMR reported that the "Boeing-707, registered in Ghana with registry number 9G-GAL, marked with “SACHA” on the fuselage, used the call sign 9QCTA. The plane landed in Mogadishu at 0700 GMT on November 13, 2006. The plane reportedly made previous stops with arms and ammunition at Mogadishu."</span><br />
<br style="color: #660000;" />
<span style="color: #660000;">WMR has recently learned the aircraft, which is actually registered "9G-OAL," is owned by Johnson's Air of Ghana. Johnson's Air appears to have been founded around 1995 by Kansas City-based Farhad Azima (and may now be operated by Farzin (also spelled Farsin) Azima, Farhad's brother). Azima is well known for his connections to highly placed (and "well-oiled") American friends in Houston and Washington, DC and first became known for his role in the Iran Contra scandal of the 1980's.</span><br />
<br style="color: #660000;" />
<span style="color: #660000;">Johnson's Air bases a number of its aircraft at Sharjah International Airport, the same location where Viktor Bout's various airline companies base their operations. On Nov. 22, 2005, a Johnson's Air DC-8 (9G-PEL) at Sharjah was spotted with its cockpit windows blown out and covered with cardboard. Buckets were noticed under the engines collecting leaking engine oil. Both are signs that the plane was fired upon in a war zone. Other Johnson's Air planes have been spotted in Maastricht, Netherlands; Ostend, Belgium; Dubai, UAE; Accra, Ghana; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Budapest Ferihegy; Recife, Brazil; and Nottingham-East Midlands, England.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0DB1031F934A2575BC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print">(See also NYTimes re: Bout & Ostead airbase.)</a></div>
<br />
Maybe some of all that is just so much conspiracy theory nonsense. But there sure is a lot of it. And it comes from so many sources and directions that one has wonder. Web sites dedicated to professional commercial pilots are full of chatter about Azima and his mysterious airlines. <a href="http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-48351.html"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 21px; width: 50px;" /></a><br />
<br />
In my quarter centure of experience chasing these kinds of stories, where there's that much smoke there's almost always hell of story lurking.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">If</span> any of the tales about Farhad Azima's business dealings are true, there's only one explanation for how he's not only gotten away with so much, but continues to prosper and hobnob with some of America's most prominent and powerful individuals -- Azima really does have a get-out-jail-free card.<br />
<br />
Which finally brings us to tiny <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan">Azerbaijan</a>. Azerbaijan may not be on the minds of many ordinary folks or the media these days, it has not escaped the attention of some of America's premier movers and shakers. The reason is simple – Azerbaijan is rich in just the kind of strategic resources most needed by the US right now including oil, natural gas, gold, silver, iron, copper, titanium, chromium, manganese, cobalt and molybdenum.<br />
<br />
With all those goodies up for grabs someone in Washington decided that what little Azerbaijan needed most right now was a Chamber of Commerce. Of course, not their own chamber of commerce but a US/Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. From the USACC website:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<a href="http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2"><span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">ABOUT US</span></a><br />
<span style="color: #660000;">The United States - Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) is an independent, nonprofit organization based in Washington D.C., whose purpose is to facilitate business and cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. Established in 1995, the Chamber has grown to become a major Azerbaijan-focused organization in the United States.</span><a href="http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/logo_usacc.gif" hspace="8" style="border: 2px solid; height: 164px; width: 164px;" vspace="8" /></a><br />
<br style="color: #660000;" />
<span style="color: #660000;">Among the US luminaries making up the Azerbaijan/US Chamber's <span style="font-weight: bold;">“Honorary Counsel of Advisers,” </span></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">James Baker III</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">Henry Kissenger</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">Brent Scowcroft</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">John Sununu Sr.</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">Zbigniew Brzezinski</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="color: #660000;"></span><span style="color: #660000; font-weight: bold;">Listed as “Former Members of the Honorary Counsel of Advisers,”</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">Dick Cheney</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #660000;">Richard Armatige</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="color: #660000;"><br /></span><span style="color: #660000;"></span></div>
And who do we find right up there at the top of the list of members of the board of directors? Yes. Farhad Azima. Also listed is GOP presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback. And there too is one of the chief Neo-Con Iraq War architects, Richard Perle. <a href="http://www.usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2"><img align="top" alt="" hspace="2" src="file:///Users/stephenpizzo/Documents/go.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 17px; width: 40px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Some company for a guy suddenly cozying up to Bill and Hillary Clinton, wouldn't you say? Could Farhad Azima be positioning himself to be the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalabi"> Ahmed Chalabi</a> of a new Clinton administration? Or is that giving the guy more credit than he deserves? I sure don't know. But Hillary did vote to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards "terrorists," as the White House wanted. And she did so despite the political damage she still suffers for her vote four years ago that gave Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq. Interesting. Just a coincidence. Another one.<br />
<br />
What's it all mean? That's the question working reporters should be asking, not this retired one.<br />
<br />
So, why aren't they? Inquiring minds want to know; would a "President Hillary Clinton" be the agent of change the nation seems to be yearning for? Or would she just be more of the same in skirt?<br />
<br />
Iranian expatriate, Farhad Azima, at least, seems to be betting it's the latter.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #660000;"><br /></span>RELATED UPDATE:<br />
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=240313">http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=240313</a></div>
</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-49246303118561665232015-03-24T07:43:00.001-07:002015-03-24T07:43:14.826-07:00The Most Dangerous Election Ever?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I am worried about the 2016 general
election...very worried. And I think all progressives should be as
well. I fear all the elements are there to make this coming election
turn out, not just badly for the country, but for the entire world.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Let me explain.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Right now there are really only two
“main” candidates, one from each party; Hillary Clinton and Jeb
Bush.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Both Jeb and Hillary are backed by
their respective party's insiders. And with good reason. Both would
basically maintain the status quo; at least for the Wall
Street/Lobbyists/Military Industrial Complex constituencies. Those
big money contributors are fine with all this democracy stuff, so
long as it does not get in their way. And Hillary and Jeb would
insure that it would be business as usual for them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Oh I know what the Hillary Moonies out
there are saying right now;<i> “But Steve, Jeb Bush would be so much
worse than Hillary. By not supporting her you are risking putting
another Bush in the White House.”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yeah, heard that. But I've never been
much of a fan of the “lesser of evils” voting theory. We've been
playing that game for a long time now and, surprise, surprise, mostly
we keep getting evils. Also, the vote is supposed to be a near-sacred
exercise in the democratic process. So I would like to vote for a
candidate that does not make me feel like I have to take a shower
after I caste my ballot.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And it's not just me feeling that way.
Nor is it just progressives either. Neither Hillary nor Jeb is wildly
popular with the growing number of folks who now call themselves
“independents,” or “undecided.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And that's what makes this coming
election so dangerous. It's the kind of social/political/ideological
stew brewing out there that can make for unhappy surprises. When a
large portion of the electorate “throws the bums out,” they more
often than not end up electing even bigger and badder bums.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, if you are looking for a baker's
dozen of just such bums, look no further than the GOP's backbenchers
angling for their moment in the national spotlight. ch on the GOP
side angling for the top job.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and
Rand Paul are a few. Oh, and remember Rick Perry? He has new
eyeglasses so he looks smarter -- though in fact he's as dumb as
ever.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So let's look ahead. What happens if
Hillary Clinton runs virtually unopposed and wins the Democratic
Party pole position. And, for now anyway, she is running unopposed.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Then there's Jeb. Unlike Hillary he's
not going to run such an easy primary. In fact since he announced his
“exploratory committee” the reception among the GOP base has been
something less than resounding. It would that even the GOP base has
Bush Fatigue.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After a couple of decades of pandering
to their social/religious wing-nut base, the GOP has all but lost
control of its own party, and maybe its own destiny as well. Which
could mean that Jeb bombs in the primaries. Instead one of the party
nuts could be hoisted to the party's nomination on the shoulders of
their now uncontrollable Tea Party-type delegates.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Again I hear the Hillary folks in my
head: <i>“Well that would be great, Steveo. It would mean an even
easier win for Hillary in the general election.”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Maybe. But, if I've learned anything
about Hillary Clinton over the years it's that, the more you see and
hear of her, the less and less you like her. If Bush Fatigue is real,
so too is Clinton Fatigue. Though it may lay further beneath the
surface, there will be nothing more likely to dig it up than more
Hillary.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Simply put, Hillary grates. She is
un-genuine in the extreme. She is the most transparent political
panderer ever. Her private and public lives are rife with
contradictions. For example she plans to make income inequality a
centerpiece of her campaign. Really? Is this the same person who
takes $300,000 speaking fees from already hard-pressed universities,
demands the most expensive private jets and the presidential suites
whenever she travels and then, with a straight face, denounces
“income inequality.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
All that, and much more, is sure to
catch up with her as soon as she hits the stump this Spring. By the
time the general election rolls around Hillary Clinton's persona will
look like a Pit Bull's chew toy.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Will all that wear down Hillary's
progressive base? I feel it already. Many others do too. So it will
take it's toll, for sure. And that would be especially so among young
voters, who are far less likely to buy the “lesser of two evils'
rationalization.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which could mean that, if indeed the
GOP nominates one of those true-blue, Yosemite Sam, crazy-as-
a-woodtick ultra-conservatives, an reenergize far-right just might be
enough to swing the race.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Meaning that the following Wednesday
morning we could wake up to learn Ted Cruz, or Rick Perry of Rand
Paul is going to be our next Command-in-Chief.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Stranger things have happen. But never
anything so dangerous to America and the world.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And if it does happen here, it would be
in step with the disturbing rightward trend we are seeing in several
western European nations and the near-fascist trend in several
eastern European and former Soviet territories. Troubled times are
fertile soil for reactionary, regressive forces.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There are ways to avoid such a fate
here at home. It's not complicated; more challengers and better
challengers – in BOTH parties. At this point the GOP is offering
plenty of challengers but to say the quality is lacking would be a
gross understatement. Meanwhile the DNC has apparently decided it
agrees with the way China wants to run elections in Hong Kong –
with an old horse DNC apparatchik.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Oh my....</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hC-HZNCtEws/VRF36pdPEeI/AAAAAAAAAuM/GkxOLQbsLg0/s1600/10987385_10206204600895280_7234646949194522703_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hC-HZNCtEws/VRF36pdPEeI/AAAAAAAAAuM/GkxOLQbsLg0/s1600/10987385_10206204600895280_7234646949194522703_n.jpg" height="319" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-70015436304816401282015-03-20T15:51:00.000-07:002015-03-20T15:51:06.915-07:00What To Do About Israel<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
March 18, 2015</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Tipping points happen. And one just did. With Benjamin Netanyahu's victory the world comes face to face with a fork in the geo-political road. </div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
One path would keep in place a world-view that Israel is a special case, one that requires a world with a history of wronging Jews, a world that allowed even in the 20th century, an attempt at wholesale extermination, and a world still plagued with anti-Semitism.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
That's the easiest path, one that allows non-Jews of good faith to both salve their own feelings of guilt and sympathy, but also to avoid responsibility for what's happening to the other indigenous populations in the region.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Increasingly though, and particularly after the recent openly racist Israeli election, that path has lost much of its appeal and, I suspect, many are looking down that other path wondering if its time....</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The problem of course is that other path is a real bugger. It means breaking up with a longterm relationship which, though often troubled, has become part of who we are. A relationship that began with us seeing ourselves as sweeping a damsel in distress into our arms and carrying her to safety, but which has now turned into something that looks and feels more like a Fatal Attraction.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Nevertheless I believe it's time to embark on that path. What does that mean in practical terms?</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
We no longer reflexively use our veto at the UN to block reasonable measures that Israel opposes. Instead we either abstain or, if we really like the idea (gasp) vote for it.<br />Tell Israel that from this day forward we will withhold $5 million dollars for every illegal settlement unit built or otherwise supported by Israel.<br />Begin providing direct financial aid to the Palestinian authority with close US oversight.<br />The US should join the handful of other countries that have formally recognized the Palestinian state, including the establishment of a US consulate on the West Bank.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
In other words, balance what has been a grotesquely loopsided relationship between the US, Israel and the Palestinians. </div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
What about the dozens of illegal settlements Israel has set up deep inside the West Bank in order to make Palestinian state impossible? Two things can, and should happen in that regard:</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The US should begin a process at the UN that would lead to a timeline and deadline for the removal of those settlers.<br />The PA should organize every local Palestinian community with a nearby Israeli settlement into dozens of nonviolent sieges, surround the settlements 7/24, block roads, make life difficult and, more importantly, raise the costs to Israel of defending those settlements. This will also keep the world's attention focused on the settlement issue and the Palestinians right to their own state, just like Israel. </div>
<div style="color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; margin-top: 6px;">
So, here we are folks, standing at that fork in the road. If we do nothing but what we've been doing we are going to get nothing but what we've got, only more of it. Time to yank the leash of Israel's neo-fasccst right... and right now.</div>
Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-48301332849534156122010-03-11T10:54:00.000-08:002010-03-11T10:54:27.221-08:00Hey You! Yeah, I'm Talkin' to YOU.<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Excuse me, but can I have a word with the <span style="font-weight: bold;">70%</span> of Americans who continuing keeping their money in big banks, like Bank of America, CitiBank, Wells Fargo and such? Come closer. A little closer. I want to be able to give you a well-earned dope-slap while I ask;<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Bank Gothic; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><big><span style="font-weight: bold;"><big>WHAT' THE HELL's THE MATTER WITH YOU? </big><br />
</span></big></div><div style="font-family: Bank Gothic; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">ARE YOU STUPID!?</span> </big></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jesus H. Christ, what's it going to take before you people stop doing business with the enemy? You're like abused spouses who are slapped around and slapped around again and again by your big bank and keep crawling back for more. If this behavior didn't hurt the rest of us I'd be delighted to just let you get the shit beat out of you until your big bank bleeds you white. That would be Darwinism at it's most effective.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But, thanks to the fact tha<span style="font-weight: bold;">t 90% </span>of America's household savings are deposited in these big banks means that your self-destructive banking habits are fueling the very financial services juggernauts that have repeatedly devastating the lives, homes, families and savings of average working Americans. And not just once, but time and time and time again. <br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Are you listening goddamnit!</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And why do you do it?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"> <span style="font-style: italic;">“Ah, well... because...... well, you know... ah, there's a Wells Fargo Branch on Main Street... and... well, it would be such a hassle moving my account to our hometown community bank. You know, new checks and credit cards and such. I don't like my bank at all, but it's just easier to leave it with Wells.”</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Is that how you make all your financial decisions? I hope not. I assume when you're about to make a big ticket purchase, like furniture or a new car, you shop around for the best price and quality and service? But when it comes to where you bank all you care about is that the big bank is a quarter mile closer to your home or office or that you parents banked there or that they give you a (usurious interest) credit card?<span style="font-style: italic;"> That's it?</span> That's the reason you bank with Tumor Bank of America? <br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Sucker. No wonder nearly 70% of Americans nearing retirement age have less than $55,000 in savings to retire on.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">My god people. Putting your hard-earned money with a big bank is like Mr. & Mrs. Chicken entrusting their chicks to Col. Sanders Prep School.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As it becomes increasingly clear that Congress is not about to pass anything that even resembles comprehensive financial reform, big banks, freshly rejuvenated by $700 billion pints of taxpayer plasma, are positioning themselves for the next round of looting and pillaging. And why not. They made hundreds of billions of dollars off the last round and all they had to endure was a tongue lashing from members of Congress -- after which they savved their wounds with hundreds of million of dollars in "performance bonuses.”<br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www3.ambest.com/DisplayBinary/DisplayBinary.aspx?TY=P&record_code=167306&URatingId=240312"><img align="right" alt="graph" hspace="9" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/graph.jpg" style="border: 0px solid; height: 329px; width: 329px;" /></a>So, you ask, what's the alternative? And what will it cost you to switch? </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Well, you drive and walk by that solution every day... your local community bank or your local credit union. And it's not going to "cost" you anything. In fact you're likely to come out ahead. Not only do small banks provide <span style="text-decoration: underline;">exactly </span>the same services as the big banks, but they do so at a lower cost, pay higher returns to depositors and --- are you sitting down?-- they are still making loans to local homebuyers and local small businesses -- even as the big guys you just saved claim they just can't do either right now.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Proof? You want proof? <span style="font-style: italic;">(Can you handle the proof?)</span> If so the Internet is lousy with proof that small banks beat large banks on virtually every single measure. Just do a Google search under <span style="font-style: italic;">"Big banks vs. Small Banks,"</span> and you'll have a month's worth of reading on your hands.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> AM BESTS</span> business analysts compared the two and take a look for yourself:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: #1a1818;"><span style="font-family: Times-Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Community Bank Advantages Challenge Historical Assumptions</span></span></span><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;">A bank’s size alone can have less to do with its performance, safety and soundness than would be expected, based on A.M. Best’s analysis of data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other, qualitative factors. Various operating models carry key advantages and disadvantages, as Best delineated by a threshold of $5 billion in assets between small and large banks.</div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;">• Despite common industry perceptions that large commercial banks have greater safety and earnings power than community banks, a bank’s assets don’t necessarily equate to economies of scale, diversification of risk and market power.</div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;">• Small community banks generally have smaller scale and less diversification, but their local owner-managers provide stabil- ity, and they draw strength from focusing on their local commu- nities and limiting risk.</div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;">• Larger institutions historically have tended to take on more leverage and complex risk exposures, and they also may forego diversification to assume concentrated risk in certain regions or in certain products, such as subprime mortgages.</div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;">• Relative risk aside, community banks are better capitalized according to certain regulatory capital ratios, including the Tier 1 risk based capital and tangible common equity.</div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;">• Community banks are less susceptible to downswings in bank- ing cycles, as shown by more gradual declines in median return on assets and return on equity compared with larger banks.. <a href="http://www3.ambest.com/DisplayBinary/DisplayBinary.aspx?TY=P&record_code=167306&URatingId=240312" style="font-weight: normal;">(Full report with graphs)</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 80px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Why is this not more widely understood? Well, ask the New York Times or most other large media outlets. They are always way behind the curve when it comes to reporting emerging financial news. Mostly they come along after each crash to explain to us everything they failed to warn of when it would have done some good. But if you look hard enough you can find some stories that support the Best study:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style> </div><div style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><big>As big banks falter, community banks do fine</big></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Christian Science Monitor </span>--Unlike banks on Wall Street, these smaller banks didn’t invest in risky mortgage-backed securities or complex derivatives....While they account for less than 10 percent of America’s total banking assets, their traditional, values-based approach contains plenty of lessons for their larger Wall Street counterparts, some analysts say.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"> <style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;">But there’s another component as well, says William Attridge, president of the Wethersfield, Conn.-based bank: Most community bankers know their customers. “We’re lending to small businesses, and in small businesses the individual is a significant part of that,” he says. “There’s a character component: That means we might make loans that possibly someone else wouldn’t if they just looked at the financials, because we know the individual well and what their resources and talents are. On the other hand, there are probably some [loans] that look good on paper that we wouldn’t make.”</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;">During the Great Depression, there were more than 30,000 banks in the US, and most of them were small. The majority of banks that failed were small, while the few bigger banks that existed weathered the economic turmoil better. Today, the flip side is happening. Four large banks were responsible for half of the $26 billion in losses reported by the banking industry during the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0308/as-big-banks-falter-community-banks-do-fine"> (Full Story)</a><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 40px;"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
Okay, that's enough from me. Get your damn money out of those cancerous leviathan banks and into a local bank or credit union. (If you choose a credit union, by the way, your new credit card will be limited by law to 18% interest. ) And you're tired of those BofA checks anyway. Here's a chance to get a new look to your checks.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Oh, and by doing this, you'll be doing your part in returning banking to its roots, keeping local savings working locally, rather than fueling multi-million dollar bonuses and fueling the next financial bullshit-bubble.</div>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-37555746384110712272008-03-27T08:47:00.001-07:002008-03-27T08:47:46.492-07:00March 13-26, 2008<big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>Hillary's<br />Dick Cheney Strategy</big></big><br /> <br />After being pounded by the Obama folks for months to open her records as First Lady being held under seal at the Clinton Library, Hillary dumped 11,000 pages on us yesterday. That's out of an estimated two million pages that remain under seal.<br /> <br />The records released yesterday were of her personal schedules. Schedules would, one would assume, show with whom she met, for how long they met, why and where they met. One would assume.<br /> <br />Hillary likes to point out that, seven years after Dick Cheney met with oil company executives to develop America's energy policies, we still don't know the names of those who gave us $4 a gallon gasoline and record oil company profits.<br /> <br />Then yesterday Hillary tore a page right out of Cheney's hide-the-pickle playbook.<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"Over time, Clinton's schedules offer less and less information. In 1993, her first year as first lady, the records include the names of people she met with. But federal archivists blotted out those names, citing privacy issues. In spring 1994, Clinton's schedulers appear to have stopped including names -- so her days are filled with one "private meeting" after another, with no mention of whom she met with or why.<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton20mar20,1,7354005.story">" (LA Times)</a></span><br /> </div> <br />For example, on Jan. 28, 1994, the names of the participants in a 10 a.m. meeting with her at Bally's Resort & Casino in Las Vegas had been erased. Why? Inquiring minds would like to know why the names of<img style="width: 238px; height: 215px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/NormanHsuHillary.jpg" align="right" /> individuals who met with the First Lady of the United States of America, had to be obliterated from a public record.<br /> <br />Simple logic, and my decades as a reporter, tell me that the answers to that question fall into a very narrow range of possibilities:<br /> <br /><ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li>- She was up to no good</li><li>- The individuals she met with were up to no good</li><li>- The individuals she met with were, themselves, no good</li><li>- All the above</li></ul> But wait, there's more:<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"Sometimes, even the names of people getting their pictures taken with Clinton were removed. So it is not known who had a photo op with her at 2:45 p.m. on March 10, 1994, in the White House Map Room."</span><br /> </div> <br />Some folks wanted to have a photo taken with the First Lady of the United States of America, for reasons of their own.<br /> <br />But the former First Lady of the United States of America apparently does not want us to know who those persons were. Why?<br /> <br />Again the possibilities are limited:<br /> <ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li>- The person she was photographed with is now in trouble with the law</li><li>- A more recent photo of the person she was photographed with can now be viewed on the FBI "Most Wanted" web site.</li><li>- The person she was photographed would cause embarrassment for her as a candidate for President of the United States.</li></ul> Am I being too cynical?<br /> <br />Fine. Then you give me the innocent explanation, because I sure the hell can't think of one.<br /> <br />Then there are all the entries in her schedule that give us no information whatsoever, with entries like these:<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">In later years, the records are even more spare. On June 25, 1997, for example, Clinton is shown as having taken part in three successive meetings in the White House residence, stretching from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. They are labeled simply <span style="font-weight: bold;">"private meeting."</span></span><br /> </div> <br />And<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">On Feb. 12, 1999 -- the day the Senate voted down her husband's impeachment -- she blocked off an unusually long appointment on her daily schedule from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. under the entry: <span style="font-weight: bold;">"PRIVATE MEETING/Residence/NO PRESS/NO WH PHOTO.</span></span><br /> </div> <br />Now, I can imagine situations where it would be none of our damn business what she was doing or with whom the First Lady of the United States of America was meeting with or why.<br /><ul style="font-weight: bold;"><li>- She was meeting with her private physician to discuss her own personal health</li><li>- Her plastic surgeon had dropped by to give her botox injections to remove the worry lines caused by her husband's misbehavior(s).</li><li>- She was having an emergency session with her shrink-- for the same reason.</li></ul> Those are the kinds of really private, entirely personal, stuff. <br /> <br />Even First Lady's have a personal life that, from time to time, require private moments.<br /> <br />For example, on July 20, 1993, Hillary Clinton was staying at her mother's house in Little Rock when she got word that friend and aide Vince Foster had committed suicide. Her schedule for the next two days is virtually empty even though they were among the most frenetic and emotionally fraught of her White House time.<br /> <br />I understand. I not only understand. but I'm sympathetic. One of her closest friends had just committed suicide. Hillary was in mourning. That's the kind of stuff really is none of our damn business.<br /> <br />But Hillary was First Lady of the United States of America. She was living on the public dole, doing the public's business. Ninety nine percent of what a President and First Lady do while in office <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is </span>the public's business -- because <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">it is public business.</span><br /> <br />All those "redactions" in her public schedule bode ill for our democracy should she become our next President. She will not only bring those habits to her new job, but many of the very people who implemented them during her terms as First Lady:<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"The schedules also show the depth of Clinton's attachment to a small cadre of "Hillaryland" aides who have followed her on to the campaign. In the 1990s, most White House days began with a 15-minute meeting that included Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's first presidential campaign manager, and Maggie Williams, who replaced Solis Doyle at the helm earlier this year. <span style="font-weight: bold;">(Newsday)</span></span><br /> </div> <br />Back in my day it was the press' job was to assure that the public's business remained public. I hope the media will insist that Hillary either fill in the blanks in the records she released yesterday, or supply explanations for why each of those erased names, reasons and photos should remain secret.<br /> <br />Otherwise all we will be doing next November if Hillary is the Democratic choice, is trading Cheney/Bush secrecy for Hillary secrecy.<br /> <br />What a choice.<br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 410px; height: 321px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/norm.jpg" /><br /> </div> <big style="font-weight: bold;"><big><br /> </big></big> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>History;<br />What a Bitch<br /> </big></big> <div style="text-align: left;"><br />In 1932, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=3djEYV3R7oIC&pg=PA338&lpg=PA338&dq=edward+angley&source=web&ots=rFpl7TXL49&sig=q_PnhLOTqo7vFsodFmk0FrrX3EM&hl=en">Edward Angly</a> published a short book filled with optimistic forecasts about the economy offered by President Herbert Hoover and his associates. The sarcastic title of his book was,<span style="font-style: italic;"> "Oh Yeah?."<br /> <br /> </span>I've found myself echoing that title almost every day of late as I listen to President Bush and his associates try to reassure us that things are not as bad as they seem.<span style="font-style: italic;"> Oh Yeah?</span><br /> <br />Anyway, as you may know by now I am a real history whore. Maybe that's why, as I enter the final third of my life, I fell like I'm living a social/economic and political version of the movie, Ground Hog Day. Wave after wave of Deja vu sweep over my conscious hours. Wars, greed, famine, self-indulgent political leaders, economic disparity and "trouble in the financial markets."<br /> <br />Been there. Done that, and done that, and done that, and done that. It's as though society is little more than an software program stuck in a loop, and no one around to hit the "ESC" key.<br /> <br />Ah, but there I go, diverging again. My purpose this morning was actually to just dip back into that loop and copy and paste a few lines of code from the past and compare them with the code that's running today to test my theory.<br /> <br />So, thanks to Edward Angly we can compare President Hoover's take on things then to President Bush's take on things now. (You won't be surprised, but you may be amused... and then worried.)<br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /> <hr style="width: 50%; height: 4px;"><br />"Unemployment in the sense of distress is widely disappearing. . . . We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land...There is no guarantee against poverty equal to a job for every man. That is the primary purpose of the economic policies we advocate:<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">August 11, 1928</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">—Herbert Hoover, speech accepting the Republican nomination, Palo Alto,California.</span><br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"Losing a job is painful, and I know Americans are concerned about our economy; so am I. It's clear our economy has slowed, but the good news is, we anticipated this and took decisive action to bolster the economy, by passing a growth package that will put money into the hands of American workers and businesses." </span><br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">(President Bush, March 7, 2008 on news that the economy lost 63,000 payroll jobs in February.)</span><br /> </div> <br /> “Prosperity is no idle expression. It is a job for every worker; it is the safety and safeguard of very business and every home. A continuation of the policies of the Republican party is fundamentally necessary to the future advancement of this progress and to the further building up of this prosperity.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">October 22, 1928—Herbert Hoover, Campaign Address, Madison Square Garden</span><br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"The economic team reports that our economy has a solid foundation, but that there are areas of real concern. Our economy is still creating jobs, though at a reduced pace. Consumer spending is still growing, but the housing market is declining. Business investment and exports are still rising, but the cost of imported oil has increased." </span><br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Jan. 18, urging Congress to quickly pass an economic-stimulus plan.</span><br /> </div> </div> <big style="font-weight: bold;"><big><br /> </big></big> <div style="text-align: left;"><br />“The outlook of the world today is for the greatest era of commercial expansion in history. The rest of the world will become better customers.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">July 27, 1928—Herbert Hoover, Speech at San Francisco</span><br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow, but in the short run, it is clear that growth has slowed....This economy of ours is on a solid foundation, but we can't take economic growth for granted." </span><br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Jan. 4 after meeting with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.</span><br /> </div> </div> <div style="text-align: left;"><br /> <br />“Any lack of confidence in the economic future or the basic strength of business in the United States is foolish.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">November, 1929—Herbert Hoover</span><br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"'Every time, this economy has bounced back better and stronger than before,. In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow."<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">March 14, 2008 -- President Bush.</span><br /> </div> <br /> <br />“Definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner from the he temporary period of emergency that followed deflation of the speculative market were seen today by President Hoover. The President said the reports to the Cabinet showed that the tide of employment had changed in the right direction.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">January 21, 1930—News dispatch from Washington<br /> <br /> </span> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"I hope you're confident about our economy. I am. We've got some short-term issues to deal with. Fourth quarter growth slowed. In other words, there are signs that our economy are slowing. We're in challenging times. But another thing is for certain — that we've taken strong and decisive action."<br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"> Jan. 30 at the Robinson Helicopter Co. in Torrance, Calif.<br /><br /></span></div> <br />“While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There is one certainty of the future of a people of the resources, intelligence and character of the people of the United States—that is, prosperity.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">May 1, 1930—Herbert Hoover, Address at annual dinner of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States</span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /> <br /> </span> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">In the long run, Americans ought to have confidence in our economy. I mean, there are some anchors that promote long-term -- that should promote long-term confidence.<br />First of all, the unemployment rate is relatively low. We're an innovative society with a flexible economy. There's a lot of research and development being spent here in America. There are new technologies being developed. Productivity is on the rise. We have a strong agricultural sector. The small-business sector is vibrant.<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">President Bush -- Florida March 17</span><br /> </div> <br /> <br />“During the past year you have carried the credit system of the nation safely through a most difficult crisis. In this success you have demonstrated not alone the soundness of the credit system, but also the capacity of the bankers in emergency.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">October 2, 1930—Herbert Hoover, Address before the annual convention of The American Bankers Association, Cleveland</span><br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"I understand there's short-term difficulty in the credit markets," Bush said. "But I want people to understand that in the long term, we're going to be just fine."</span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">President Bush -- March 17, 2008 -- Florida</span><br /> </div> <br /> <br />“Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">December 1930—Herbert Hoover, Message to Congress</span><br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"If we were to pursue some of the sweeping government solutions that we hear about in Washington, we would make a complicated problem even worse. "As we take decisive action, we will keep this in mind: When you are steering a car in a rough patch, one of the worst things you can do is overcorrect and end up in the ditch."<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">President Bush -- March 14, 2008</span><br /> </div> <br />“On September 8, I requested the governors of the Federal Reserve banks to endeavor to secure the co-operation of the bankers of their territory to make some advances on the security of the assets of closed banks or to take over some of these assets... Such a measure will contribute to free many business activities and in a measure reverse the process of deflation involved in the tying up of deposits.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">October 1931—Herbert Hoover</span><br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"The United States is on top of the situation. We obviously will continue to monitor the situation and when need be, will act decisively, in a way that continues to bring order to the financial markets.</span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Prisdent Bush -- March 17, 2008</span><br /> </div> <br /> <br />“The depression has been deepened by events from abroad which are beyond the control either of our citizens or our government.”<br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">October 18, 1931—Herbert Hoover, Radio address at Fortress Monroe, Virginia<br /> <br /> </span> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"Over the past seven years, this system has absorbed shocks — recession, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, global war. Yet the genius of our system is that it can absorb such shocks and emerge even stronger." <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">President Bush -- Feb. 13, 2008 in signing an economic stimulus package of tax rebates for families and businesses.</span></span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></div> <br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: center;"><img style="border: 2px solid ; width: 630px; height: 388px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/cartoon2.jpg" /><br /> </div> <br /> <br /> </div> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>The Politics of Complexity<br /> </big></big> <div style="text-align: left;"><br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;">I just finished listening to Barack Obama's speech.<br /> <br />It boils down to this: <span style="font-weight: bold;">The politics of simplicity vs. The politics of complexity.</span><br /> <br />Traditional politicians, on <span style="text-decoration: underline;">both</span> the right and left, prefer the politics of simplicity: The simplicity of racial stereotypes. The simplicity of religious stereotypes. The simplicity of economic choices -- free enterprise or socialism. The simplicity of social class.<br /> <br />Obama knows better. When it comes to human beings, and the social systems we create, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">nothing</span> is simple. The complexities are deep and they are wide. They are also stunning in richness and variety.<br /> <br />The American black experience is as rich and deep, fruitful and tragic, as any of those who came, willingly or otherwise, to this country.<br /> <br />The white experience too is filled with its own complexities, fruitful and tragic.<br /> <br />For two centuries now, we've stumbled along parallel paths, the same in many ways, different in significant ways. Thanks to the efforts of some who went before us, men and women who understood this complex relationship, those two paths have begun to merge...not yet one, but closer. The politics of simplicity wants that never to happen. Because the day it does the politics of simplity loses a powerful wedge of division and distraction.<br /> <br />The traditional politics of the right would have us believe white America is somehow burdened, even threatened, by changing ethnic and cultural demographic trends.<br /> <br />Traditional political hacks on the left would have us believe that the root of all that ails us can be found in corporate board rooms.<br /> <br />Both views are simplistic to the extreme, simple to use in speeches. and simple ways to get media attention. They are simple ways to cast doubt. Simple ways to divide rather than unite. Soundbite politics is the politics of simplicity.<br /> <br />But there's nothing simple about Iraq, or the deteriorating environment, or the now internationlized nature of the economy, or what currently ales it. Each of those issues is made up of billions of moving parts. The complexity of any one part of any one of those issues is mind-numblingly complex. And only those willing and able to see, accept, process and deal with such complexity can address them.<img style="width: 273px; height: 347px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/cartoon.jpg" align="right" hspace="8" vspace="8" /><br /> <br />But simplicity works better than complexity for politicians. Forget all that complexity they say. Make your choice based on the simple problems and all that so-called complexity will take care of itself.<br /> <br />Politicians of simplity want us to focus on the simple-minded things:<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin and doesn't put his hand over his heart when the national anthem is played."</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Focus instead on the simplistic remarks by his former pastor, Rev. Wright. </span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Focus instead on a candidates religion... is he Christian or maybe a closet Muslim?</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Focus instead on whether a candidate is black, or white, "enough."</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Focus instead on whether a candidate is for or against certain medical procedures, rather than whether all Americans can even afford any significant medical procedures.</span><br /> </div> <br />Obama was right when he said, in his speech today, that this is rare opportunity to turn our backs on the politics of simplicity and embrace the politics of complexity. Because we will never solve the complex problems facing America and the world with the simpleminded politics of the past..and present.<br /> <br />The only question now, is are we, all of us, mature enough to eschew the politics of simplicity and embrace the far more difficult, but certainly more productive, politics of complexity?<br /> <br />It's up to us now. It's up to you.<br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: right;">*(If you missed the speech you can watch it<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23687688"> here)</a><br /> </div><br /> </div> </div> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>The Good<br />v.<br />The Bad & The Ugly</big></big><br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;">What are you going to do if Hillary Clinton succeeds bagging the Democratic Party nomination for President by playing dirty.<br /> <br />I've begun thinking about that more and more over the last couple of weeks. The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that, if they can't win pretty, they'll settle for winning ugly.<br /> <br />Which is why things have gotten so ugly lately. Once it became clear she could not beat Obama in a fair fight they switched tactics. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> IED's</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions)</span> are now the weapons of choice for the Clinton campaign. Hardly a day goes by now when one of these IEDs doesn't explode into the news.<br /> <br />"Is Obama a Muslim." Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. "No. Not as far as I know," she replied.<br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">BOOM!</span></big><img style="width: 250px; height: 250px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/mccain_clinton.jpg" align="right" hspace="8" vspace="8" /><br /> <br />"Obama is not ready to become Commander-in-Chief," Hillary warns then coyly adds, if voters on the fence pick her, she'd consider putting Obama a heartbeat away from becoming Commander-in-Chief.<br /> <big><br /> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">BOOM!</span></big><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><br /> <br />"I have crossed the threshold and met the national security test to be Commander-in-Chief," Hillary says. "John McCain has also met that test. Obama gave a speech."<br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">BOOM!</span><br /> </big> <br />"The reason Obama has gotten where he is today is because he's black," pronounced Clinton supporter and finance committee big shot, Geraldine Ferraro.<br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">BOOM!</span></big><br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">BTW -- that was not the first time Ferraro set off a racial IED in the midst of a presidential primary. </span><br /> <br /> <big style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">A Ferraro flashback</span></big><br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Really. The cite is an<span style="font-weight: bold;"> April 15, 1988 </span>Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's. Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history." <a href="http://www.newsforreal.com/www.politico.com">(Politico.com)</a></span><br /> </div> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /> </span></span>A few weeks back Bill Clinton detonated an<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/hillary-clint-7.html"> almost identical Jesse Jackson IED</a>. Coincidence? No way...<br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">BOOM!</span></big><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />Can you imagine! </span>I never thought I'd see a leading Democrat dip back to the tactics of the dark days when racist Democrats ruled the segregated South, playing the fears of whites against the hopes of blacks. Disgusting.<br /> <br />But insurgencies are, by necessity, ugly business. Inevitably there will be collateral damage. Innocents will be hurt. The means are ugly, but the ends will make amends --we are assured. Once they win, the insurgents promise, they will get rid of the bad and the ugly and herald in the good.<br /> <br />Hillary holds up her role as First Lady as the reason she's "ready to lead from day one," and there may be some truth in that. Among the things she learned during those days was how run parallel political and insurgent actions. She learned this when husband Bill helped negotiate a settlement in Northern Ireland. While the<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2435/"> Irish Republican Army </a>conducted the ugly part of their insurgency the leader of its political arm, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in">Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams,</a> stayed above it all making nice in Parliament. When his IRA fighters blew something, (or someone) up, Adams would bemoan the violence, even condemn it. Then he'd offer his political solutions/demands.<br /> <br />Likewise, each time one of her campaigner sets off an IED aimed at Obama, Hillary denies her campaign is behind it. If the uproar is loud enough, she even condemns it. Then she makes nice, assuring everyone that all she really wants is peace and reconciliation -- on her terms, of course.<br /> <br />Will she stop these IED attacks? Well,<span style="font-style: italic;"> (have you ever noticed when on the spot Hillary always begins her response with "well.")</span> Well, she'd just love to stop that kind of stuff, but -- she quickly adds -- she can't because, "you know, it's a free country and people have a right to say what ever they want." <br /> <br />But does she agree with the things people speaking on her behalf are saying? Well, of course not. "Well, I certainly don't agree with everything people who say the support me say," she demurely adds.<br /> <br />In other words, stop the IEDs -- "no way, Jose." Because this is all she's got left. Obama has already won the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic voters. If she stops the IEDs now Obama would have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. She's can no longer count on just slowing him down, she's got to stop him. She needs to wound him so badly he can no longer win.<br /> <br />There's two ways to get this nomination: win it fair and square, or finagle it. Since she can no longer win, she's now onto finagling. Which means encouraging her surrogates to keep planting IEDs while she works the political angles -- Super-delegates, seating Michigan and Florida delegates, etc.<br /> <br />Meanwhile out on the field of battle her surrogates have turned to the nuclear option -- or as her own spokesmanr and snake turned snake charmer, Howard Wolfson describe it, "the kitchen sink strategy."<br /> <br />Call it what you like, boiled down to its essence it can be summed up as, "an IED a day keeps the nomination away" -- from Obama.<img style="width: 271px; height: 246px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/Hil+Neg-1.jpg" align="right" hspace="9" vspace="9" /><br /> <br />Sure it's dirty fighting. And sure, if successful it will leave the Democratic Party looking like Beirut on a bad day. And sure her victory would only reinforce the very kind of politics that have torn the nation apart since Newt Gingrich and his kind marched to power. And sure an ugly Clinton victory risks outraging Obama supporters to such an extent many will not even show up to vote in November, virtually guaranteeing another four years of GOP rule.<br /> <br />But those probabilities appear not to matter to Hillary Clinton. If she can't have the prize she'll make sure her opponent inherits a scorched political landscape; a party in disarray. a fractured party embroiled in a very un-civil war. It could even mean the end of the Democratic Party as a force in progressive politics -- not that the party has been much of a force in that direction anyway. But at least it would end the pretense.<br /> <br />Then there's African American voters who will feel betrayed, snookered and humiliated by the party they've supported through thick and thin for decades. And all those young Democrats, new to the process, who will retreat into cynical complacency. And why not? Why participate in a process where the best values and behavior are routinely trumped by the worst values and behavior?<br /> <br />So, have you been thinking about it too? About what you're going to do on election day next November if your choice is between the Republican version of Mr. Magoo and the Democrat's version of Imelda Marcos?<br /> <br />Whatya gonna do? Now would be a good time to think about it, so maybe, just maybe we can avoid such an unpalatable, unhelpful, unacceptable choice.Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-37501240666913709432008-03-13T13:04:00.000-07:002008-03-13T13:05:18.264-07:00March 1-12, 2008<big><big>Hillary W. Clinton<br /> v.<br />John W. McCain</big></big><br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;">Two of the pillars of our American democracy stand upon are the premise that ordinary folk -- in their role on juries and as voters -- are inherently imbued with a kind of celestial judgement claimed by only one other human on earth, the Pope. As the myth goes, once they hear all the evidence and arguments, juries and voters make the right judgement.<br /> <br />Well, I have at least two contempory examples why that's untrue: O.J. Simpson, and two George W. Bush terms in office. There are others -- lots of them -- but, nuf said. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. Regardless the decisions stand and the consequences pile up, be they good or ill.<br /> <br />My apologies for just blurting out this revelation, as it will certainly come as news to most middle school civics classes. Sorry boys and girls, but ordinary Americans can be just as stupid when assembled into groups as they can be when left to their own devices-- often even more so. And sprinkling them with feel-good "justice-is-blind" and "the-people's-choice" fairy dust can't turn their occassional pig's-ear decisions into silk purses.<br /> <br />I only mention this because we are again in the midst of one of these exercises in mass decision making. Don't get me wrong, I prefer democracy over any other form of governance I've studied. My only point is that it's far from infallible -- which I admit, is the biggest <span style="font-style: italic;">"duh</span>" you'll hear today.<br /> <br />Already this process is showing signs of trouble. Our herd of Democratic voters appears to have, again, grazed it's way into a patch of locoweed. Yes, I'm bellyaching about Hillary's alleged "come back," Tuesday night. And about all the nonsense those victories unleashed. And because, against all odds, there's a growing possiblity it can result in sending another Republican to the White House in November. .<br /> <br />Here's why I think the Democratic Party's herd of voters may not be leading us to the White House, but a cliff -- again. Here are my five reasons for believing so:<br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-weight: bold;">1) </span></big>A good place to begin is to examine just who may have engineered Hillary's "comeback" in Texas and Ohio. Ask yourself why you think America's preeminent right-winger would want to help Hillary and hurt Obama.<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(102, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rush Limbaugh takes credit for Hillary's support</span></big><br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">March 5, 2008 - </span>Chicago Tribune: Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh claimed at least partial credit today for Hillary Clinton's victories in Texas and Ohio.<br /> <br />Limbaugh spent much of his show Monday exhorting Republican listeners to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton to prevent Democrats from unifying around Barack Obama as Republicans have done around John McCain....“What we did, if we did anything, is to create a bunch of chaos in the Democrat Party and it worked,” Limbaugh said.<br /> <br />The latest numbers show Clinton won by about 3 percentage points in Texas and 10 points in Ohio. Exit polls of voters in the two states found most Republicans who crossed over and voted in the Democratic primary voted for Obama. <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/826778,limbaugh030508.article">(Full Story)</a><br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />When Rush Limbaugh is your biggest booster, you gotta wonder.<br /> <br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-weight: bold;">2) </span></big>After Hillary's twin victories Tuesday night she floated the possibility of a Hillary/Obama ticket. Of course she'd love that, since it would bring in the young and well-educated voters now supporting Obama.<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-style: italic;">(Polls show that Hillary's support comes largely from the less educated, blue-collar Democratic party demographic. Not that's there's anything wrong with that.. but it should raise at least some question in the minds of voters. Call me an eliltist but, who would you chose to make a life and death decision for you -- well-educated people or not-so well educated people. But I digress)</span><br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />The idea that Obama would serve as Hillary's Veep is beyond ridiculous. In fact, I can't think of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">any</span> serious person who would want the VP post under Hillary. Why? Because they would not BE the Vice President in-fact -- Bill Clinton would be the de-facto VP, huddling nightly in the WH family quarters with the President.<br /> <br />A Vice President Barack Obama would be rendered ridiculous, a figure of ridicule and jokes. I just don't see him, or any other serious person, putting themselves in such an untenable, career killing, humiliating situation. Period. Think about it.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><big>3)</big> </span>A race between Barack Obama and John McCain would be a contest between the politics and policies of the future v, the politics and policies of the past. If you like the war in Iraq, great, McCain will give you more of the same. If you liked tax cuts for the rich, he'll give us more of that too. If you liked seeing wages fall, John W. McCain will accomodate.<br /> <br />If you want something completely different, vote for Obama.<br /> <br />But what if Hillary is the nominee instead? A race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain would be far less of a choice. Sure there would be policy differences, but trying to change policy with the politics of the past will yield more of the same in Congress -- more rancor, game playing, passive-aggressive behavior on steroids -- just same old, same old. <br /> <br />Hillary takes pride in describing herself as "a fighter," and I'll give her that. But fighting is what we've had in Washington since <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich">Newt Gingrich</a> took over as House Minority Whip from Dick Cheney in 1989. Fighting works for Republicans. Republicans like nothing better than to throw some red meat on the floor and create a brawl over it creating a wedge issue they can use agianst Democrats in the next election. It's a classic fascist political tactic -- and it works.<br /> <br />All of which says to me that the last freaking thing we need now is another "fighter" in the damn White House. We need a calm communicator who is not easily lured into a a fight with every knuckle-dragging conservative bully who taunts them.<br /> <br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-weight: bold;">4)</span> </big>Then there's the two spouses. With Barack we get Michelle, an articulate, successful career woman and mother of two little girls who is, by all accounts, an entirely normal, well-adjusted woman.<br /> <br />With Hillary we get Bill, an articulate politician, husband and father who had an affair with a girl roughly the same age as his own daughter - which, while not unheard -- is not "entirely normal" behavior -- especially for a sitting President of the United States of America.<br /> <br />Hillary makes the argument that voters need to choose between her and Barack based on experience and judgement. What kind of "judgement" was afoot in the Oval Office when spouse Bill was having sex in there. What if the White House phone rang back then?<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">"Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I can't come to the phone right now because. .. well, I just can't. Leave a message at the tone. Beeeep."<br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Do Hillary Clinton's supporters really think Bill will exercise better judgement today? If so they must also believe that Britney Spears would make a great ambassador to the Vatican. Come on, Bill is Bill. We love him and we hate him for it... all at the same time. That leopard still has spots.<br /> <br />So, think about it: First Lady Michelle Obama or First Man, William Jefferson Clinton. Your choice.<br /> <br /> <br /> <big><span style="font-weight: bold;">5)</span></big> Early in the campaign Hillary Clinton slapped Barack Obama around for his ties to crooked Chicago businessman, <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/828546,CST-NWS-brown06.article">Tony Rezko.</a> It should have been a "rocks and glass houses" moment, but the media didn't pick up on it.<br /> <br />Let me just note here that I am not naive about this kind of stuff. Money is not the "mother's milk of politics," it's the heroin of politics and, if a politician does not arrive in office already hooked on the stuff they will be soon enough. That's why we need mass house-cleanings from time to time. Or, as they put it down in Louisiana, "time to let the fat hogs out and the lean hogs in."<br /> <br />But again, I digress.<br /> <br />Hillary has refused to release her tax returns, saying she'd do so if and when she becomes the party nominee. The reason for the foot-dragging is simple. As noted above the core of Hillary's support comes from working class Democrats, many of whom are now struggling financially. According to reliable sources, since Bill and Hillary left the White House the couple has done quite well. Estimates of the current net worth range somewhere between $<a href="http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/2007/12/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-349-million/">32 and $60 million. </a><br /> <br />The last thing Hillary wants her blue collar supporters to know is that she's a blue nose now and no longer "one of them."<br /> <br />But even more to the point, she does not want anyone asking how they bagged such a bonanza in such a short time. Sure she and he wrote a successful books .. a New York Times Best Sellers even. Well, so did I, and I can tell ya, I ain't worth $40 million...or anything remotely close to it. So where did all that mulla come from?<br /> <br />Oops:<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Protecting Hillary: </span><br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Bill Clinton Severs Business Ties With Billionaire Buddy</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Bill Clinton has severed business ties with Los Angeles billionaire Ron Burkle, fearful that their deals could erupt into bad publicity damaging his wife's presidential bid, according to sources who know both men...The break-up is a major development in the world of political fundraising, where Burkle has risen to the top ranks, credited with channeling $50 million or more into Democratic coffers over the past 15 years....Burkle was one of Clinton's chief fundraisers while he was in the White House, a position that earned him a place on the Lincoln Bedroom guest list. After Clinton left the White House, Burkle brought the former president on board as a senior adviser at his investment firm, The Yucaipa Companies. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/clinton-burkle">(Full Story)</a></span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">And another..oops:</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">How Bill Clinton's Aide Facilitated a Messy Deal</span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Lawsuit Pending Over Spending</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Wall Street Journal: For the past six years, the road to Bill Clinton has often run through Douglas Band, a 34-year-old former White House intern who has helped manage Mr. Clinton's time, accompanied him around the world and even fielded some of his calls. ... When Mr. Clinton left office in 2001, Mr. Band stayed with him. Without his young aide, Mr. Clinton said in a 2003 speech, "I could not get through the day." Adds one longtime Clinton associate: "When Doug calls up, it's like having the president call up. </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119076741770539360.html">(Full Story)</a><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">And,</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Bill Clinton's Midas touch</span><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Stock deal benefiting his foundation among shrouded successes</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">WASHINGTON -- In December 2004, former President Bill Clinton made a much-publicized appearance at a launch party in New York for Accoona, a new Internet search engine billing itself as a rival to Google...Clinton's presence at the gathering at Tavern on the Green in Central Park was a coup for the unheralded, privately held Accoona, which paid for the former president's appearance by issuing options for 200,000 shares of stock to Clinton's charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation. In 2006, the Clinton Foundation sold the shares for $700,000. </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080303-clinton-finance,1,1864007.story">(Full Story)</a><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">And, </span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Bill Clinton May Get Payout of $20 Million</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Wall Street Journal: Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million — and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai — by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle.</span><a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/01/24/bill-clinton-may-get-payout-of-20-million/"> (Full Story)</a><br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br /> <br />Isn't that what they call a "golden parachute" in the biz, Bill? I've been asked to "go away" more than once in my life and not once did anyone hand me 20 million bucks for my inconvenience. Just how does a fella get a gig like that? Inquiring minds will want to know... or should.<br /> <br />None of the above is<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> anything like </span>the bogus, chump change Whitewater real estate deal that bedeviled Bill's two terms in office. That deal amounted to something around $26,000, if I recall correctly. The deals Bill signed onto after leaving office have been <span style="font-weight: bold;">real</span> gushers, filled with<span style="font-weight: bold;"> real characters </span>and more than a few questions about precisely what was afoot and what Bill was getting paid for doing.<br /> <br />I'm not just blowing past Obama's involvement with the sleazy Mr. Rezko. But Obama himself has described his decision to do business with the guy as "a bonehead decision." and donated contributions from Rezko to charity.<br /> <br />So, how does Bill describe the business deals noted about which netted him tens of millions?. Someone should ask. In the meantime voters should keep this in mind the next time the Clinton campaign drags Mr. Rezko out for another airing.<br /> <br />Okay, enough. If Democrats -- or the DNC -- decide to send Hillary into battle against McCain we will have four more years of Republican rule. Obama beats McCain in national polls. Hillary loses to McCain in those same polls. I have no idea why Hillary Clinton's supporters can't or won't see that they are about to do to nation in 2008, what Ralph Nader's supporters did to us in 2000. I can only hope they'll figure it out before it's too late.<br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: center;"><big style="font-weight: bold;">Must Read of the Day: </big><br /> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks6mar06,0,6089517.column">Rosa Brooks, LA Times</a><br /> </div> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 599px; height: 348px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/lpo080305.gif.jpeg" /><br /> </div> <br /> <big><big><br /> <br /> </big></big> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big><big>Memo to Federal Employees<br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">When Is It Ethical to Break the Law?</span></big></big><br /> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;">When is it ethical to fight illegality with illegality? Tough question. Dangerous question.<br /> <br />Nevertheless history is full of now celebrated events that, when boiled down to there essence, amounted to illegal acts that changed nations, changed the world. Revolutions are, for example, the mother of all illegal acts against a state. Yet they are more often than not, celebrated -- at least by the victors.<br /> <br />This is dangerous territory, to be sure. Breaking the law to achieve higher ends can be a calculation of monumental subjectivity. Nearly every tyrant in history has had their own list of justifications and claimed lofty goals to justify their lawless actions -- including the current occupant of the White House.<br /> <br />But history also tells many a tale of oppressed, abused and exploited populations, forced by the illegal actions of their rulers, to break the law in order to break free themselves of lawless rulers.<br /> <br />Sadly, we live in such times, and in such a country. Over the past seven years the Bush administration and it's Neo-con supporters have broken nearly every law of State that matters. They have waged an illegal war, kidnapped people, held people without trial and without representation. They have usurped the constitution's central tenants mandating the separation of powers. They have lied to Congress, lied to the courts, lied to their own people and lied to the world community.<br /> <br />Oh hell, you know the list. There's more. Lots more. Likely more than we now know.<br /> <br />And, at least so far, they've gotten away with it. How? Simple as pie. All they've had to do is withhold or destroy the documentary evidence of their crimes.<br /> <br />When the GOP controlled Congress the administration had hundreds of accomplices in this crime. When Democrats regained control of Congress the administration was on its own and resorted to lying under oath, hiding documents and, when that failed, destroyed them.. as they did with the over <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html">5-million White House emails.</a><br /> <img style="width: 392px; height: 364px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/secret.gif" align="right" hspace="9" vspace="9" /><br />When we found out they were spying on us, with the help of the nations phone companies, they demanded Congress give the telecoms immunity from prosecution. Not because the give damn about the telecom's getting sued, but because they know the telecoms, to save their asses, will spill the beans -- the administration's beans. So the administration has dug its heels in, demanding Congress immunize the telecoms -- not to keep them on their side, but to keep them quite.<br /> <br />(Out here in the real world that's called "obstruction of justice and witness tampering." )<br /> <br />Okay, but you know all this already. So what am I getting to.<br /> <br />Recently many of us learned about a web site with only one purpose in life: allowing whistleblowers to post documentation that the government and/or corporations don't want us to see -- ever. Those that objected tried to get it shut down and, for a couple of weeks nearly succeeded.<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><big><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Wikileaks judge realizes you can’t enjoin the net</span></big><br /> <span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);">by Richard Koman March 3, 2008 @ 7:00 PM</span><br /> <br /> <span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);">So, the </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);" href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks">Wikileaks.org </a><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);">site is back online, after Federal Judge Jeffrey White dissolved his previous order, ordering the site’s U.S. registrar to pull it off the net. In reversing those orders, the judge focused on the First Amendment implications of taking the site down. But even more to the point, the judge noted with regret that his injunctions were just plain useless. </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);" href="http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3690">(Full Story)</a><br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />WikiLeaks is back and what I am about to suggest I do not suggest lightly. I am about to suggest that people break the law .. which is itself.. is breaking the law.<span style="font-style: italic;"> (One of society's little Catch-22's) </span><br /> <br />Since the Bush administration is now running out the clock on its two-terms of unpunished lawlessness, time is short. I know from my years of covering Washington that that town is chuck full of good people, employees working at the agency level. They are career government employees -- Republicans, Democrats and independents. And they've had a front row seat to what's come down during the past seven years. And I am certain that many of them -- maybe most of them -- are as disgusted and outraged as you are.<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify; color: rgb(51, 0, 0);">(<span style="font-weight: bold;">An aside: </span>The Bush administration has used leaks to accomplish its own goals. For example, they thought leaking the identity Ambassdor Joe Wilson's<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair"> CIA wife, Valerie Plame,</a> was just the right way bolster their case for war against Iraq. So, in a strange, perverted way, the administration has shown the way for others in government who have stuff they believe could be "helpful" if released, legally or otherwise.)<br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Those career employees represent possibly our final hope of catching these guys red-handed. Because it is in their offices, in their files where the evidence lays .. the documents, them minutes of meetings, the executive orders, all the stuff this administration is determined never sees the light of day -- or a court of law.<br /> <br />Let me be perfectly clear. I'm <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> talking about releasing truly sensitive classified intelligence. I'm talking about the kind of documents which, under any other administration would have been fully accessible to the Congress and the public through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_in_the_United_States">Freedom of Information Act.</a> I am talking about the regular business of government, the work-a-day documents of agencies like the FDA, FEMA, Treasury, HHS, the FDA and the DOJ. It is those documents which are being withheld because they prove this administration politicized those agencies violating laws in more ways than we can now even imagine.<br /> <br />I am quite certain that in some file in some employee's Executive Office Building cubicle is the list of just who was on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force">Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force</a>. In another office are the Executive Orders President Bush signed<a href="http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=2602"> authorizing torture. I</a>n another office are documents showing how the religious right <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html">perverted federally-funded family planning operations</a>. Some DOJ secretary is sitting on the evidence that would prove the<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/30/civil_rights/"> White House tried to use the Dept. of Justice </a>to suppress minority voting during the past two election cycles and tried to purge US Attorney's around the country that refuse to bring politically motivated charges against Democratic candidates and office holders.<br /> <br />All that evidence, and mountains more, are destined for oblivion within the next nine months.<br /> <br />Until now federal employees in possession of evidence of a crime had no reasonably safe way of getting that evidence into the public's hands. <br /> <br />WikiLeaks now offers a way -- and in just the nick of time.<br /> <br />Of course breaking the law -- even for laudable reasons -- is inherently risky business and I can't in good conscience encourage anyone to disregard the consequences by advising them to simply break the law. M means and ends must be thought through. The ethics of withholding or releasing such materials weighed and re-weighed and the possible consequences clearly understood.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg">Daniel Ellsberg</a> understood the means, the justification, the ends he wished to achieve and accepted the risks. He broke the law and so doing, changed history. <br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(51, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">(Another Aside: </span>When I was covering banking agencies in Washington during the S&L crisis, federal regulators, unable to get their superiors to act against politically-connected rogues like Charles Keating, would slip me restricted documents. I would write a story and suddenly the agency heads would be forced to act. Finally one day two Treasury agents (with guns even) showed up at my office. They demanded to know who was leaking documents to me. I pointed to my filing cabinet and said,<br /> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px;">"Listen you two, it's all in those files -- everything you want to know. I dare you to subpoena's those files. Then you two better go looking for a new line of work. Beecause some of the names in those files are your own superiors."<br /> </div> <br />They left and I never heard a word about it after that. Had it not been for those leaks, to me and other reporters, the looting of the S&Ls would have gone on much longer, and cost taxpayers much more. Those leakers were -- are -- heroes, of a sort.)<br /> </div> <br />So, if you're one of those government workers, and you're in the mood to blow the whistle on a crime, the URL is <a href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.">http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks. </a><br /> <br />Time is short. The perps are already moving in the shredding machines. They are already making lists of the documents that will be sequestered in the yet-to-be-built Bush "Library" in Texas. By this November it will be too late. They will have succeeded. They will have escaped. The evidence of their crimes will be either destroyed or placed beyond reach.<br /> <br />The best disinfectant is, and always has been, the light of day.<br /> </div> <br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;"> <div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: center;"> <div style="text-align: left;"><br /> <div style="text-align: center;"> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>Liberals Can Be Wrong Too</big></big><br /> </div> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;">Hopefully we're in the closing days of a over a decade of conservative dominance in national politics. It's not coming to an end because they were wrong all the time, but rather that, when they were wrong -- which was often -- they wouldn't or couldn't see it, admit it, and correct course.<br /> <br />In the process they took the nation, and large parts of the world, on regular Mr. Froggy's Wild Ride. Road kill litters their journey's path and they're returning a vehicle on it's last legs with an empty gas tank.<br /> <br />Sadly most of those mistakes could have been avoided had they only put ideology aside long enough each time to assess the wisdom -- or lack thereof -- before forging blindly ahead. After all, there was no shortage of sane conservative Republicans who tried to get Bush/Cheney and their band of pale-conservative Moonies to do just that.<br /> <br /> Sen. John McCain warned that Bush's tax cuts for the rich would not stimulate the economy and would widen budget deficits. And so its come to pass. <br /> <br />Senior Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel saw the folly of Bush's Iraq invasion early and tried to warn Bush that "staying the course" was a political, not tactical decision... that in fact it was a monumental mistake.<br /> <br />And so the list goes on and on.... "Don't do it!" Don't do, Gitmo, waterboarding, renditions, deregulating financial services, making the tax cuts for the rich permanent.... they were warned, and warned and the warnings continue. Hardcore conservatives simply jammed their ideological earplugs in so deep they mingled freely with gray matter.<br /> <br />Liberals have exactly the same tendency. Just as the conservatives have now worn out their welcome with American voters, liberals wore their out as well the last time they had the chance. And don't tell me it ain't so. How do you think we ended up Newt Gingrich and his "Contract For America," and all that has since flowed from it, including two GW Bush terms.<br /> <br />Americans had clearly become disenchanted -- even disgusted -- with ideologically crippled Democrats who couldn't seem to differentiate between good, workable policies and feel-good liberal wet dreams.<br /> <br />Let's admit it, Democrats really were a pack of "tax and spend liberals." When they had the chance they used -- abused -- the national treasury to pay off constituent groups with social programs -- some good, some bad, some just a mystery. Then, good or bad, they paid for those programs by taxing anything that moved, or didn't move fast enough. And no one could, at the time, convince them they might be wrong on any of it.<br /> <br />Let's also admit that today's Republicans have proven to be "borrow and spend neo-conservatives." They looted the national treasury, passing money out to their friends and supporters and then made up the deficit those give-aways caused by flipping out the national credit card. Each time they wanted to spend money on something -- like a $12 billion-a-month war in Iraq -- they said, "just charge it."<br /> <br />The reason I bring this up right now is that it seems nearly certain that, come January 21, 2009, the Democrats will once again be King of Mountain in DC. Will they listen this time to those who try to warn them to be alert to the fact that ideologically-driven policies -- even liberal ones -- come in two flavors: smart policies and stupid policies?<br /> <br />Like what kinds of issues, you ask. Here's a couple of quick examples, each of which will, I'm certain, garner me no end of misery from some of my liberal friends. But then, that's the very point, isn't it?<br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Missile Defense<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">(AKA "Star Wars" & "SDI")</span>: Republicans like it. Democrats see it as a giant boondoggle. Who's right?<br /> <br />When Ronald Reagan proposed missile defense ridiculing the idea became liberal orthodoxy. Any Democrat who wondered out loud if it might not be something worth looking at, was quickly and brutally silenced. Missile defense became -- and to large extent remains -- a no-think zone for Democrats.<br /> <br />At the time Ronald Reagan proposed SDI it was technologically pie-in-the-sky. Hell we're talking the early 1980s when state of the art computer technology had 32K of memory on board and ran at a snail's pace of around 12 mhz. There was no way a missile could intercept another missile. So skeptics back then had a point.<br /> <br />But we live in different times. The technology is better, a lot better. Today a missile can, and has, hit another missile in flight. It's not perfect, and may never be perfect. But it's getting better each time they try.<br /> <br />And we really do have enemies -- be they of our own making or not -- they exist and likely always will<img style="width: 301px; height: 253px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/duck.jpg" align="right" hspace="9" vspace="9" /> exist for as long as nations compete for attention, resources and influence. Some countries that don't like us already possess missiles that can hit US territory, or soon will. And some have, or soon will have, nukes to put on those missiles. And let us not forget that, while the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia is on the comeback trail -- big time. Russia wants a return to the bi-polar balance of power that made up the Cold War years, and thanks to soaring oil prices, now has the dough to put where it's mouth is.<br /> <br />Not having a tested and fully functional missile defense system when that day arrives could make all the difference by reducing our options to a literal game of "Bet Your Life," and the return of the kiss-your-ass-goodbye, "duck and cover" drills in our public schools.<br /> <br />It comes down to this: Will the US be in a position to take a wait-and-see attitude to nuclear saber rattling from hostile nations, or not? Conservatives will argue we need to atack now, lacking a missile defense system. And, if tensions reach that point you can bet your bottom radioactive dollar that Democrats in Congress will go along -- again. <span style="font-style: italic;">(Except of course Hillary will claim her vote in favor of preemptive attacks was a cry for additional negotiations.)</span><br /> <br />Because, when it comes to nuclear threats for which we have no defense "wait and see" is not a politically-survivable option. Lacking a missile defense system sets us up for more Iraq's. Who knows how many more, as a vulnerable US becomes increasingly trigger happy and increasingly unpopular because of it.<br /> <br />That's a vicious cycle which a fully tested and deployed missile defense system would make a lot less likely.<br /> <br />Missile defense is, of course, just one issue among a long list of hardcore liberal issues.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Immigration </span>is another. I am sorry that the current immigration issue centers on Mexican immigration. I wish the majority of illegal immigrants flooding into the US were from Canada. Maybe then Democrats could be able to discuss this issue without one eye (or both) on a juicy and growing racial demographic.<br /> <br />Because the real issue at the core of the immigration debate should not be about what race is gaining in the US electoral lottery. Instead Democrats should evaluate clearly needed changes in our immigration laws based on those core issues -- jobs and security.<br /> <br />If liberals take over in January and proceed to mealy-mouth immigration, voters will notice, especially as joblessness explodes on this side of the boarder.<br /> <br />Immigration offers Republicans and Democrats the perfect issue on which to meet in the middle. Republicans would agree to strong, enforceable civil and criminal sanctions against employers that knowingly hire illegals<span style="font-style: italic;"> (known to liberals by the painfully politically correct but factually-challenged term "undocumented aliens.")</span><br /> <br />In return Democrats agree to funding and implementing border enforcement. No, not a wall, but more border agents and technology that works -- for a change.<br /> <br />Because borders either matter or don't matter. Most Americans believe borders should matter and woe be to the party that jerks us around on this issue from here on. Go ahead, call me xenophobic, but until Mexico, Canada and the US decide to merge into Canamericico, I and most other voters expect the borders to matter and for our government to act like they matter.<br /> <br />Missile defense and immigration are are just a two examples of the kind of ideological sand traps liberals will face if they regain the power. Those liberal knees are going to have to stop jerking, at least long enough for brains to take stock. Not every GOP idea is a bad idea, and visa versa. It's just fine for Republicans and Democrats to fight over issues. But the "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" philosophy that's pervaded national politics of late, must stop, at least long enough for everyone involved to listen -- really listen.<br /> <br />Otherwise we will forever see-saw between know-it-all conservatives and know-it-all liberals, each screwing things up in their own favorite ways until voters throw them out and try the other guys again.<br /> <br />One last thing. Please don't email me about how some third party will eventually ride in and save us from this dismal cycle. Forget about it. Your undertaker will remove that pacifier from your clinched jaws before closing the lid. Then he'll head out to cast a vote for party that's been out of power hoping against all experience that this time they will have learned their lesson.<br /> <br />So, have Democrats learned that lesson? We'll see. I hope so because Gingrich, Delay, Bush, Cheney and their progeny will spend the next four years in the political wilderness sharpening their knives for their next come back. And if that come back happens it will be the fault of the new crop of Democrats we send to Washington next November.<br /> <br />Truth - out.<br /> <br /> </div></div> <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"><big style="font-weight: bold;"><big>It Really IS The Economy, <span style="font-style: italic;">Stupid</span></big></big><br /> </div> <br />As I rummaged through my morning paper I eventually reached the business ection. I say "eventually reached" because I have yet to see a daily paper that does not bury the business section. The sports section is usually right there near the top, even though sports news has absolutely no impact on our lives, beyond possibly under-pinning beer and nacho sales.<br /> <br />But I digress.<br /> <br />Once I unearthed the business section I was struck by the single theme of each headlined story:<br /> </div> <br /> <div style="margin-left: 40px; font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_8389721">- Safeway cutting jobs nationwide</a><br /><a href="http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gCeIjJt-7UeHpi1v4dcXMxZTf4Hw"> - Jeweler Zale to close 23 stores now - 105 by end of this year</a><br /><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-02-27-honda-motorcycles_N.htm"> - Honda to shut U.S. motorcycle plant</a><br /><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/careers/bal-bz.bmw28feb28,0,5364893.story"> - BMW to shed 5000 jobs</a><br /><a href="http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080228/WIRE/802280352/1036/BUSINESS01"> - Dollar hits new low against Euro</a><br /><a href="http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080228/WIRE/802280341/1036/BUSINESS01"> - Nationwide home sales hit 13-year low</a><br /><a href="http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080228/WIRE/802280353/1036/BUSINESS01"> - Nortel to cut 2,100 jobs, shift 1000 overseas</a><br /><a href="http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080228/WIRE/802280357/1036/BUSINESS01"> - Bernanke warns of weak economy</a><br /><br /> </div> <span style="font-style: italic;">(Well, thank you, Ben. Where would we be without your timely reports on the already painfully obvious.)</span><br /> <br /> <div style="text-align: justify;"> There was not a stitch of good economic news in this morning's business section to be found.<br /> <br />While my heart tells me this election should be about the war in Iraq and the mindset that got us into it, my<img style="width: 300px; height: 324px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/EconomyCartoon.gif" align="right" hspace="9" vspace="9" /> head tells me that the subject better quickly become the US economy. If it does the war will end anyway. Let me explain.<br /> <br />First, recognition that the economy is not just heading into a one of its normal cyclical downturns. This time is different. And no candidate for the Presidency is worthy of your vote unless he can explain in the clearest and starkest terms how and why it's different this time.<br /> <br />Eight years of spend-borrow, spend-borrow, spend-borrow by, not just government, but by business and consumers alike, has done to our financial infrastructure just what termites do to a home when left to their own devices. The underpinnings of this economy have been hollowed out by abuse of credit, the perversion of financial instruments and a reckless disregard for consequences of all the above.<br /> <br />Which is why when Fed Chief, Ben Bernanke, finally broke the glass on the red EMERGENCY box in his office he found it empty. Inflation is raging like a peat fire, just below the surface. The ground under his very feet is getting too hot to bear. But he can't put the inflationary fires out with the usual Fed extinguisher, higher interest rates. Because. even as inflation <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=a03KVShtC5ek&refer=africa">consumes the value of the US dollar, </a>business indicators are weak and getting weaker.<br /> <br />To boost a weak economy the Fed's tool of choice is lower interest rates. Bernanke has already cut the<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm"> Fed Rate down to 3%</a> and it's done no good. That leaves him a paltry 3 percentage-point bullets left in his gun before he hits the penultimate shot -- 0%. After that he'll have to pay people to borrow money.<br /> <br />I warned a full two years ago that we were heading straight into stagnation -- the worst of inflation joined at the hip with the worst of a weak economy. Prices go up and up. Wages stagnate or even drop -- a vicious cycle -- a self-replicating monster, once loose, takes on an voracious life of its own, consuming businesses, investments, jobs and lives.<br /> <br />The next President will, on inauguration day, be handed the worst domestic economy since Franklin Roosevelt took office in January 1933. As then the next President will have to deal with a <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080227/NEWS/802270405/0/news05">banking industry in full meltdown, </a>a tanking stock market, rising unemployment and the maelstrom of social welfare burdens that inevitably materialize out of such a crisis. A tired nation will turn to Washington for help -- citizens will turn to the next President for help.<br /> <br />Which brings me back to the war in Iraq. Recognition by the Presidential candidates of the true state of the economy would require they end this disasterous war of choice, and to do so as quickly as humanly and tactically possible.<br /> <br />Because there is simply no way we could afford to continue wasting nearly <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">$12 billion a month</span> -- every red dime of which is <span style="font-style: italic;">borrowed</span> money -- to do for Iraqis what we can nolonger afford to do for American taxpayers themselves.<span style="font-style: italic;"> (More facts on the cost of the war </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://zfacts.com/p/447.html">here</a><span style="font-style: italic;">.)</span><br /> <br />Things like:<br /> <br /> </div> <div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">- Repairing Iraqi infrastructure <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/age-infrastructure">while America's infrastructure crumbles.</a><br /> <br /> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">- Building and funding schools for Iraqi children <a href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/california_educ_1.html">while states cut education spending </a>here at home.<br /> <br /> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">- Training doctors and building hospitals and clinics for Iraqs 27 million citizens while twice that many <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/02/25/daily25.html">American's go without health coverage.</a></span><br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br /> <img style="width: 323px; height: 343px;" alt="" src="http://www.newsforreal.com/cartoon-11-30.png" align="left" hspace="9" vspace="9" />The candidate for President who does not make that argument -- and make it the central pillar of their campaign -- deserves to lose this election. Even paleo-conservatives understand that charity begins at home. That you don't starve your own family to fund someone else's family and somehow argue that you are protecting your own family in the process.<br /> <br />That's just nuts.<br /> <br />It's long past time to start talking turkey on the campaign trail about both the economy and the war and how they are really the same subject. They are Siamese twins, joined at the national wallet. If either is to be save, they must be quickly separated.<br /> <br />If Iraq survives the operation it will be because the Iraqis nursed their nation back to normalcy -- or at least what normalcy goes for in that part of the world.<br /> <br /><br /> <br />Our concern must be to see that the US survives. That <span style="text-decoration: underline;">our own people</span> have jobs, good schools, good teachers, affordable healthcare and the restored and modernized infrastructure that will be required if US is to productive and competitive in the decades ahead.<br /> <br />A candidate who refuses to take that stand, aggressively and honestly, will reign over the mother of all economic and social meltdowns. And will share future encyclopedia entries alongside the likes of Herbert Hoover.<br /> </div> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">"The public, fortunately, doesn't understand how bad the situation is. If it did, we might have a real panic on our hands."</span><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;"> -- David Ignatius, Washington Post</span>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-25975825227401710192008-02-27T07:37:00.000-08:002008-02-27T07:38:47.663-08:00Feb 8-27, 2008<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 21, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">John McCain</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then & Now</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Way back in 1988 my co-authors and I were putting the final touches to our book, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans when someone slipped us a plain brown envelop. Inside was a transcript of a meeting between thrift regulators and five US senators who had interceded on behalf of Arizona S&L owner Charles Keating. At the time the regulators were warning that Keating's thrift, Lincoln Savings and Loan, was dangerously insolvent and that Keating and his cohorts -- including then junk bond king, Mike Milken, were robbing the federally-insured thrift blind -- or, more precisely, robbing the US taxpayers blind.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Keating had been generous in sharing his new-found wealth with the five senators, particularly his two Arizona senators, John McCain and Dennis DeConcini. They became known as "The Keating Five."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Alarmed by such high-powered political arm twisting, FHLBB attorney, William Black, decided to document the meeting. He claims to this day that he did not secretly record the five senators. But over the years I've read countless transcripts and I remain certain that the following is a transcription taken off an actual recording.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of course, once authenticating the transcript we wasted no time including it in the appendix of our book. The disclosure of the meeting and verbatim remarks by each senator caused them no end of misery. One would have thought McCain especially had learned his lesson about messing with the work of federal regulators. And it appeared he had. But then comes the revelation that he once again chummed up to an industry group -- this time telecom -- and inserted himself into the regulatory process in ways that look distressingly similar to the Keating affair.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Keating affair was about money and influence, not sex. This new revelation may or may not have sex in it -- but fankly, I couldn't care less. I don't lay awake at night worrying if my senator is getting laid by the wrong people, I worry if they are getting paid by the wrong people.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In the case of Charles Keating that money and influence, and the delays caused by political pimping by people like McCain, cost American small shareholders and taxpayers dearly:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Much has been made of the $2 billion that it will cost taxpayers to bail out Charles H. Keating Jr.'s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. But for the people who were persuaded to invest their life savings in now-worthless securities, the cost is emotional as well as financial. (NYT- 1989)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Anyway, how often have you wished you could be a fly on the wall at one of these closed-door sit downs? Well, here's a rare glimpse at one, up close and personal.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"This meeting is very unusual... to discuss a particular company."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> (Chairman, James Cirona, Federal Home Loan Bank, San Francisco, 1987)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Memo</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">From: William Black, Esq.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">To: Chairman, FHLBB, Edwin Gray</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">April 9, 1987</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Meeting of FHLB-SF Personnel with:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Senators Cranston, DeConcini,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Glenn, McCain and Riegle</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">At your request I am providing you this memorandum, which reflects the substance of yesterday’s meeting with Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain and Riegle. The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLB-SF) personnel who attended the meeting were James Cirona (President and Principal Supervisory Agent), Michael Patriarca (Director of Agency Functions), myself (general counsel) and Richard Sanchez (the Supervisory Agent for Lincoln Savings Assoc. of Irvine, Calif.).</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The meeting commenced at 6:00 P.M. and ended at approximately 8:15 a.m., with two breaks of approximately 15 and 10 minutes during which time the Senators voted. Senator Cranston was present only very briefly, because of his responsibilities on the Senate floor. The other Senators were present for substantially the entire meeting.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">This meeting was the product of an earlier meeting among yourself and Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and McCain. At that meeting, as related by you (and by these same Senators in yesterday’s meeting) each of the Senators raised their concerns regarding the examination of Lincoln by the FHLB-SF and you noted your unfamiliarity with any specifics of the examination, your confidence in the FHLB-SF and your suggestion that the Senators hear from the FHLB-SF our supervisory concerns regarding Lincoln.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I was the only one at the April 9 meeting who took notes. While not verbatim, my notes are very extensive. At your request, I called you last night and read these notes to you. I have attached a copy of those notes to this memorandum. I have used these notes and my independent recall of the meeting to prepare this memorandum and provide the fullest possible record of the discussions at yesterday’s meeting.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> I have circulated this memorandum to Messrs. Cirona, Patriarca and Sanchez for their review to ensure the accuracy of this memorandum. I believe that his memorandum is an accurate and complete record of the substance of yesterday’s meeting.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Transcript</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: I am Jim Cirona. I am president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. I have held that position for four years. I am here in my capacity as principal supervisory agent. We have jurisdiction over California, Arizona and Nevada savings and loans. Before becoming president I was in the industry for 20 years.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Where?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: In New York.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Did you know Bud Bavasi?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: Yes. Bud is a good guy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Yes. He’s great.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: With me is Mike Patriarca, head of our agency function. Mike has joined us recently from the Comptroller of the Currency, where he was in charge of multi-national banks. Before that he was a lawyer for seven years.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: We won’t hold that against you.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: You were a litigator.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: No, I was in enforcement seven years.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: Also with me is Bill Black, our general counsel. Bill was formerly director of litigation for the Bank Board for three years. Next to bill is Richard Sanchez. He’s been with the San Francisco bank for years. Before that he was an auditor for a commercial bank and before that he was in school.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Thank you for coming. We wanted to meet with you because we have determined that potential actions of yours could injure a constituent. This is a particular concern to us because Lincoln is willing to take substantial actions to deal with what we understand to be your concerns. Lincoln is prepared to go into a major home loan program – up to 55% of assets. We understand that that’s what the Bank Board wants S&Ls to do. It’s prepared to limit its high risk bond holdings and real estate investments. It’s even willing to phase out of the insurance process if you wish. They need to deal with, one, the effect of your reg... Lincoln is a viable organization. It made $49 million last year, even more the year before. They fear falling below 3 percent (net worth) and becoming subject to your regulatory control of the operations of their association. They have two major disagreements with you. First, with regard to direct investments. Second, on your reappraisal. They’re suing against your direct investment regulation. I can’t make a judgment on the grandfathering issue. We suggest that the lawsuit be accelerated and that you grant them forbearance while the suit is pending. I know something about the appraisal values [Senator Glenn joins the meeting at this point] of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. They appear to be grossly unfair. I know the particular property here. My family is in real estate. Lincoln is prepared to reach a compromise value with you.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CRANSTON: [He arrives at this point] I’m sorry I can’t join you but I have to be on the floor to deal with the bill. I just want to say that I share the concerns of the other Senators on this subject. [Cranston leaves.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: I’m not on the Banking Committee and I’m not familiar with how all this works. I asked Don Riegle to explain to me how the Federal Home Loan system works because he’s on Senate Banking. He explained it to me and that’s why he’s here.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAlN: Thank you for coming. One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn’t want any special favors for them. It’s like the Apache helicopter program that Dennis and I are active on. The Army wants to cut back the program. Arizona contractors make major components of the Apache helicopter. We believe that the Apache is important to our national defense. That’s why we met with General Dynamics and tried to keep the program alive.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I don’t want any part of our conversation to be improper. We asked chairman Gray about that and he said it wasn’t improper to discuss Lincoln. I’d like to mention the appraisal issue. It seems to me, from talking to many folks in Arizona, that there’s a problem. Arizona is the second fastest growing state. Land values are skyrocketing. That has to be taken account of in appraisals.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Sen.John Glenn joins the meeting late,)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: I apologize for being late. Lincoln is an Ohio chartered corporation, and...</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: Excuse me. Lincoln is a California chartered S&L.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Well, Lincoln is wholly owned by ACC. (Keating's American Continental Corp.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: You said Lincoln was Ohio chartered. It’s California.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Well, in any event, ACC is an Ohio chartered corporation. I’ve known them for a long time but it wouldn’t matter if I didn’t. Ordinary exams take maybe up to 6 months. Even the accounting firm says you’ve taken an unusually adversary view toward Lincoln. To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs. If things are bad there, get to them. Their view is that they took a failing business and put it back on its feet. It’s now viable and profitable. They took it off the endangered species list. Why has the exam dragged on and on? I asked Gray about his. Lincoln has been told numerous times that the exam is being directed to continue by Washington. Gray said this wasn’t true.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: I wasn’t present at the earlier meeting. There are things happening that may indicate a pattern that do raise questions [sic]. There is broad concern on the Banking Committee about the American Banker article on the FADA and FSLIC feud. Gray has great confidence in you as a team. He says you are some of the finest people in the system. The appearance from a distance is that this thing is out of control and has become a struggle between Keating and Gray, two people I gather who have never even met. The appearance is that it’s a fight to a death. This discredits everyone if it becomes the perception. If there are fundamental problems at Lincoln, OK. I’ve had a lot of people come through the door feeling that they’ve been put through a meat grinder. I want professionalism, and your backgrounds attest to that professionalism. But I want not just professionalism, but fairness and the appearance of fairness. So I’m very glad to have this opportunity to hear your side of the story.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: I’m not trying to get anyone off. If there is wrongdoing I’m on your side. But I don’t want any unfairness against a viable entity.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA : How long do we have to speak to you? A half-hour, an hour?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: As quickly as possible. We have a vote coming up soon.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: First, if there’s any fault to be had concerning the length of the examination, it’s on my shoulders. We determine how examinations are conducted. Gray never gave me instructions on how to conduct this exam or any other exam. At this meeting you’ll hear things that Gray doesn’t know.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Did Gray ever talk to you about the examination of Lincoln?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: Gray talked to me when that article ran in the Washington Post. We received no instructions from Gray about the exam of Lincoln. We decide how to do the exam.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: This meeting is very unusual... to discuss a particular company.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: It’s very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators. Richard, you’re on; you have 10-12 minutes.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: An appraisal is an important part of underwriting. It is very important. If you don’t do it right you expose yourself to loss. Our 1984 exam showed significant appraisal deficiencies. Mr. Keating promised to correct the problem. Our 1986 exam showed that the problems had not been corrected – that there were huge appraisal problems. There was no meaningful underwriting on most loans. We have independent appraisals. Merrill Lynch appraised the Phoenician [Hotel]. It shows a significant loss. Other loans had similar losses.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Why not get an independent appraisal?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: We did.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: No, you hired them. Why not get a truly independent one or use arbitration – if you’re trying to bend over backwards to be fair. There’s no appeal from your reappraisal. Whatever it is you take it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: If it meets our appraisal standards.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA : The Phoenician reappraisal process is not complete. We have received Lincoln’s rebuttal and forwarded it to our independent appraisers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">[At this point the senators left to vote. We resumed when Senators DeConcini and Riegle returned.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: Lincoln had underwriting problems with all of their investments, equity securities, debt securities, land loans and direct real estate investments. It had no loan underwriting policy manual in elect when we began our 1986 exam. When the examiners requested such a manual they were informed that it was being printed. The examiners looked at 32 real estate loans that Lincoln had made since the 1984 exam. There were no credit reports on the borrowers in all 52 of the loan Files.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: I have trouble with this discussion. Are you saying that their underwriting practices were illegal or just not the best practice?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: These underwriting practices violate our regulatory guidelines.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: They are also an unsafe and unsound practice.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> DECONCINI: Those are two very different things.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> SANCHEZ: You need credit reports for proper underwriting.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">[Senator Glenn returns at this point.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: To recap what’s been said for Senator Glenn: 52 of the 52 loans they looked at had no credit information. Do we have a history of loans to folks with inadequate credit?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: $47 million in loans were classified. by examiners due to lack of adequate credit to assure repayment of the loans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: They’re flying blind on all of their different loans and investments. That’s what you do when you don’t underwrite.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: How long had these loans been on the books?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: A fairly long time.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: How many loans have gone belly-up?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: We don’t know at this point how many of the 52 have defaulted. These loans generally have interest reserves.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Well, the interest reserves should run out on many of these.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: These are longer term investments.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: I know that Lincoln has refinanced some of these loans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Some people don’t do the kind of underwriting you want. Is their judgment good?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: That approach might be okay if they were doing it with their own money. They aren’t; they’re using federally insured deposits.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: Where’s the smoking gun? Where are the losses?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: What’s wrong with this if they’re willing to clean up their act?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: This is a ticking time bomb.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: I had another case which reported strong earnings in 198%. It was insolvent in 1985.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: These people saved a failing thrift. ACC is reputed to be highly competent.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Lincoln was not a failing thrift when ACC acquired it. It met its net worth requirement. It had returned to profitability before it was acquired. It had one of the lowest rations of scheduled assets in the 11th District, the area under our jurisdiction. Its losses were caused by an interest spread problem from high interest rates. It, as with most other California thrifts, would have become profitable as interest rates fall.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: I don’t know how you can’t consider it a success story. It lost $24 million in 1982 and 1983. After it was acquired by ACC it made $49 million in one year.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: I haven’t gotten an answer to my question about why the exam took so long.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: It was an extremely complex exam because of their various investments. The examiners were actually in the institution from March to October – 8 months. The asset classification procedure is very time consuming.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: What’s the longest exam you ever had before?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: Some have technically never ended, where we had severe problems with a shop.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: Why would Arthur Young say these things about the exam – that it was inordinately long and bordered on harassment?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: And Arthur Anderson said they withdrew as Lincoln’s prior auditor because of your harassment.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: Have you seen the Arthur Young letter?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: No.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: I d like you to see the letter. It’s been sent all over the Senate. [Hands Cirona the letter.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: I’m relatively new to the savings and loan industry but I’ve never seen any bank or S&L that’s anything like this. This isn’t even close. You can ask any banker and you know about these practices. They violate the law and regulations and common sense.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: What violates the law?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: Their direct investments violate the regulation. Then there’s the file stuffing. They took undated documents purporting to show under writing efforts and put them into the files sometimes more than a year after they made the investment.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Have you done anything about these violations of law?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: We’re sending a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. Not maybe; we’re sending one. This is an extraordinarily serious matter. It involves a whole range of imprudent actions. I can’t tell you strongly enough how serious this is. This is not a profitable institution. Prior year adjustments will reduce that reported $49 million profit. They didn’t earn $49 million. Let me give you one example. Lincoln sold a loan with recourse and booked a $12 million profit. The purchaser rescinded the sale, but Lincoln left the $12 million profit on its books. Now, I don’t care how many accountants they get to say that’s right. It’s wrong. The only thing we have as regulators is our credibility. We have to preserve it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Why would Arthur Young say these things? They have to guard their credibility too. They put the firm’s neck out with this letter.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: They have a client. The $12 million in earnings was not unwound.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: You believe they’d prostitute themselves for a client?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: Absolutely. It happens all the time.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">[The senators left at this point for another vote.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">[We resumed when Senators DeConcini, McCain, and Riegle returned.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA I also wanted to note that the Bank Board has had a lot of problems with Arthur Young, and is thinking of taking disciplinary action against it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Not for its actions here. Primarily because of its Texas office, which has never met a direct investment. They think everything is a loan. This has quite an effect on the income you can claim.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: By regulation we have adopted a regulatory capital standard.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: And you’ll take control of them if they fail your net worth standard – you’ll take operational control of them.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: That’s speculative. We’d take steps to reduce their risk exposure.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: What would require them to sell?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: We’d probably have them decrease their growth. Time and again we’ve found rapid growth associated with loss. Lincoln has grown rapidly.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Are you sure you want to talk about this? We haven’t made any recommendation to the Bank Board yet. The Bank Board decides what action to take. These are very confidential matters.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: No, then we don’t want to go into it. We were just asking very hypothetically and that’s how you [indicating Mr. Cirona] were responding.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: That’s right.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Can we do something other than liquidate them?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: I hesitate to tell an association what to do. We’re not in control of Lincoln, and won’t be. We want to work the problem out.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: Have they tried to work it out?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: We’ve met with them numerous times. I’ve never seen such cantankerous behavior. At one point they said our examiners couldn’t get any association documents unless they made the request through Lincoln’s New York litigation counsel.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: Well, that does disturb me – when you have to go through New York litigation counsel. What could they do? Is it too late?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">CIRONA: It’s never too late.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCAIN: What’s the best approach? Voluntary guidelines instead of a compulsory order?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: How long will it take you to finish the exam?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: Ten days.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: Have they been told what you’ve told us?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: We provided them with our views and gave them every opportunity to have us hear what they had to say. We gave them our classification of asset materials and went through them loan by loan. This is one of the reasons the exam has taken so long.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: We gave them our classification materials on January . On March 9 we received 52 exhibits, amounting to a stack of paper this high [indicating approximately two feet of material] responding to that. We went through every page of that response.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: We didn’t use in-house appraisers. We sent the appraisals out to independent appraisers. We sent the reappraisals to Lincoln. We got rebuttals from Lincoln and sent them to the independent appraisers. I don’t think there was any case that Lincoln agreed with the re-appraisal.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: None where the reappraisal indicated insufficient collateral.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: In every case, after reviewing the rebuttal, the independent ap-</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">praiser has stood by his conclusion.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: Of course. They had to.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: No. The rebuttals claim specific problems with the independent appraisers’ reappraisals: “You didn’t consider this feature or you used the wrong rental rate or approach to value.” The independent appraiser has come back to us and answered those specific claims by saying: “Yes, I did consider that, and here’s why I used the right rate and approach.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: I’d question those reappraisals. If you want to bend over back-wards to be fair I’d arbitrate the differences. The criminality surprises me. We’re not interested in discussing those issues. Our premise was that we had a viable institution concerned that it was being over-regulated.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: What can we say to Lincoln?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Nothing with regard to the criminal referral. They haven’t, and won’t be told by us that we’re making one.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">GLENN: You haven’t told them?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: No. Justice would skin us alive if we did. Those referrals are very confidential. We can’t prosecute anyone ourselves. All we can do is refer it to Justice.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: They make their own decision whether to prosecute?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Yes. I also want to mention that we are already investigating Arthur Anderson because of their role in the file stuffing. We don’t know whether they knew the purpose for which they were preparing the materials. I don’t want to get harassed... no, that’s not the right word; I don’t want to get criticized if we Find out that Arthur Anderson was involved criminally and we have to make a referral on them. We don’t want them to claim retaliation. We’re in a tough spot. With regard to what you can say to Lincoln, you might want to simply have them call us. If you really want to talk to them you can say that it will take us 7 to 10 days to Finish the exam.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: Is this institution so far gone that it can’t be salvaged?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: I don’t know. They’ve got enough risky assets on their books that a little bad luck could nail them. You can’t remove the risk of what they already have. You can reduce what new risks they would otherwise add on.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: They have huge holdings in Tucson and Phoenix. The. market there can’t absorb them for many years. You said earlier that ACC was extremely good but ACC has gotten out of its former primary activity, homebuilding. I’m not saying they’re bad businessmen but they had to get out of one homebuilding market after another. They had to get out of Colorado when they had bad models and soil problems. They also had to get out of their second leading activity, mortgage banking. They’re now down to Arizona. That’s not a bad market but no one knows how well it will do over the many years that it would take to absorb such huge holdings in Tucson and Phoenix.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: So you don’t know what you’d do with the property even if you took them over?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: Bill Black doesn’t. Bill Black is a lawyer. We hire experts to do this work. Our study of their Arizona holdings was done by top experts. Our study of below investment grade corporate debt securities – what folks usually call junk bonds, but I avoid it because I don’t know where you stand on such bonds – was done by top outside experts. I see in this Arthur Young letter that they criticize us for having an accountant with “only” eight years of experience. Well, I think... I don’t see how you can claim eight years as inexperienced. But we didn’t simply rely on him. We had... wasn’t it Kenneth...</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SANCHEZ: Yes. Kenneth Laventhol.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BLACK: We had Kenneth Laventhol, outside accountants, work on this. These are also some of the reasons the exam took time.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">PATRIARCA: I think my colleague Mr. Black put it right when he said that it’s like these guys put it all on 16-black in roulette. Maybe, they’ll win, but I can guarantee you that if an institution continues such behavior it will eventually go bankrupt.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">RIEGLE: Well, I guess that’s pretty definitive.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">DECONCINI: I’m sorry, but I really do have to leave now.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">[The meeting broke up at this point, approximately at 8:20 P.M.]</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">( Editor's note: Now with the sub-prime, credit crunch, foreclosure crisis gutting both consumer and investment banking one can wonder how many meetings like this are going on today. I don't know. No one has sent me a transcript -- yet. )</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 20, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's Over</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What do Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton have in common?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Neither seems to have heard the old Kenney Rogers tune, the refrain of which goes:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Know when to walk away and know when to run."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Last night's results from Wisconsin were stunning, and telling. But even more telling was what was going on behind the scenes. Taken together with the poll results, if Hillary Clinton took Kenney Rogers' advice above she wouldn't just walk away, she'd sprint for the nearest exit.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In case you missed it, here's what happened after the polls closed in Wisconsin.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Once it was clear to both campaigns that Obama had definitively won Wisconsin, the Obama folks let the Clinton folks know Obama would wait before he spoke to let Hillary speak first. Their assumption being that she'd concede the Wisconsin race and congratulate Obama for the win.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">How little the Barackistas still understand the Clintons. Like Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon, she pulls the football away just as Charlie Brown goes for the kick. And so it came to pass, again -- Hillary, speaking before a crowd in Texas, launched right into a campaign attack speech.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Furious they'd been had again, the Obama campaign "big footed" Hillary by having Barack begin his speech right there and then. They knew that, as the winner last night, all the networks would switch from Hillary's speech to his -- and that's just what happened. Hillary was blacked out -- right in the middle of her pitch.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Ouch.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But it wasn't "ouch" for those of us watching on TV --- it was deal closer. We were instantly transported from Hillary's sing-song, robotic, entirely predictable remarks, to a soaring address by Obama. (Watch it here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As I listened to Obama I turned to my wife and said, "it's over."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It was so clear... stunningly clear. The Obama folks may have cut into Hillary's speech in a moment of anger, but in so doing they created a contrast so startling in it's starkness that only the most lobotomized Clinton Moonies could have resisted it. The contrast was so immediate and so stunning it hit me like a truck.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The contrast forced the question on me, and I suspect millions of others who saw and heard it. It reduced all the noise and posturing of this campaign down to a very simple choice:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Did I want four years of more of the same -- the same poll-tested nostrums, the same all-talk, process-pablum that has, for the past couple of decades masked a failure of either party to govern -- the failure to solve real problems rather than use them as brickbats against "the other side?"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Was that what I wanted?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Or did I want the candidate who was giving this hard-boiled, as-cynical-as-they-come, crusty old reporter goosebumps every time he opened his mouth? Did I want the candidate that included me in his equation, the candidate who didn't just ask for my vote, but my help, should he win. Did I want the candidate that didn't tell me he/she was prepared to do it all FOR me "on day one," but rather that he could not do any of it for me, only WITH me.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It was no contest. None. Hillary offered same-old,same-old, on steroids. The same old talking points, same old "vast conspiracies" that she'd use to explain her failure to deliver and, of course, the same old loose canon, Bill, rolling fore and aft on our national -- and emotional -- decks.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of course, there's no way for me -- or you -- to know, with any degree of certainty, if Obama can deliver on any of the high-minded promises he makes. But then he doesn't claim he can. He only claims "we can."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">How surprising is this? Following so many years of hopelessness, when hope returned it arrived in a plain brown wrapper.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So it is that, after two decades of helplessly watching my country slide backwards -- backwards in education, backwards in healthcare, backwards in human rights, backwards in open government, backwards in protecting the environment, backwards in economic equity, backwards in freedom itself -- I am pushing all my chips in for the candidate who clearly believes we can reverse this decline.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Obama has convinced me, we can. Yes, we can.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Hillary, do yourself, us and the nation a favor -- fold-em. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Yes, you can.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 15, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Harry Reid:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Shame or Disgrace?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I'm not going to take a lot of your time this morning. Not because I couldn't go on and on about this, I could. But it's not necessary. It's simple. Let's start with this:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If you should run into Hillary or Barack on the campaign trail ask them the following question:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If you become President of the United States of America, making your running mate the constitutional president of the US Senate, will you demand that the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, be replaced immediately?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's a critical question. Harry Reid is, to put it mildly, the worst, most ineffective, mealy-mouth, wimp to lead the US Senate in my adult life time. And he proved that again this week when he allowed the administration's bill granting immunity to the telecoms to pass the Senate.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In effect what Reid did by allowing that legislation to pass is to ratify Richard Nixon's stated belief that, "if the President does it it's not illegal."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Fortunately the House, under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, showed more backbone than Reid and his Senate colleagues by refusing to ratify the Senate's version giving the telecom's a get-out-jail free card for aiding and abetting the administration's illegal wiretapping. Instead the House shelved the matter allowing the current authority to lapse this Saturday and took two weeks off.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">This morning President Bush was on TV whining that refusing to grant the telecoms immunity will mean "it will be harder for us to get companies to cooperate with us in protecting you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The statement is correct, though worded incorrectly. The correct way to put it is that, failing to provide telecoms protection from lawsuits will, "make it harder for us to get companies cooperate with us to protect you by illegally spying on you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">To which I say, good. It should make it harder, just as the threat of lawsuits make it's harder for companies to screw consumers, which many companies would be delighted to do if they figured they could get away with it. But also, and more importantly, the threat of lawsuits will force the telecoms to do a basic cost/benefit analysis before they pull a stunt like this again. That analysis would go something like this:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> - By helping the government spy on Americans the govenment owes us one the next time we want something from the government, be it legislation or regulatory favors.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">- But, without immunity if the courts later find we broke the law it could cost of billions of dollars in damages, more than wiping out any gains we might garner by cooperating.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Do notice that the top three recipients of telecom money are also the top three candidates for President -- Here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What Harry Reid did last week was to assure that the telecoms would only see upside and no downside when faced with any similar requests from this or any other administration in the future.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The reason this is so important is that the nexus of big government and big business must always be viewed with the greatest attention and suspicion. If history has taught us anything it's that it is at that nexus where seeds of corporate fascism geminate, and if allowed to grow, thrive.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Those seeds took root in a startlingly aggressive way under this administration. Not only did major telecom companies comply with the administration's request for assistance in its illegal warrantless wiretapping, but they did so with frightening gusto, efficiency and enthusiasm.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">AT&T built warrantless wiretap rooms for the NSA</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">AT&T has asked a court to suppress documents leaked to the Electronic Frontier Foundation by an ex-employee detailing how the company indiscriminately diverted domestic and international traffic to the National Security Agency for warrantless wiretapping:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">AT&T built a secret room in its San Francisco switching station that funnels internet traffic data from AT&T Worldnet dialup customers and traffic from AT&T's massive internet backbone to the NSA, according to a statement from Klein.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Klein's duties included connecting new fiber-optic circuits to that room, which housed data-mining equipment built by a company called Narus, according to his statement.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Narus' promotional materials boast that its equipment can scan billions of bits of internet traffic per second, including analyzing the contents of e-mails and e-mail attachments and even allowing playback of internet phone calls.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Eventually Klein blew the whistle saying that, "We all remember Big Brother, and suddenly there I was hooking everyone up to the Big Brother Machine."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Harry Reid failed us and he violated his oath of office, the oath he took to "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies foreign or domestic."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, ask the two Democratic candidates if they would push to replace Reid immediately upon taking their oath of office.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's all. Have a great weekend.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Your Daily Sigh</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 13, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Hoisted With Their Own Petards</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">After decades of reporting on white collar crooks I learned something interesting. I learned that the best way to catch such otherwise respectable appearing evil-doers is to let them catch themselves. The other thing I learned is that hubris almost always guaranteed they would eventually do just that.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And so it came to pass yesterday when the Bush administration shot of an unclassified cable to it's diplomats around the world. The cable was devised to coach diplomats in how to respond to criticism of the administration's announcement last week that it would seek the death penalty against three al Qaida terrorists accused of planning and/or aiding the 9/11 attacks.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Diplomats advised to compare 9/11 cases to Nazi war crime trials sixty years ago in Nuremberg, Germany:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anticipating international criticism over plans to seek the death penalty for accused September 11, 2001, terrorists, the State Department is advising U.S. diplomats to point out that Nazis were executed after their war crime trials. The memo says U.S. diplomats should draw from the points in the memo "in responding to foreign government and media requests."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">One portion of the memo reads:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Q: "Doesn't the application of the death penalty to these defendants violate international law?"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A: "No. International humanitarian law contemplates the use of the death penalty for serious violations of the laws of war. The most serious war criminals sentenced at Nuremberg were executed for their actions" at the end of World War II. (Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Ironic, isn't it? Here's an administration that has stubbornly, and largely successfully, hidden, withheld and even destroyed, documents that could implicate it in crimes from conspiracy and collusion with energy companies to fabricating evidence to justify an illegal war against Iraq to torture.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then what do they do? They issue an unclassified cable to diplomats containing all the reasoning and justifications for it's own future in the dock of international justice.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Their effort to justify the death penalty for three al Qaida terrorists, may become the closing argument some future prosecutor will use against defendants Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. (Heretofore referred to as "The Gang of Four.")</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now, do I believe I will some day see the Gang of Four in the dock facing death sentences? No. Real life doesn't work that way. These days only defeated, weak, third-world tyrants face such ultimate justice. And even then, they rarely face a hangman's noose. At best modern tyrants simply get long prison terms -- and even that's rare.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Also these days the number of "civilized" nations that still employ the death penalty has been whittled down pretty much down to the US, China and Iran. Great company, huh?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nevertheless, in raising Nuremberg as precedent for its desire to snuff three terrorists, they have reminded the world that, just sixty years ago, public officials guilty of war crimes were held accountable. They were put on public trial, forced to face their surviving victims, forced to listen to the suffering they caused and the millions that died because of their orders and misdeeds.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Much of the evidence presented against those Nuremberg defendants were captured documents. They were faced with their own documents, containing their own words, their own orders, all over their own signatures.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The lessons that should have been learned from Nuremberg was that liability for wrong-doing accrued to all wrong-doers, no matter how high or low they ranked on the organizational chart.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, fast forwarding sixty years, what will become of those who followed the illegal orders of our leaders -- the CIA, the FBI, telecom companies and others? Nuremberg clearly and unequivocally established that "following orders" was no defense for committing crimes.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That should mean that more than the Gang of Four need to worry about future judicial accountability. And worried they are. That's why the CIA destroyed those torture tapes, and why the White House erased over 5 million emails. And it's why telecommunication companies are begging the White House for immunity for complying with the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If some future tribunal finds the Gang of Four and their accomplices guilty, prosecutors will only need to present yesterday's cable to US diplomats during the punishment phase of their trial.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 7, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Chicago 1968 -- Denver 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On August 25 Democrats will gather in Denver for their nominating convention. Ironically it comes precisely 40 years since the party opened it's 1968 convention in Chicago. The 1968 convention was the most significant in my lifetime - until now.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Democratic Party and the nation paid a horrible price for what transpired at that convention, a price we may be about to pay again.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Democratic convention this August faces many of the same issues as Democrats face in 1968. Change vs. same-old, same-old. Machine politics vs. people politics. The will of the people vs. the will of party insiders. They are all in play again.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I only mention this because the players are already setting up their plays for the August show down in Denver. Hillary Clinton has made it clear that, if Obama wins enough delegates to match her, she and her party surrogates will demand that delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated, even though she had agreed with the party's decision months ago to ban them if they moved their primaries up. They did anyway and their delegates were decertified. Now that she won Florida she wants to change the rules.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If that fight breaks out on the convention floor this August, get ready for trouble. What kind of trouble? Big trouble. That's what kind of trouble.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A brief history is required. Bear with me. Because, it's that important.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Flash Back:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Choosing a Presidential nominee in 1968 was particularly difficult for the Democrats. As today a profoundly unpopular war raged (in Vietnam.) President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had repeatedly escalated US involvement in Vietnam, had come under so much pressure from anti-war Democrats that he decided not to seek re-election.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Robert Kennedy was a controversial upstart, anti-war candidate hated by Johnson and unpopular with party leaders who saw him as too ambitious and too young. But Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June, nearly three months before the convention.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Senator Eugene McCarthy, D-MN, stepped up his aggressive anti-war campaign, calling for the immediate withdrawal from the region. Kennedy's former supporters flocked to McCarthy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On the other side was the Democratic Party bosses' choice, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Thanks to the oddities of Democratic primary rules back then, Humphrey did not participate in any primaries but still controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination if he wanted it. Unfortunately Humphrey had been an early supporter of the war and currently mirrored Johnson's strategy of continuing the war while trying to convince North Vietnam to negotiate a settlement. Anti-war Democrats had heard enough of such, "I'll-pay-you-Tuesday-for-a-hamburger-today, nonsense. They weren't buying.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCarthy's announcement re-ignited the hopes of a new generation of voters and political activists. A former academic and Washington outsider, McCarthy's nickname became "Clean for Gene," leading many students to cut their hair off and shave their beards and mustaches.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">McCarthy's principled stand on the war faced it's first, the New Hampshire primary. Hundreds of students rushed to New Hampshire and campaigned door-to-door for McCarthy. McCarthy won a startling 42% of the vote, something that greatly upset and stunned party loyalists. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Meanwhile behind the scenes Vice-president Hubert H. Humphrey had been negotiating for delegates in non-primary states. The fix had been put in already by party bosses. Humphrey "won" the nomination in Chicago on August 25-29, 1968. Three-thousand anti-war demonstrators stood outside the convention hall in shocked rage. To add insult to injury the delegates to the Democratic convention voted down a Vietnam peace plan by a 1500-1000 vote. (You see, even 40 years ago, Democrats lived in fear of being painted as "weak on national defense," by their Republican opponents. If a few thousand more US soldiers had to die for Democrats to look tough, so be it.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, despite strong showings in the primaries, McCarthy was able to gather only 23 percent of the delegates -- thanks to the control over the delegates wielded by state party organizations. While Humphrey, was not clearly an anti-war candidate, some anti-war Democrats backed Humphrey hoping he might succeed where Johnson had failed in extricating the United States from Vietnam -- just as today some Democrats hope that Hillary, who was for the war before she was against it -- might just figure out how to extricate us from Iraq.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Young McCarthy supporters quickly figured out that Democratic party insiders had fixed the contest and vented their disappointment and anger through the streets of Chicago. The party's most experienced and notorious machine Democrat -- Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley -- was not about to allow his party's will to be thwarted by a bunch of "hippies." He turned the police and National Guard loose on the protesters. (Watch it here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I remember watching the carnage on my black and white TV. It wasn't a hippe/yippee riot, it was a police riot. As young people were clubbed to the ground the crowd chanted, "The whole world is watching. The whole world is watching."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Those scenes radicalized me then and there, and millions more were as well. We've never entirely trusted the Democratic Party since then -- and for good and abundantly obvious reasons.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Chronology of the 1968 Chicago convention protests here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Party insiders "won" in 1968. The party nominated it's choice, Hubert Humphrey, as it had always intended to once Johnson decided not to run. Humphrey went on to lose the subsequent election to Richard M. Nixon by 500,000 votes. (Because of that, an additional 20,000 US soldiers would die before the war was finally brought to an end after Nixon was chased from office in 1974.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which brings me back to this coming August, in Denver. The similarities between 1968 and 2008 are startling:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 1968 support for the Vietnam war had hit new lows. (Chart)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 2008 support for the war in Iraq has reached new lows. (Chart)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 1968 the Democratic Party insider candidate, Humphrey, had supported the war and, while public option was increasingly for withdrawal, he preached against a mandated withdrawal from Vietnam, deeming such a withdrawal as reckless and potentially dangerous to US security.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 2008 the Democratic Party insider candidate, Hillary Clinton, who was for the war until she was against it, now argues against a rapid withdrawal or setting a hard timeline for withdrawal.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 1968 an unconventional, anti-war candidate -- Senator Gene McCarthy, captured the imagination and rekindled the hopes of a new generation of voters, even bridging racial divides garnering support from civil rights groups including the Black Panthers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 2008 an unconventional, anti-war candidate -- Senator Barack Obama, has captured the imagination and rekindled the hopes of a new generation of voters, again bridging historical racial divides.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 1968 Democratic Party insiders viewed newcomer McCarthy as an outsider and a threat to the party's pecking order. It was Hubert Humphrey's "turn" to be President, and besides, who was this rebel rousing outsider McCathy and his young hairy supporters anyway?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 2008 the Democratic Party apparatus view Obama as an outsider and a threat to the party's insider pecking order. It's been an article of faith since Bill left office that the next time was Hillary's turn. Besides, who is this rebel rousing outsider Barack Obama and his children crusaders anyway?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 1968 Democratic Party insiders brushed aside the hopes and aspirations for change from a new generation of voters. Instead they rammed through the nomination of the party's choice, Hubert Humphrey. How they did it is instructive -- they used their control over Democratic party state officials to swing their delegates to Humphrey.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In 2008 much the same dynamic will be in play. Already party chairman, Howard Dean (once an outsider himself) has indicated he's open to a deal that would avoid a convention-floor fight for the nomination. Welcome back to the smoke-filled rooms of 1968.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Should neither Clinton or Obama arrive in Denver with enough delegates to clinch the nomination, the dealing will begin. First there are the large number of so-called "Super Delegates," made up largely of old party hacks and those who follow orders. Super Delegates are not bound by how their states voted during the primaries. Instead many, if not most, will vote as the party leaders instruct them to vote.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If that fails to swing the nomination to Clinton party insiders hold a trump card -- a trump card that would put the party's designated hitter, Hillary Clinton, in and outsider Obama out: they will re-certify all or some of Florida and Michigan's now-banned delegates.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A redo for Mich., Fla.?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">LANSING, Mich. — The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold presidential caucuses so the delegates they lost for holding January primaries could be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said Wednesday. (Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Should they pull that stunt it will tear the Democratic Party apart as it did in 1968. It will also set the stage for McCain victory next November, and with it more war, more dead US GI's and more dead Iraqis.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">How do I know? Because history teaches me so.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">More Proof History Repeats on us: Guess who threw his hat into the GOP presidential ring in November 1967 -- Michigan Governor George Romney -- father of Mitt. Like father, like son. George Romney withdrew from the race in February 1968. Son Mitt Romney dropped out of the race today, Feb. 7, 2008. Now you know.... the rest of the story.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If Hillary wins fair and square, fine. I won't like it, but I'll learn to live with it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But, if the party pulls a 1968, and rams Hillary Clinton down our throats, then the gloves are off. We need to let Howard Dean, et al, know that if they play that card all hell will break loose. Like my generation 40 years ago, a new generation has been energized ... energized by endless war, by growing economic inequities and by heavy-handed government intrusions into their private lives. They are smart. They are connected. And they will not go quietly.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">My generation lost its fight, largely because we had virtually no access to mass communications or the mass media. When you told someone 40 years ago that your were "networking," it meant was that you owned phone and a phone book. All we could do to get our message on the evening news was to demonstrate, raise hell and shout insults at the police.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But this generation is all about networking and mass communication.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Sticks and stones didn't get it done for us in 68, but I suspect the tech-savvy, hyper-connected YouTube generation will make Democratic Party hacks long for those "good old days," if they cross them.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's too soon to put out the call: "Denver. August 25-28. Be there, or be square." But be assured, we're watching.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"There is absolutely no greater high than challenging the power stucture as a nobody, giving it your all, and winning." --Abbie Hoffman </p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-63598703271227619182008-02-07T12:54:00.001-08:002008-02-07T12:54:50.610-08:00January 25-Feb 6, 2008<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Florida:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A Cheater's Best Friend</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Some have described Hillary Clinton's brand of politics as "Bush-lite." Those who feel that way can find further confirmation in Florida -- the very state where George W. Bush "finagled" his way into the presidency in 2000.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When the Bushies discovered they were not going to win playing by the rules, they changed the rules. Some would say they broke the rules. Others would say, "what's the diff?" Changing the rules in the heat of a close game is cheating, which is the same thing as breaking the rules.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Whatever, the end result back in 2000 was that the guy who actually won the popular vote, Al Gore, didn't get to claim his win. Instead the guy who failed to win the popular vote, George W. Bush, was installed into the presidency, not by voters, but by the Supreme Court.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The lesson was clearly not lost on presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. When campaign rules she agreed to at the start of the race no longer served her, she decided to change those rules. And where better to pull such a stunt than in the perennially "confused" state of Florida.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Think back, for a moment, to when this primary began. The Democratic party of Florida moved it's primary up to January in violation of DNC rules. In return the national party stripped Florida of it's 210 delegates to the August Democratic Party nominating convention.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">At the time this decision was made, each of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, agreed to ignore the Florida primary. Florida could have it's primary anytime it wanted, but it's 210 Democratic Party delegates will not be recognized at the party's convention. In other words, no candidate would be able to count Florida delegates in the final count. (The same went for Michigan which also defied the party.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">None of the candidates had a problem with this -- until Barack Obama began to catch fire and close in on Hillary Clinton. Suddenly, what had looked like an easy win for Clinton, turned into a real horse race. Obama's delegate count began closing in on Hillary Clinton's.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then Obama trounced Clinton in South Carolina, after which Democratic party seniors, like Ted Kennedy, came out for Obama and more indicated they were leaning his way.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's when Hillary Clinton decided it was time to tear a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook. Since no Democrats had campaigned in Florida, Clinton was able to leverage her relationship with Florida's expatriate New Yorkers for an easy win. Coming, as it did, at a moment where events were trending away from her and towards Obama, Clinton decided it was time for a rule change:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Clinton alone in push for Florida delegates</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Times Political Editor<br />Published January 26, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Trying to ramp up the importance of Florida's Democratic presidential primary, Hillary Clinton on Friday called for her Democratic rivals to join her in helping get Florida delegates seated for the national convention.... "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," the New York senator said in a statement. "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan." (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just as Neo-con Republicans rallied to Bush's side in the 2000 Florida fight, old-line machine Democrats jumped in to back up their candidate.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Sen. Bill Nelson, who some Democrats expect to endorse Clinton Tuesday, praised her statement, called on other Democrats to follow her lead, and declared in a statement, "All the talk about Florida's Democratic Primary being meaningless is absurd....Many observers expect the eventual nominee will push to reinstate the delegates at the convention."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So there you have it. Hillary Clinton explicitly preparing the ground for a Bush-like Florida-powered coup. Those 210 Florida delegates would be more than enough to tip the balance in what is shaping up to be a neck to neck race to the August convention. And, since Clinton "won" the Florida non-primary, she'd get the lion's share of those delegates if the party caves and certifies them, as Clinton is demanding. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If Clinton prevails she would have cheated herself to the party nomination, just as Bush cheated his way into the presidency. And that would not be "Bush-lite" at all. It would be more like "Bush-heavy," a repeat of the Bush/Cheney campaign's 2000 Florida coup.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Memo to Howard Dean:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Howard -- please listen very carefully. If the Democratic Party allows Hillary Clinton to get away with reseating the Florida and Michigan delegates then I -- and I suspect tens of millions of other already unhappy Democrats -- will be done with the Democratic party -- this time for good.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">You're already on shaky ground, amigo. We put you guys back in power last year and you've accomplished nothing. The war rages on, the economy is tanking, we still don't have a sane (or even humane) health care system, our country is now listed among those that employ torture, we are still being spied on by our own government and Democrats haven't impeached executive branch officials provably guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In short, you're already on thin ice. Put the fix in now for Hillary Clinton by reseating those delegates and that'll be the final straw for millions of us.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Think we're kidding? Think again.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 28, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Bonnie & Clyde</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(And Other Power Couples)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In recent days I've been reintroduced to "Clinton Fatigue." Remember Clinton Fatigue? Oh man, I sure do.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." On the contrary. Since 1968 I've been a proud -- if often weary and disappointed -- card-carrying member of the vast left-wing conspiracy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Let me back up a few years and tell you about a long-forgotten memory that popped back into my head this week like a bad acid flashback.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">About a dozen years ago I was staying a night at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills. (Not on my nickel, mind you. My publisher, HarperCollins, was picking up the tab as part of a book tour.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Anyway it was morning and I left my room for the first talk show appointment of the day. I punched the "down" button for the elevator. A car was already heading down from a top floor and stopped to pick me up. Inside were just two people, a very burly guy in gray suit and an older, well-dressed woman.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Even before the doors closed it dawned on me that the woman was none other than the former First Lady of the Philippines -- Imelda Marcos.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As the car resumed it's downward voyage I was suddenly consumed with the temptation to address Ms. Marcos with some kind of crack along the lines of; "Good morning. Nice shoes!"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But I stifled myself after noticing that her very large, not smiling, bodyguard was already burning holes through me with his eyes. The coward in me prevailed over the smart-ass and kept my peace (and my teeth.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When the doors opened into the lobby a small clutch of Filipino women had gathered to greet Ms. Marcos. They clapped and carried signs praising her. The rotund Ms. Marcos scurried past me towards them, her bejeweled hands outstretched, as she crooned, "Oh, my peeeeople, my peeeeople...." (Visions of Miss Piggy danced before my eyes.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As I get older and retreat ever further from my former work-a-day existence, memories like that pay unexpected dividends. At the time they served as simple conversation pieces -- as in, "You'll never guess who I shared an elevator with this morning." But years later they end up as pieces of life's jigsaw without which my understanding of the big picture would be lacking.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And so it was that last week, as I watched and listened to the latest episodes of the newly revived Bill and Hillary Show, that my encounter with half of the former Ferdinand and Imelda act suddenly meshed with current events.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Don't fret. I'm not comparing the Clintons with the breathtaking corruption of the Marcos regime. Whatever you think of the Clinton's they're not crooks -- at least not by current Republican standards. Instead the comparison hinges on what appears to be a sense of entitlement power-hungry couples like the Clintons, the Marcos and the Perons of the world develop once they get in office.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Not all power-couples fall victim to this syndrome, but when a couple does it appears to be incurable. They live and breathe to attain "their precious." Once they have it, they devise devious ways to keep it. When they lose it, they will do and say anything it takes to get it back.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I'm not the only one out here who worries about a Bill & Hillary 2008 revival tour:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. .. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics." (NYT: Bob Herbert)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. (Bill) can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House...Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency? " (Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?...Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan." (Frank Rich)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Most of Bill’s tantrums were behind closed doors. But during Hillary’s presidential campaign, we’ve seen the real Bill boiling with rage... But don’t think that he can’t stage blowing his top when he thinks it will be strategically useful...Bill’s tantrums are causing the press to focus on him and not Hillary. That’s what he wants. No more questions about her experience, her ethics, her flip-flops. Now it's all about Bill. (Former Clinton advisor, Dick Morris)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I was so relieved to see the Clinton years come to an end. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't as though I was happy with their replacements. Far from it. George W. Bush will almost surely go down in history as this country's worst president.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Clinton's on the other hand, will likely go down as the nation's most annoying First Couple.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">For eight years we had to wrestle with their unique spousal/political/interpersonal/ethical soap-opera dynamic. And it left me, and many other Democrats, exhausted. And not just exhausted by the spectacles, but by constantly having to defend the Clintons antics from the even sleazier sleaze balls on the right.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And now they're baaaack. And not just the Clintons are back, but the whole disgusting, time-wasting, name-calling, he-said, she-said, sick 1990's reality show of a soap opera.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The first "Clinton years" -- the 1990s. were downright pastoral compared to the Mad Max world of jihad, peak oil and re-(or) de-pression that now loom just ahead of us. The last thing we need right now are the Duke and Duchess of Hazard back the White House -- and all the distractions they tow along in their joint wakes.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Cartoon of The Day</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(From Salon.com)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 24, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Call me Crazy</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Again)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Some days I wonder if I'm becoming delusional. You know, the kind of person who sees and hears things that no one else sees or hears. Or, worse, the kind of person who finds himself surrounded by a handful of folks who also see and hear things that few others hear and see and who assure me, "we're not crazy, everyone else is crazy."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I mean here were are now in the midst of an economic collapse of historic proportions that some of us have seen coming for a couple of years. Now suddenly that we're on the rocks all those folks who accused us of seeing problems that did not exist, are now promising to fix those very problems. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Nevertheless we, of course, are still the crazy ones.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But, don't worry, I'm not going to beat that horse today. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news, and that news is now old-news.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No, today I want to flog another dead horse "the voices" have been bugging me about -- the surge. You might have heard -- it's "working."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Every time I hear a politician or general boasting that "the surge is working," the voices roar in my head, "What the f--- are those people talking about?"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It really comes down to this: either they are lying to us (again) or I need to go on anti-psychotic medication immediately.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">You tell me which it is. Here's what the "voices" tell me is actually going on with the surge. As my old Marine DI used to like to put it -- "by the numbers:"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) Once Iraq's minority Sunnis were driven out power by US forces, they accepted offers of help from al Queda in the hope that al Queda's suicidal nut cakes would destabilize the new US-backed Shiite-dominated government.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) But, as I wrote long ago, terrorists rarely succeed because they eventually "crap in the own mess kits." That is, they generally end up turning on their hosts, because terrorists tend to be either political and/or religious fundamentalist. And for a fundamentalist no one is ever "pure enough." Sooner or later fundamentalists begin fighting even with their supporters. And that's precisely what happened in the Sunni areas of Iraq. Al Queda fighters abused their hosts and wore out their welcome.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">3) Besides wearing out their welcome, Sunnis also came to realize that al Queda's tactics would never defeat the US and Iranian-backed Shiites in Baghdad. In fact, if the Americans left Iraq right then (pre-surge) it was certain that Iran would move right in to fill the security vacuum.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">4) So, even before the surge began, Sunni leaders and US commanders suddenly had something in common -- al Queda. So, both parties struck a classic Faustian deal: if Sunni insurgents stopped their anti-US and anti-government attacks the US would arm and fund Sunni militias in their new fight against al Queda.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">5) Even long before Bush's surge troops arrived in Iraq this new tactic had slashed US casualties and put al Queda in Iraq on the run.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A cursory examination of the above might lead the uncurious to accept administration claims that "the surge is working." If lower US casualties were the benchmark, the surge "worked" before it even began.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But in fact, if the surge is "working," it's actually working in the same way a near identical tactic worked two decades ago in Afghanistan. Back then the US armed the Mujahideen in their fight against Soviet occupiers. That "worked" too -- at least in the short run. Today those same US-backed Afghan fighters are now killing US and NATO forces and destabilizing neighboring Pakistan. How's that "working" out?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When it comes to alliances in that part of the world, "working" is a term of art -- the art of the tribal politics of convenience. You know, 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Once the common enemy has been dealt with the "working" relationship dissolves, usually to be immediately replaced by the status quo ante as the former allies revert to enemies once again.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And that's just what is happening in Iraq now that al Queda has been chased out of Sunni areas. Now the Sunnis are back to trying to figure out how to prevent majority Shiites from succeeding. Now, thanks to their temporary American friends, Sunni militias are better trained and far better equipped than they were after being chased out of government with little more than the shirts on their backs following Saddam's dethroning by US forces. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Ah, so now what?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Well the "voices" tell me that, with al Queda on the ropes, and US troops having one foot out the door, the Sunni insurgency will soon switch its (violent) attentions back to destabilizing the US/Iranian-backed government in Baghdad.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">None of this has been lost on Iraq's equally shady Shiite leaders. They've been warning the US against the arming of Sunni militias since the get go. After all, Americans may new to all this, but the Shiites and Sunnis have been at this for a thousand years. They know each other well -- too well. The last thing the newly entrenched Shiite rulers of Iraq want is to be stuck with a robust Sunni insurgency after their US protectors leave.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's why they've decided to nip that little problem in the bud, while the nipping good. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">At least that how the voices see it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Oh, look, the voices were right - again:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">BAGHDAD — American-backed Sunni militias who have fought Sunni extremists to a standstill in some of Iraq’s bloodiest battlegrounds are being hit with a wave of assassinations and bomb attacks, threatening a fragile linchpin of the military’s strategy to pacify the nation. At least 100 predominantly Sunni militiamen, known as Awakening Council members or Concerned Local Citizens, have been killed in the past month, mostly around Baghdad and the provincial capital of Baquba. Violence is also shaking up the Awakening movement, many of whose members are former insurgents, in its birthplace in the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Born nearly two years ago in Iraq’s western deserts, the Awakening movement has grown to an 80,000-member nationwide force, four-fifths of whose members are Sunnis. American military officials credit that force, along with the surge in United States troops, the Mahdi Army’s self-imposed cease-fire and an increase in Iraqi security forces, for a precipitous drop in civilian and military fatalities since July.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, "the surge is working." But for whom? And for how long? And what about later?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Later" is important.. maybe more important than the here and now. Exactly what may grow from the seeds planted by this temporary marriage of connivence between US forces and Sunni insurgents? We never saw the bitter harvest we'd reap from the same unholy alliance we made in Afghanistan during the 1980s with anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents. Those tactics were seen as "working" back then too as the Soviets were chased out of Afghanistan.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What we didn't see coming was that arming and training those Afghan insurgents then had set in motion events that would, years later, result in the attacks of 9/11. Those well-armed Afghan insurgents, once victorious, became the Taliban, who in turn harbored and supported al Queda, which, from its safe havens in Afghanistan, planned the 9/11 attacks. Cause - effect.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So maybe I'm crazy. But I find it difficult to accept, based on what I see and hear every day, that Bush's surge in Iraq is "working." If it is working, how so? What metrics are those claiming so using? And what do those temporary Sunni allies of ours have in mind for the days when we leave them and their Shiite enemies to settle matters on their own?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What will Iran do then?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What will we do then?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We didn't ask those questions back in the 1980s in Afghanistan. Instead we decided the short term results were good enough, why bother extrapolating events into the future.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now look, we're back in Afghanistan, this time big time. Did our arming of Afghan insurgents really "work" in light of events that followed?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">With all that in mind, I ask, have those claiming the surge in Iraq is working considered what follows? How will Iraq's minority Sunnis use the billions of dollars in arms, equipment and training in the months and years ahead? Believe me, the Shiites have made those calculations, they don't like the results, and they have no intention of letting them happen.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Neither do the Sunnis, for whom the surge really has worked, putting them back into the game by the same US forces who knocked them out of the game just five bloody years ago.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now that's crazy.</p><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-75085285229358519452008-01-24T10:37:00.000-08:002008-01-24T10:38:21.143-08:00January 15-23, 2008<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Think About It</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Before it's too late)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I want to speak directly to supporters of Hillary Clinton. No, not speak... plead.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I remember the last time I wanted to reach out and shake a bunch of fellow progressives. It was back in 2000 when Ralph Nader was running for President. A lot of what Ralph was saying was true and attractive to long-suffering progessive voters. Meanwhile, Al Gore, had picked the worst possible moment in history to have an identity crisis and was proving to be a disappointment as a candidate -- to say the least.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nevertheless many of us worried that Ralph could sap just enough votes from Gore to toss the election to Bush. And, with a little help from the Supremes, that's precisely what happened.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I have that same fear again. If McCain ends up the GOP candidate, rather than the more clearly flawed Romeny or Giuliani, Hillary Clinton will not sashay to the coronation she had once envisioned. Instead her built-in high negatives will drive many independents back into the GOP camp and she will re-energize a currently dispirited GOP rank and file.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Worse yet, Democratic voters, many of of whom simply cannot stomach Hillary Clinton, will simply not vote if their only choice is between John McCain and Hillary Clinton.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's all it would take to tip the "Red state/Blue state" calculus to a McCain victory next November. And if that happens, and we end up with another Republican in the White House a year from January, the blame for that will lay directly in the laps of those of you who have been hypnotized into making Hillary the Democratic party nominee. Yes it will. And then, like those Nader voters of 2000 your only comfort will be your self-serving belief that, "at least I did the right thing," even if contributed to the wrong outcome.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If that does not convince you that Hillary is a bad bet, ask yourself the following question:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What serious person would serve as Vice President in a "Billary" administration?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I keep hearing Hillary supporters suggesting that a dream ticket would be a Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Edwards ticket. What are you guys smoking? Edwards and Obama are serious fellas. Neither would want to serve four years as window-dressing while Hillary and her defacto VP, Bill, run the country from the White House family quarters.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Can you imagine that? Try. Because if you can get your heads around that one you will understand that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible of choices. Already we are seeing hints of the spousal dynamic that would play out if Hillary and Bill end up back in the White House. It will be four years of Bill and Hillary against -- everyone else, including members of their own party.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just last week both Rahm Emanuel and James Carville -- both longtime Clinton loyalists, got into shouting matches with Bill over his bellicose defense of Hillary. Reportedly each man told Bill, in no uncertain terms, that he was splitting the party, alienating black voters and scaring the hell out of wavering white voters.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">To paraphrase Bill's response, according to reports, "Bite me! Mind your own damn business."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Well, this IS your business. It's all our business. We've just paid a staggering price for ignoring these same warning signs eight years ago. Are Democrats really going to make that mistake again? </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I have warned from the start that there are only two possible outcomes if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of her party:campaign for President: She could lose, or she could win. Either outcome would thrust our already battered and exhausted nation into another four years of division and animus -- not to mention reruns of the "As The Clinton's Turn," spousal soap opera.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, Hillary Supporters, think again. The nation would move forward under a President John Edwards. And the nation would be elevated by a President Obama. But a President Hillary Clinton would mean trading divisive George W. Bush for an equally divisive Hillary R. Clinton.It would mean four more years of Washington food fights. Four more years of the now all-too familiar,"your-mother's-so-fat" levels of debate. And four years of watching Hillary act like Margaret Thatcher on the world stage while channeling Eleanor Roosevelt here at home -- a schizophrenic balancing act even a shape-shifter like Hillary Clinton won't be able to pull off.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But so far that argument has not seemed to dissuade Hillary's supporters. So let me just leave you with this little mental exercise:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Our nation's founders didn't create the vice presidency as a ceremonial post. They lived in a time when folks regularly dropped dead at relatively young ages. So our founders created the post of vice president as a kind of constitutionally empowered spare, should something prevent the president from completing a full term in office.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, if nothing else convinces you to reconsider your support of Hillary, close your eyes and try to imagine the kind of doormat of a person required to serve as vice president in a Hillary/Bill administration.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then ask yourself if that's the kind of person you want as president-in-waiting. You should do this because voters certainly will imagine just that as their finger hovers over the candidate's name in the voting booth next November.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 18, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Memo</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">To: William Jefferson Clinton</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">From: Those of us with a memory</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Yo, Bill;</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Listen big guy, we really need to talk.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Over the last few weeks we've seen you lose your cool as you campaign for your wife.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Knock it off!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">You need a long overdue reality check, dude. You are the last person in the country who should be indignantly lecturing anyone. Why?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Oh, let us count the whys:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) In part -- how large a part we can argue another time -- the presidency of George W. Bush is your fault. That's right, your fault. By the time your second term was over your juvenile, self-indulgent, adulterous behavior had rendered you so radioactive Al Gore was unable to leverage the many positive things you did while in office. Your embarrassing behavior nearly got you impeached, invigorated the sheep on the religious right, virtually handing the keys to Oval Office to the Neo-cons we've had to endure for the past seven years.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Deny that at your own peril, Bill. Bush's margin of "victory" in 2000 says otherwise. No reasoning person could believe that tens of thousands of folks who would have voted for Gore didn't because of the stain (pun intended) your behavior left on the Clinton/Gore administration.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) Your misbehavior also served to lower the bar to the US Presidency. Your behavior so diminished the grandeur of the office of President of the United States that a half-wit blowhard like George W. Bush suddenly became electable. He wasn't electable because he offered solutions, vision or substance, but because he reassured voters he'd "restore dignity to the Oval Office."*</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">*(Translation: "I won't get hummers in the Oval Office from bimbo-interns.")</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">3) In late 1993 I was covering the White House for Mother Jones magazine for a story on campaign finance reform. I was invited to interview your point man on that issue, Michael Waldman. (Read that story here) Reforming the corrupt campaign finance system had been a central plank of your campaign and hopes were high that someone was finally going to do something about it. But when I got to the Executive Office Building to interview Mike I found his office empty. When I inquired where he was I was told he had been taken off campaign finance reform and transferred to the administration's current priority -- getting NAFTA passed. I could not even talk to Mike because he was sequestered in the White House "NAFTA War room."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, great. We didn't get campaign finance reform but we did get NAFTA. Have you checked lately how that's worked out? Not well. Not well at all. We've taken note of that.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">4) Hillary's failed healthcare reform efforts were directly related to the above. Even after NAFTA passed you guys didn't return, in any real way, to campaign finance reform. Why? And you guys also didn't return, in any real way, to healthcare reform either. Why? Because the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries let you know they'd gotten "the message."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What message?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The message that, if power in Washington is about anything, it's about the protection rackets. Big healthcare got that message and started paying you guys protection money. Proof? Today your candidate-wife is among the top beneficiaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical money in this campaign.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Coincidence? Forget about it. No one is going to buy that after one look at the hard (money) facts. Any reasonable observer will conclude that that's why you two lost interest in reforming either the campaign finance system or national healthcare. As a result you and Hillary never took another real swipe at the healthcare/pharmaceutical industries. And thanks to that no fewer than 10 million additional Americans are today without healthcare coverage.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Sure, you did a lot of good things during your two terms. You balanced the budget, fairly taxed the rich and left a surplus in the bank for the next guy. Had you not disgraced yourself during your second term you'd have every right to wag your finger and lecture others.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Instead you acted like a horny teenage boy, treating OUR Oval Office as though it was a private booth in some seedy porno shop. Then, when caught, quite literally with your pants down, you looked the whole world in the eye, your nose turned monkey-butt red, you shook your finger in our faces -- and you lied.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">True, unlike the lies of our current President, your lies didn't directly get anyone killed. But a reasonable argument could be posed that, in the run of events since, your lies did get people killed. President Al Gore would not have taken us into Iraq. And, had Gore been able to enthusiastically associate himself with the sound economic and domestic policies of the Clinton/Gore years, he would have won the 2000 election -- likely with by a healthy margin to boot.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But Gore couldn't associate himself with your good deeds without being tarnished by your personal flaws. So we got George W. Bush -- and all the misery that has followed, and will follow for years, maybe decades, to come.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, Bill, knock off the self-righteous crap. And stop popping off at reporters and commentators just because they refuse to obediently accept your first explanation of things you'd prefer not discussed during this campaign -- like your wife's attempt to suppress the youth vote in New Hampshire and the minority vote Nevada. Yes she did.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Put the anger away. And don't you dare wag that finger in our faces again. You sir, live in a glass house -- and you've been pushing your luck. Knock it off. Knock it all off.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Must Watch Video of the Day</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">http://blip.tv/file/520347</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 17, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A 2-Step Solution</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">to Reverse the Bush Recession</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Washington seems to have discovered what we've been talking about here for over three years -- that the Bush tax cuts for the rich didn't work as advertised. Of course, we knew they wouldn't work when they were passed way back in 2001</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As I've written so many times my fingers cramp just thinking about it... economies are not stimulated from the top down, but from the bottom up -- by consumers, not producers. Very little of the money generated by tax cuts for top earners ever trickles down in ways that result in higher earnings and spending by consumers. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In reality it works exactly the other way. Cut the payroll tax for working Americans. That immediately puts more money in the hands of people who are already having trouble making ends meet. Consumers spend most or all that extra money in each paycheck. That in turn generates more demand for goods and services, which spurs hiring at the companies that produce them. Those companies then have to hire more workers to profit off that increased demand, resulting in additional workers getting the benefit of the payroll tax cut, who spend that extra money. As companies profits increase due to increased consumer buying power, tax revenues will begin to refill federal coffers gutted by the Bush tax cuts.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">All of which creates a self-sustaining virtuous cycle that benefits everyone up and down the food chain.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now that we're in a mess that could have -- and should have -- been avoided, everyone in both parties is looking for a way out. And once again, everyone, in both parties, are getting it wrong.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just look at some of the numbskull proposals being floated.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Republican solution is another shot of the dog that bit us. They're using looming economic gloom to fear-monger us into agreeing to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 permanent. Of course that's so predictable from the party that fear-mongered us into other disasters like wiretaps, Gitmo and torture. Now they are trying to scare us into setting those tax cuts for the rich into stone before the GOP gets kicked out of town next January.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Democrats have been no less predictable. Their solution is to just start handing out cash in the form of $300 to $600 one-time handouts to every taxpayer. That's not going to solve anything. It will pay one month's heating bill for a working family in Detroit. Then what? It's a non-solution masquerading as a solution by candidates afraid of being accused of waging "class warfare" by opposing GOP attempts to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Democrats learned this little trick from Bush. He used the same trick back in 2001. He handed out the same kind of "feel-good" money then to make us feel like we were getting a piece of his $1.4 trillion tax cuts. That was our piece... a one-time $300 to $600 check -- actually more a morsel than a piece -- suckers. The biggest beneficiaries of Bush's tax cuts have been the top 1% of the nation's earners.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that the cost of the tax-cut provisions the Tax Policy Center has analyzed would be $3.4 trillion over the 2008-2017 period, if these provisions are extended. Applying the Tax Policy Center estimates of the share of the tax cuts that would go to each income group to the CBO/Joint Tax Committee estimates of the tax cuts’ cost shows:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * From 2008 through 2017, households with annual incomes of more than $1 million — a group that comprises the highest income 0.3 percent of the population — would receive $739 billion in tax cuts. This represents 22 percent of the total value of the tax cuts over the period.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * More than $1 trillion in tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of households, a group with annual incomes above $400,000 in 2007. The highest income 1 percent of households thus would receive nearly one third of the tax cuts’ total value.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * The bottom 60 percent of households would receive 12 percent of the tax cuts’ value, or well under half the amount that would go to the top 1 percent. (See Table 1; for year-by-year detail, see the appendix tables.) (Source)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So here's how we fix that "mistake" and, at the same time, revitalize the American economy. Don't reach for a pen and note pad, because this is so simple you could write the whole economic plan on the back of a matchbook:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) Shift those cuts to reduce the payroll tax by the same amount.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's it. A two-point economic stimulus package that will pump $1 trillion into the pockets of American consumers. And, rather than that money flowing into family trusts and other paper investments, it will get spent, piece by orderly piece, each week, every week, forever. So, if congress is itching to make a tax cut permanent, that's the one -- a payroll tax cut.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The beneficiaries of the Bush tax cut had their chance to prove the trickle-down theory, and failed -- just as they failed the last time it was tried by Ronald Reagan. Both attempts left America saddled by back-breaking deficits and debt. Both attempts enriched the already enriched at the expense of middle class working Americans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">They had their chance. Now give trickle up economics a chance. Revoke the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and give them to working Americans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then, just so they feel like they're getting a piece of this new action, send each of America's top 1% earners a government check for $300 as their share of our economic stimulus package -- with our compliments.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 14, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Let me start out by saying this column is going to really piss some people off. But I am calling it how I see it. And this is how I see it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A couple of hundred years ago, back in the old South, white folk made a distinction between "good" negroes and the not-so-good negroes. "Good" negroes stayed in line, were deferential to whites and didn't make trouble. Those were the negroes whites assigned jobs in and around their houses, rather than in the fields. They even had a term for them -- though I have to clean it up a bit: "house negroes."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">White's of the old South took it for granted that their house-servant slaves were grateful, loyal and even held genuine affection for their masters. So it was a rude awakening when, after Lincoln freed the slaves, those freed house servants packed up and left to strike out on their own.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Many whites were genuinely surprised, even hurt that their former servants, nannies and groundskeepers had turned their backs on them. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A kind of grieving process then played out. First many former white slave owners were hurt at what they felt was a shocking display of ingratitude. Then came dismay. After all, who was going to raise the kids, cook and clean now?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then, as that reality sunk in, they became angry, striking out, saying and trying whatever they could to assure that lives of freedom their former servants sought would be as miserable, unfulfilling and unsuccessful as possible.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That was then. Now, 150 years later, we're watching a similar drama play out on the political stage.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Clintons and their institutional Democratic Party old guard shocked, insulted, even hurt that black Americans might prefer upstart Barack Obama over the next in line, Hillary Clinton. The national Democratic Party machine had other plans for this election cycle. Democratic Party insiders were fixing to put the first white woman in the White House, not the first black man.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But then guess who came to dinner. Barack Obama, a smart, attractive and inspirational young black man stepped up and announced he'd like a shot too. Imagine their chagrin when blacks, joined by millions of white Americans, started voting for the black guy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Until then the Democratic Party pointed with pride at the Obama candidacy as proof that the party was more racially open than the all-white GOP line up. That all changed when people actually started voting for him in alarmingly high numbers. Particularly worrisome was the growing number of black voters switching from Hillary to Barack.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No machine Democrat was more hurt and dismayed by this turn of events than the party's heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. After Barack Obama beat her in Iowa, she let go of the hurt and moved straight on to anger. It was time to remind African-American voters not only which side their bread has been buttered on, and just who had buttered it "for them" in the first place.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done." (Hillary Clinton)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What she left out of that remark was inferred; "and it took a white, Democrat President to get it done for y'all."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The same week Hillary dropped that bomb husband Bill took his own swipe, describing the Obama phenomena "the biggest fantasy I've ever seen."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Clintons realized that they were losing their grip on a constituency they believed they owned. So Hillary quickly put her remaining black supporters front and center to put a black face back on the Clinton campaign, and to defend both her and Bill from the black backlash their remarks last week caused. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Black Entertainment Televsions Founder Slams Obama</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">COLUMBIA, S.C. — Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use. -- And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”(Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During those remarks -- which, had they made by a white businessman, would have caused a monumental uproar -- Hillary Clinton sat on stage expressionless. Had she disagreed with the thrust of Johnson's remarks she could have disassociated herself from them. But she didn't. Instead, when he was done she applauded and hugged him.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And why not. After all, he, a successful black man, had just reinforced the subliminal message her campaign would not dare articulate itself. A message that went something like this:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * - While blacks have moved into the American mainstream, they largely have white Democrats, like Hillary and Bill, to thank for it. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * - And that while blacks have made a lot progress over the years, they are still not "ready" to run the nation. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * - And, in case that didn't get you back on the Democratic Party plantation, remember -- Obama was a druggie when he was younger.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Deeper in the bowls of the Clinton campaign, where hurt has turned to anger, a more dangerous strategy was emerging -- one designed to send a message to white Democratic voters. If you thought only Republicans like Karl Rove still played the racist card, forget about it. When the chips are down -- and they are down now for Hillary Clinton -- the Clintons and their surrogates know how to push those buttons too.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> Many pundits wondered why the Clintons would risk alienating the black community on the eve of the South Carolina primary with their slaps at MLK and Obama. Others suggested that Bill told Hillary she needed her own Sister Soulja moment to show white voters, particularly in South Carolina, that she is not in the pocket of African-American interest groups.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And, in the process, also rekindle white working class fear and resentment towards a black candidate. Such a tactic might also appeal to the now disaffected working class Reagan Democrats who, after years of being screwed blue by the GOP were looking for a "safe" Democrat to vote for next November.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So last week the Clintons pulled out all the stops, sending their surrogates out to spread their subliminal-message attacks against Obama. Democratic New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo waded in on Hillary's behalf last week as well, using language that could hardly have been accidental from a guy whose father is one of America's great orators:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference," he added. "All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Shuck and jive" is a term once used to describe blacks behaving innocently in the presence of an white authority figures, so as to lie and get out of trouble.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Irony alert: Of course Hillary Clinton is married to the biggest shuck and jive artist ever to grace the Oval Office -- as displayed in his greatest hits -- "Now listen to me. I did NOT have sex with that woman...." and the all time classic -- "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is." It's a political art form Hillary herself is no stranger to. Just ask her to explain her vote to give George W. the right to attack Iraq and her more recent vote on Iran if you want to hear some world class shucking and jiving. But I digress.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nothing happens by accident in a Clinton campaign. Last week was all about raising doubts about Hillary's young black opponent. More and more black voters are -- if you'll excuse the term -- taking a shine to Obama. The national polls show voters moving his way, at her expense</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When things go wrong in a Clinton campaign the first thing they do is crunch and dissect the numbers. They now know that if Hillary is going to have a chance at beating Obama, they will have to beat him ---beat him up. They will have to say and encourage others to say, whatever it takes to scare as many of their now wavering black supporters back onto the Clinton plantation.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But they also know that many black Americans, likely a majority, will jump at the chance to make history. Not the first white woman President kind of history, but the first African American President kind of history. So, the numbers say to they also need to round up enough white voters to dilute Obama's surge among African Americans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And how do you convince whites to shun a black candidate? Well some whites are already so inclined. For the rest the Clintons understand they need to cunningly leverage old racial stereotypes in order to raise doubts about Obama's character and abilities. To do that requires great skill and even greater deception and deceit. It requires a social/political witch's brew of connivance and hypocrisy:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * Repeatedly chant "he's not ready."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * Add a dash of "they (black Americans) couldn't have done it if we white liberals hadn't done it for them."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * Throw in some racially evocative slang like, "He's just shuck and jiving you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * Drop reminders, as Clinton campaign manager, Mark Penn did on Chris Matthew's show of past drug use while denying it matters: "We are running a clean campaign," Penn told Matthew's, "We are not, for example, going to bring up Sen. Obama's former cocaine use."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> * Wink and nod to white voters that Hillary is one of them and not in the pocket of African-American interest groups. And what better way to do that than to diminish the role of Martin Luther King.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Are the Clinton's really that ruthless, that cunning, that conniving?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Yes. Yes they are. You can bet the plantation on it. </p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-35991955483621112732008-01-14T11:09:00.000-08:002008-01-14T11:10:01.935-08:00January 5-14, 2008<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No S....t</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Yesterday, in a bid to reassure nervous investors, Federal Reserve chief, Ben Bernanke, announced that the central bank was going to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The markets weren't impressed by Bernanke's hint that the Fed is ready to cut half a precent off the Fed Rate at the end of this month. There was a time, a couple of years ago, when the Fed could have made a difference, not by cutting rates, but raising them to cool the overheated housing market. But the Fed (and Federal banking regulators) succumbed to pressure from the lenders, builders, Security dealers and Realtors who were feasting off the bubble easy credit had created.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Back then no one was interested in lectures from the Fed on sustainability or risk. Then was the time to reel them in, kicking and screaming and accusing the Fed of driving the economy into the tank with higher interest rates. If they had the market would not be in the tank, and heading into recession today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Here's why Fed rates cuts now will not -- cannot -- work.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">First here are the only choices the Fed has to choose from now:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) Avoid a recession by sparking inflation</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) Avoid inflation by causing a recession</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">3) Have both at the same time -- stagflation.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Option 1) The Fed could try to avoid a recession by lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply. The idea would be to encourage more borrowing and another round of consumer spending. That would do it, at least in the short run. But that would just put things back where they were before the housing bubble burst. Consumers are already burdened by more debt than they can manage. And the combination of more borrowing and an economy awash in printed money would surely ignite raging inflation.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Once that happens everyone starts chasing their own tail. Workers demand a raise to keep up with the cost of living. Those higher wages spark more inflation. Consumers can feel their cash losing value in their wallets and purses and therefore exchange (spend) them for "stuff" because "stuff" at least is increasing in value. The demand for "stuff" thusly drives the price of "stuff" even higher .. and on and on it goes. (Gold hit $900 an oz. today, not because gold is intrinsically worth that, but because gold is the "stuff" of choice for investors when paper money starts losing value.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Option 2) The inevitable surge in inflation would eventually force the Fed to increase interest rates. But raising rates would drive already debt-burdened consumers even deeper into trouble. Credit card companies tie their rates to benchmark rates, like the prime rate. Then they add their usurious mark up to that. So, when the Fed raises it's rate it trickles through the entire system. Credit card rates jump from an already unconscionable 20% to $25%. Be one day late on paying your monthly minimum payment and that rate can soar above 30%. (Eat your heart of out John Gotti.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And then there's the already moribund housing market. Higher interest rates now would be like trying to cure a guy with cirrhosis of the liver by putting him on a straight moonshine diet.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Option 3) Stagflation is often described as getting hit with the worst aspects of a recession and runaway inflation at the same time. I lived through the last bout of stagflation, during the Carter administration. His predecessor, Gerald Ford, had left things in quite a hash, and it only got worse during the Carter administration. All Ford did was have a few lapel buttons printed up that read: W.I.N. -- which stood for "Whip Inflation Now!" Somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol or in a dark corner of the White House basement are boxes full of rusting and dusty WIN buttons.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">At this point in time, stagflation this looks like the most likely outcome of the troubles that face the economy. If we get out of this mess with just a three or four years of stagflation, we should consider ourselves lucky because, with Options 1 & 2 clearly not a solution, stagflation is the only option standing in way of an old-time depression.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The markets know that too. Which is why Bernanke's rate cut promise yesterday was met this morning with a resounding vote of no confidence from Wall Street. That should be no surprise since Wall Street firms, having had a big hand in creating this mess in the first place, may be the only folks on earth who know where all the investment zombies they created are hidden.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As for Bernanke's promise that the Fed is ready to do whatever it can to head off recession, it's not that it's too little, it's that it's too late. Fed inaction when they really could have had a meaningful impact, had now made the Federal Reserve all but irrelevant. Bernanke is now just another captive rider on the roll coaster with the rest of us. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I wonder if he'll scream?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 10, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Ooooooh S...T!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I am beginning to get the same feeling in my gut that I get when the roller coaster nears the top of the first drop.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Until then it had been all anticipation, anticipation that builds as the cars --- click,click, click -- inched up the steep incline towards the first crest. Then there's that singular moment, when the cars reach the top and I get the first look down the drop inches ahead. At that moment the cars seem to pause for second -- before they hurtle downward in an uncontrolled rumble.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's how I feel right now about the economy. I've known for a long time that a helluva drop was coming. But the ride to the top has been so slow, so unthreatening and comfortable that the inevitable drop seemed more theoretical than than anything I had to worry about immediately.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But suddenly here I am -- here we are -- paused at the top for, who knows how long, peering down an abyss without a clear bottom in sight. And like that same roller coaster moment, we know it's too late to change our minds, too late to turn back. We are on for the ride -- the ride of our lives.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Okay, so enough with the metaphores. The roller coaster thing is really quite insufficient. At least on a roller coaster you know it'll all be over in a a couple of minutes and that no one is likely to get hurt. Not so when the economy goes bust. When an economy goes bust, "hurt" is the rule, rather than the exception.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Over the past couple of weeks the signs that "the end is near" have been abundant and clear. And this time, thanks to globalization, the pain will global as well.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">UN Says U.S. Economy's Housing Slowdown Risks Global Recession</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Erosion of the U.S. housing market and a weaker dollar might drive the American economy into recession this year and stall world economic growth in 2009, United Nations economists said.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">``There is a clear and present danger of the world economy coming to a near standstill,'' the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs said in an analysis released today in New York. ``The domino effect of a U.S. recession would be to knock down export growth from China, Europe and Japan, in turn reducing their demand for exports from developing countries.'' (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> I'm not going to waste ink trying to convince neo-con dead-enders still in denial, because those folks will never admit the mess their careless and greed-driven ways are about to cause:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Some argue that the push back against market forces is a momentary pause in a steady march toward unfettered capitalism. The libertarian Cato Institute recently issued a report in which it found that economic freedom — shorthand for smaller government and fewer regulations — has never been greater." (NYT: The Free Market: A False Idol After All? )</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I have no beef with capitalism, per se. But unfettered capitalism is another matter. By "unfettered" folks like those at the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation, mean government should butt the hell out. This is especially true when a bubble is forming, like it was during the 1980's after they succeeded in getting the feds to deregulate the savings and loan industry.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Later they advised the feds to keep their noses out of the dot-com boom of the 1990s. They claimed the feds were wrong to be nervous about all billions of dollars pouring into startups that lacked explainable revenue models. They said it was not a bubble but rather that the old business cycle had been eclipsed by this "new paradigm." What no one had the guts to say at the time is that there was nothing new about bullshit and wiseful thinking.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When the Bush administration came to office they crowed that the good Clinton economy had only been an illusion created by the dot-com bubble. And that the nation was in recession because it went bust.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, what did they do -- they loosened lending and oversight of banks and brokers and created a housing bubble to replace Clinton's dot-com bubble.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now that bubble has burst, as all bubbles must.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In each case those hauling the big bucks in during those bubbles argued that government intervention would only gum up the works. They complained that government-types always wanted to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And everyone would back off and let the "good times" roll on. (Remember when Greenspan had a moment of clarity, worrying outloud that he feared the dot-com boom was being fueled by "irrational exuberance?" Remember too how fast he back-peddled when Wall Street bankers, who were feasting off those dot-com losers dumped on him like a ton of gold bricks.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In each of these bubbles the players would play the "let the markets work their magic" card until the bubble burst. Then they elbowed the naysayers away from the Capitol steps and began rattling their tin cups for help... government help.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">They begged the Federal Reserve to pump more money into the system, to low interest rates. They begged federal agencies to intercede in their behalf with creditors. They begged the federal judiciary to side with them against screwed shareholders. Claiming hardship, dumped their pension obligations on the federally run Retirement Benefit Guarantee Fund. And, when all else failed, the sought sanctuary in federal bankruptcy court.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Once the dust has settled and the victims limped off into obscurity, and memories faded, they dragged the old hymnal back out and, without a sign of irony or embarassment, returned to signing their "Oh Lord, give us tax cuts for the rich," and got right back on the old message again -- "Protect us from the evils of government regulation,"neo-con standards.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During my 62 years I've lived through three of these cycles, and "they" have gotten away with it each time. I don't just blame them. I blame everyone for it. Doesn't the driver who leaves the keys in a unlocked, parked car share the blame if the car is stolen?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And then there's the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," thing. "They" get us every time. We fall for the promise that, eventually we will all share in the goodies, if only we let the people who know what their doing, do it unfettered by bothersome rules and regulations.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> Suckers!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The flaw in the "unfettered capitalism" theory is so obvious that it staggers. Those who peddle it claim variations on this theme:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">An unfettered capitalist will always do the right thing, because it's in their long-term self-interest to keep the economic system healthy and growing. So why burden businesses with a bunch of bureaucrat-cops who couldn't run their own businesses if their lives depended on it? Why, they ask a successful business foul its own nest by abusing it?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Three times in the last 30 years we've gotten an answer to that rhetorical question:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Way too many of those folks will vigorously and enthusiastically abuse the system when it dawns on them that the enormous short-term gains they can make abusing the system eclipse anything they would make over the long-term toeing the line.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> Duh!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During the 1980s they looted their own savings and loans into insolvency, forcing the feds to step in and replace nearly $200 billion in stolen, federally-insured deposits.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During the 1990s they stuck shareholders with hundreds of billions in worthless dot-com stocks peddled by some of the largest brokerage companies in the country on behalf of venture capital clients.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And now a "credit crunch" has pulled the vail away form the phony-baloney housing bubble. Of course housing is actually just one card in a much larger credit house of cards that's about to tumble in a heap. Credit cards, auto loans, student loans, reverse mortgages, payday loans.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But wait, there's more. This time around government itself has finally actually lived up to the Cato types description as part of the problem. Since 2001 the federal government has been run by the Cato types. As a result its embraced the "unfettered" part of that philosophy. Borrowed money spent just the same as earned money, so what the hell, borrow away. And so it has come to pass. Our federal government has become the biggest credit junkie on earth.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Things aren't much better here in the Golden State. Last night I listened as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger describe California's budget mess. And what a mess it is. After convincing voters a couple of years ago to let him borrow $38 billion to make ends meet, he seems to have come up $14 billion short for this year's bills. Now he wants voters to let him borrow a few more billion to keep the lights on, fund schools and pay for a healthcare insurance plan for the state's uninsured.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Maybe we need to change the way we describe borrowed money. Instead of calling it "borrowing" we could call it "renting." Because that's what credit really is -- renting money. People borrow stuff they never return all the time. But when you "rent" something you are keenly aware that if you don't pay the rent, shit happens. Imagine if the a governor, or company CFO announce he/she was "renting $40 billion." How would voters or shareholders react to that? Differently, I am sure. After all, no business class I ever took taught that a person could borrow themselves to (sustainable) wealth.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Anyway, it's too late now to do anything about what's already been done. We are at the top. Up til now, life's been good-- though fueled by borrowed money and on borrowed time. But time's up. The rent's due on trillions of dollars of this and that -- some of it real, way too much of it little more than wishful thinking.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">There's a part of me that hopes this time the consequences will be so painful that ordinary Americans will finally get it. I hope that, once dust settles from this crash, we all can agree that, just as we need cops to keep people from speeding, we need federal regulators to keep "fetter" the unfettered capitalist just enough to assure they can no longer profit at the expense of everyone else. That they are only allowed to profit when they create real wealth, not hot air.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mankind has been slow to learn this lesson though. Seems this has been going on long before the the term "capitalism" was even coined. St.Thomas More wrote over 400 years ago, words as true today as they were then:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> St. Thomas More</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So it's not capitalism that's the problem, but simple, and entirely predictable, human nature. Leave stuff laying around for the picking and, unless there's a cop on the beat to keep an eye on it, you'll discover there's no shortage of pickers waiting to relieve you of it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Anyway, as I said above, it's too late to get off this ride now. So my friends, keep your hands and arms inside the ride until it comes to a full stop. It's gonna be a wild ride.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 4, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Greased Pigs</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Gee, I'd really like to let bygones be bygones, but recent events make that quite impossible. I want everyone to stop looking forward to January 21, 2009 just long enough to settle an old score.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">This week it happened -- oil topped $100 a barrel. Back in early 2001 when Dick Cheney pulled together secret meetings with the nation's top energy producers to plot out the new administration's energy strategy, oil was selling for $26 a barrel.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What happened? And why? And whom do we have to blame for it? We still don't know.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organizations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force's materials. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals. (Wikipedia: Full article here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We still don't know the "who, what and why" of those meetings. All we know is the result -- $3 gas and heating bills that will shove millions of Americans into deeper debt this winter.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">There are only two conclusions we can draw from that, and neither reflects well on Cheney, et al.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) This is what they intended all along. Oil company profits have soared, and will now go even higher. If this was the intended result, it worked. The administration has allowed oil companies to pillage and plunder, not only the American people, but other, less well-connected industries and small businesses now saddled with astronomically high energy bills.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Rise in oil prices a boon to drilling-equipment companies</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Bloomberg News -- December 18, 2007</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">HOUSTON: Oil prices hovering around $90 a barrel are doing a lot more for shareholders of Cameron International and Baker Hughes than for investors in Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Halliburton, a large oil field contractor, will gain 30 percent in the next 12 months in New York trading, and Baker Hughes will advance 26 percent, according to the average of analyst forecasts compiled by Bloomberg. Exxon, in Irving, Texas, and Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, will appreciate less than 4.4 percent, the data show.An investor who took $10 million out of Exxon to buy Halliburton would increase his returns sevenfold to about $3 million (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Or</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) This was not the intended outcome of the energy policies they cooked up behind closed doors, meaning that they not only failed the American public, but did so in the most spectacular fashion.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Either way, someone needs to pay. But before we can begin building the gallows, we need to know who had a hand in creating this mess. And, since this administration has proven good at one thing --- keeping inconvenient information out of the hands of journalists and even Congress, there seems only one way to get it out of them -- indictments. An indictment for conspiracy to fix prices, defraud consumers and investors and whatever else a room full of wingtip wearing class action lawyers can dream up, naming Cheney and 100 John and Jane Does should be brought immediately. What grand jury of ordinary Americans wouldn't relish slapping their John Hancock on such an indictment?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then send the FBI to interview Cheney, who will likely not have forgotten what happened to his former aid, Scooter Libby, when thought lying to the FBI was a no-brainer. Let Cheney spend some of his own money on high-price DC lawyers, like Robert Bennett, who've become rich defending political scum caught red handed up to no good.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And there's work for Congress to do as well. Before Democrats regained control of Congress hearings were held on surging gas prices. But at the time Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chaired the Senate committee. Stevens is not only one of the most crooked politicians in DC -- he's currently under investigation for taking bribes from energy producers in his home state -- but he is also in the pocket of Big Oil. Consequently he would not allow the swearing in of any of the oil company execs who testified. In other words they had a liars free card.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now that the Democrats chair the relevant committees it's time to haul those executives back up to the Hill, and this time put the little bastards under oath, just as Rep. Waxman did with the tobacco executives over a decade ago.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I've said it before, but it needs to be repeated and repeated -- America cannot let the evil-doers in this administration simply slip out of town next January as though they didn't do anything wrong. Their list of misdeeds reads like something you'd expect in some third world banana republic, not America. At least not my America. They must face the music. They must.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Otherwise the message sent ahead to future administrations will be that if you bury the evidence deep enough, stonewall long enough and dissemble well enough, do whatever the hell you want while in office. Because once you leave town no one will bother coming after you.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Relevant Quote of the Day</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"So God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of the Religions in Utopia, St. Thomas More</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">January 2, 2008</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Borrowers:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Victims or Accomplices?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Capitol One asks, "What's in your wallet?" Of course, they really don't care what's in your wallet, as long as it's a Capitol One credit card -- and only that. The less real cash in the wallet the better. That way you'll have to use their credit card to buy the stuff they know you'd buy if only you had the dough.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Who needs cash anyway when they'll lend it to you, at 18%. Be late on a payment and they'll jack you ass up to 32% annual interest. (That's $320 annual interest on every $1000 owed, for the math-impaired.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Over the past decade those offering fast, easy and expensive credit have proliferated faster than Indian Casinos. Everyday they crowd our mail and email inboxes with pre-approved lines of credit in the thousands of dollars.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As a result Americans now owe these plastic peddling John Gotti's an average of $8000 per household. Meanwhile the American savings rate has dropped to minus 1%. Which means a shocking percentage of Americans no longer even live paycheck to paycheck. They have to borrow before that next paycheck.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then there are the mortgage lenders from hell. Thanks to the Capitol Ones of the world, all those cash-strapped Americans were still able to load up on wide-screen TVs, all kinds of furniture, leaf blowers and surround sounds systems, they now also "deserved" their own home to put them in.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But first lending standards that had, since the end of WW II, had made America the homeowners capitol of the world, had to be chucked. Lenders didn't want the herd culled down to just traditionally "qualified borrowers." No siree, they wanted to lend to all comers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When we bought our first home back in 1971 no bank would loan one cent more than 80% of the appraised value of the home. That required the buyer to have a 20% interest in the property the day the loan closed. Why? Duh!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But such rules limited the pool of borrowers that could qualify for a loan. So the lending industry sent healthy doses of dough to Washington and got the rules loosened, then loosened again, then again. After all, the Republicans were in charge now, and they believed "government was the problem." And, next to the taxman, federal banking regulations and the regulators that enforced them, were the biggest drag on the economy of all -- or say they said.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The first offspring of those efforts were so-called "low-doc" loans. The industry had argued that all the paperwork required before the advent of computers was clogging up their automated systems and slowing loan fundings. So the low documentation loan was born. Borrowers were required to provide fewer and fewer documents supporting their contention that they could actually afford, and are likely to repay, a loan.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Once the housing bubble began to really puff up, lenders even bristled under the minimalist restrictions of low-doc loans. They whined about it and, once again, Bushite banking appointees shrugged and said, "what the hell."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And so were born "No-doc" loans... referred to in the lending industry itself as "liar loans," because a borrower could claim anything and not have to prove it. It was the lending industry's version of "don't ask, don't tell."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The rush was on. Home sales boomed. Online applications allowed borrowers to refinance their homes on a whim, while drunk or on the toilet. Lenders hauled in lending fees by the billions.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But another limiting obstacle loomed. Once they lent to finance a home purchase, lenders could no longer actively milk that borrower. That's when lenders decided that the old "home improvement" loan needed some modernizing as well. In the "stupid old days" lenders required that borrowers use home improvement loan money on -- are you sitting down? -- home improvements. That way if the borrower defaulted the lender would have security for their loan in the form of capital improvements.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That limitation had become a roadblock, keeping lenders from tapping into the rising value of homes already owner occupied. So the home improvement loan was killed off and replaced by the "home equity loan." That put lenders were in the ATM business, encouraging homeowners to tap what equity appeared in their home to purchase whatever they felt entitled to; cars, boats, more TVs, vacations... spare the lender the details. The lender didn't care.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So the old-fashioned American dream morphed before our eyes into a frenzied binge of lend & spend, lend & spend, lend and spend. What our parents would have called a "spend-thrift" lifestyle, Republicans pointed to as proof "the American economy is on a roll."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But rolling to where? Anyone with a measurable IQ could tell that it wasn't a sustainable path. It was something more recognizable as ski jump, than a highway. Tallyho! Sooner or later borrowers were going owe more than they were capable of repaying. Or the underlying assets securing those property loans would decline in value, becoming worth less than the amounts owed. Or, more likely, both things would happen. And now they have.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just yesterday I was reading one of the many sob-story articles that are popping up all of a sudden, bemoaning the fate of America's debt-ridden consumers. This article told of a couple that still owed $9500 on their SUV, but really, really, really wanted a new big-cab pickup.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And, surprise, surprise, they found a Dodge dealer more than willing to help them have it their way. Yes, they drove home in their new truck and the helpful dealer and sub-prime lender arranged the whole thing. They simply took the SUV in trade and added the $9500 the couple still owed on it to their new 7-year loan.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now the couple was now having trouble making the payments on their new $45,000 auto loan.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">How am I supposed to feel about that couple? Sorry? Forget about it. The lender, dealer and their numb-nuts victims deserve one another. The lender deserves to take the loss of a repossession, and the couple deserves to lose their shinny new, gas guzzling big-cab pickup. Darwinism demands a price for stupidity.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The same goes for the folks who bought homes with 100% financing -teaser rated- negative-amortized- adjustable-later- double-mocha- double-sugar-moron home loans. Had those people developed even a passing relationship with a pocket calculator they would have known better. So, back to being renters.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And to all those homeowners that decided it was smart to scratch every life-style itch with equity from their domicile residence, a pox on them too. Their parents and grandparents generations had mortgage burning parties the day they made their final home loan payment. They were smart. Too many of their offspring somehow did not get those genes. Instead of paying down their mortgages they increased them, then spent the money on wasting "assets." Why die with a positive bank balance when you can go out soaked in red ink. Heirs? Let-em eat cake.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then there's America's lenders. If I were a prosecutor I'd have a great circumstantial case proving that, even as lenders were pushing loans, they knew better than to hold them themselves. Someone was going to get the mother of all screwings, and they didn't want it to be them.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why they "securitized" those loans. They bundled up thousands of loans into packages, mixing in the good, the bad and the ugly, and sold them to investors in heat for higher returns. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of course those investors should been a little suspicious of the lenders, "take our loans, please," offer. They should have done their due diligence. Instead they couldn't see -- or didn't want to see -- past the high returns. Anyway, they figured, what could possibly go wrong with America's housing market? (You see, in the credit world the list of suckers is not limited to just the borrowers.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As for those lenders that filled our TV screens with ads peddling pure, unadulterated fiscal crack, let them to die -- let them die slowly, painfully and publicly. Let their shareholders sue and then scramble among lending company bones for what pocket change remains.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Lenders, borrowers, investors... I haven't an ounce of sympathy any of them. Borrowers should have done the math, and if they couldn't do simply adding, subtracting, division and multiplication, they were likely unqualified for the loan(s) they got in the first place.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Lenders should have stuck to tried and true lending standards. Instead they embraced a self-serving, "consumers are asking for it spending like that," philosophy. Once respected lenders, like Countrywide,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">devolved into the equivalent of child molesters: "Hey there little girl, want a nice teaser rate?"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(An Aside: Now that the mortgage markets are in free fall, lenders have found two new pigeons to roast: students and the elderly. Which is why those "refinance your house," ads have been replaced by ads touting student loans and so-called reverse mortgages.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">All of which answers the question posed above. They were co-conspirators - one and all. The New Year will see them all singing a new tune. No longer is it, "Happy Days Are Here Again." The new song is more like;</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Bad loan, bad loans -- whatschya gonna do,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> whatschya gonna do when they come for you?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Band loan, bad loans..."</p><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></div>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-37175269527386099242008-01-04T08:38:00.000-08:002008-01-04T08:39:12.844-08:00December 20-January 3 2008<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Pearls For Swine?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">There's this newspaper clipping that's been sitting among the flotsam of my desktop for the last week or so. I tore it out of the December 20 Wall Street Journal because it struck me. Struck me how? Well, that's pretty much what I've been trying to figure out since then.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Having lived through the last seven years of you-know-what, I figured I'd been rendered immune further from shock or awe. And I was sure I'd exceeded my lifetime supply of irony-spotting.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then I saw the story in question. It couldn't have been considered very important by WSJ editors, because it was buried on an inside page. But it sure jumped out to me. The headline asked:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Who Bought the Magna Carta?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The story answered it's own question:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Talk about your historic takeovers. David Rubenstein, co-founder of the private-equity firm Carlyle Group, bought a 710-year-old copy of the Magna Carta for $21.3 million on Tuesday. "(Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If you've put up with my rants for any time at all, you know I'm no lover of conspiracy theories. And so that's not where I;m going with this. The Carlyle Group has replaced the Trilateral Commission as the conspiracy-minded's invisible hand of all things devious and evil. I don't see it that way at all. Instead I see the Carlyle Group for what it is -- America's preeminent conduit of the fruits of crony capitalism.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Founded in 1987 with $5 million, the Washington-based merchant bank controls nearly $14 billion in investments, making it the largest private equity manager in the world. Carlyle doesn't dabble in investments. It buys and sells entire companies the way most other investment firms trade shares of stock.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I'm not saying that the Magna Carta's new owner, David Rubenstein, is a bad man. I did some research and he gives a lot of (tax deductible) money to worthy charities. But then, why not? If members of this exclusive group have anything in excess, it's money. At any point in time, Carlyle and it's investors have vested interests virtually any thing important that's going down in the world. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Wars are bullish for Carlyle. Which is why Carlyle's board of directors and advisor's has read like a Who's Who of all things that go BANG -- and KA-CHING.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Oh, and all things Bush too.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Former president George H.W. Bush is a Carlyle adviser, as is former British prime minister John Major who heads its European arm. Former secretary of state James Baker is senior counselor, former White House budget chief Richard Darman is a partner, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt is senior adviser -- the list goes on.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Carlyle has, from time to time, played the role of power-legacy incubator, as it did when asked to find a no-work job for George H. Bush's good-for-nothing son, George W. George and Barbara Bush are close to the Rubensteins. David, his wife and three children tagged along on an African safari with Barbara Bush.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Four years before George W. Bush's first run for Texas Governor, Rubenstein was asked to find a soft spot for Georgie to cool his heels and earn some easy money. Carlyle had just purchase Caterair, a company that provided food service to the airlines. A Bush family confident came to Rubenstein and pitched young George.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"...we were putting the board together, somebody [Fred Malek] came to me and said, look there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs a board position. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth...We put him on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. " (David Rubenstein)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Irony alert: Fred Malek received his 15 minutes of fame in the 1970s as deputy director of CREEP (Committee to Re-elect the President), the Nixon White House operation behind Watergate.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Did Carlyle's managers laugh at George's jokes? Hard to say. More likely they just grinned and bore it, which paid off a decade and half later:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">April 2003: Directors of one of the world’s largest armament companies are planning on meeting in Lisbon in three weeks time. The American based Carlyle Group is heavily involved in supplying arms to the Coalition forces fighting in the Iraqi war.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It also holds a majority of shares in the Seven Up company and Federal Data Corporation, supplier of air traffic control surveillance systems to the US Federal Aviation Authority. The 12 billion dollar company has recently signed contracts with United Defense Industries to equip the Turkish and Saudi Arabian armies with aviation Defense systems.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Top of the meeting’s agenda is expected to be the company’s involvement in the rebuilding of Baghdad’s infrastructure after the cessation of current hostilities. Along with several other US companies, the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments. (Full Story)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And, talk about being in on the ground floor of the "War on Terror:" On September 11, 2001, the day two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Carlyle Group was hosting an investors conference at the nearby Ritz-Carlton, a conference attended by none other than Osama bin Laden's brother. George H. Bush attended the conference the day before and had met personally with the bin Laden kin.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No, I'm not siding with the 9/11 conspiracy folks. I still think they're nuts. I am simply making the point that when it, if it's big, or promises to be big, the Carlyle Group makes sure it has an arm lock on good hunk of the action. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Former Secretary of State James Baker is (of course) a member of Carlyle's inner circle and he bristles at the notion that the company somehow manipulates world events.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"I say that's bullshit, and you can print it!" Baker snapped at a reporter. "Somebody would say, 'well, you had one of the bin Laden brothers as an investor.' Well, that's exactly right," he says, adding that the bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in the Middle East and have disowned Osama.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Duh Alert: After 9/11 Rubenstein announced he had returned the bin Ladens' $2 million investment.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Rubenstein has stopped trying to deny the benefits of his company's toady hyper-connectedness:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"We've actually replaced the Trilateral Commission" as the darling of conspiracy theorists," Rubenstein jokes.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> (Irony alert: Rubenstein is also a member of said Trilateral Commission.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So there we are. The new owner of one of the most important documents in mankind's march towards democracy has been purchased by Carlyle co-founder David Rubenstein. His new acquisition will be housed and conserved, at taxpayer expense, at the National Archives. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The value of Rubensteins copy of the Magna Carta is sure to continue to rise, even as the paradigm-shattering rights it was the first to enshrine into law slip, one by one, from our lives today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which brings me to the next story that caught my interest:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">From: Privacy International</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The most recent report published in 2007, available at http://www.privacyinternational.org/phr, is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs over 1,100 pages and includes 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from eminent privacy scholars to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice. In 2006 Privacy International took the decision to use this annual report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all EU countries together with eleven non-EU benchmark countries. Funding for the project was provided by the Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. Follow this link for more details of last year's results.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The intention behind this project is two-fold. First, we hope to recognize countries in which privacy protection and respect for privacy is nurtured. This is done in the hope that others can learn from their example. Second we intend to identify countries in which governments and privacy regulators have failed to create a healthy privacy environment. The aim is not to humiliate the worst ranking nations, but to demonstrate that it is possible to maintain a healthy respect for privacy within a secure and fully functional democracy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">This study and the accompanying ranking chart measure the extent of surveillance and privacy. They do not intend to comprehensively reflect the state of democracy or the full extent of legal or parliamentary health or dysfunction in these countries (though the two conditions are frequently linked). The aim of this study is to present an assessment of the extent of information disclosure, surveillance, data exploitation and the general state of information privacy.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Invasion of Privacy -- At a Glance</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What Now?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Benazir Bhutto was a dead-woman walking the day she set foot back on Pakistani soil. It was only a matter of time, and that time came today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">While I'd like to lay at least some blame for Bhutto's assassination on Bush administration meddling in Middle East politics, I can't. Instead the blame for this latest regional bloodletting lands squarely and exclusively in the lap of what I have come to think of as "Muslimocracy" -- the primacy of Islamic law, or Sharia, which is still deeply rooted in the souls and minds of the people of that ever-troubled region.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Muslimocracies view the non-Muslim world as their an enemy, and anyone within a Muslim nation who does not share that view, is viewed as a friend of their enemy. That is what got Bhutto killed today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I rarely agree with George W. Bush on anything, but he was right once. It was when he was running for President the first time. Back then he warned against wasting US lives and resources on "nation building" efforts abroad.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then he got elected and embarked on the most audacious, aggressive and illogical nation building effort in modern history. As a result the world got to see the wisdom of Bush's original position and the folly of his current one.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today, when someone criticizes Bush for trying to bring democracy to the backward Muslim nations in the Middle East, he scolds them for displaying "the soft bigotry of low expectations."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Well, sometimes low expectations are not the product of bigotry, but data. As a self-described country boy Bush surely must have heard some crusty old farmer remark, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which brings me back to Pakistan -- et al. You can lead them towards democracy but you can't make them democratic. And, in the rare instances where they apparently relent, they use democracy to enshrine Sharia law, which is to democracy a lynching is to justice. (Remember how the Palestinians embrace of democratic elections resulted in the elevation of Hamas. And, if free and open elections were held today in Egypt the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood would be swept in to power.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">As I've noted in more than one previous post, Pakistan is not our ally in the war on terror. Neither is Iraq. Nor is Egypt. And most certainly not Saudi Arabia. Those countries are our allies the same way a cobra is an ally of its snake charmer.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Unreconstructed Islam has been and remains Muslim country's kryptonite against super-power strength. The Soviets learned that the hard way when they tried to occupy Afghanistan. The US is now locked in the same futile exercise of imperial hubris in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly soon in Iran and Pakistan. It was a lesson learned a century earlier by the British, as immortalized by Kipling:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now, it is not good for the Christian's health</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> to hustle the Aryan brown,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">and he weareth the Christian down;</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And the end of the fight is a tombstone white</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">with the name of the late deceased,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And the epitaph clear: "A Fool lies here,</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">who tried to hustle the East."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of course somethings have changed over a century. In particular, nuclear weapons, of which Pakistan possesses as many as 100 air and missile-mounted nukes. If one or more of those active nuclear weapons falls into the hands of al Qaida we can be assured they will used it to demonstration just how much Allah hates non-Muslims. You don't have to be a Neo-con to believe that.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which begs the question -- in light of the latest democracy-farce being played out in Pakistan, how should we treat the kind real threats posed by a radicalized Muslim Middle East?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In a word: containment.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We won the Cold War largely by containing the Soviet Union's expansionist ambitions. And we won that long war without the level of bloodshed we've already experienced in Iraq, or the amount of bloodshed we will incur if we continue trying to force these people to drink from the democratic pond. Instead we told the nations of the Soviet bloc that, if they wanted communism, fine, it was all theirs. But, we made clear, don't look for any financial, political or military help from us. In essence we let them stew to death in their own dysfunctional communist pots.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Muslim Middle East is currently addicted to its own dysfunctional social/religious philosophical code, unreconstructed Islam. And that will continue to poison almost any relationships they try to form with the non-Muslim modern world. Christianity had to re-calibrate hundreds of years ago in order to survive and coexist with scientific and social progress. Islam has yet to do so and is therefore hopelessly out of step with modernity.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In the Muslim Middle East today, half-educated Mullahs have more influence over what their people know and believe than anyone inside or outside their countries. And much of what they believe is the very reason their countries are backward, violent places. For example, half their population -- women -- are barred from contributing to their society's governance, commercial or even social development -- a shocking waste of human capital for countries that need all the human capital they can get. But it was exactly that kind of misogynistic ignorance that played a role in Bhutto's death today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">There is only one cure for addiction, be it addiction to a substance or a crippling ideology, and that's to let the addicted hit rock bottom. The addicted must be ready to shake their addiction. Until then they are nothing but blackholes for charity, advice or other efforts to save them from their themselves. Western military and financial aid to nations like Pakistan and Iraq are like financing a saloon for alcoholics.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Instead the west should treat the nations of the nations of Muslim Middle East the same way we treated the nations of the Soviet Bloc. Those nations in the Middle East that refuse to disengage their governments, military, security forces, schools and financial institutions from the yoke of unreconstructed Islam should be held at arms length by the rest of the word. In other words, they should be contained and isolated.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Bush keeps saying that we need to believe terrorist when they say they want to destroy us. Fine, so we also need to believe them when they say they want Sharia law. Well fine, so get the hell out of the way and let them have it -- let them have Sharia law in spades.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But what about those nukes in Pakistan, and maybe someday in Iran? The west has to get this one right -- and the first time. The west should be ready to use its military assets, but with a kind of care and precision that's been woefully lacking of late. The only national interest the US has in that region should be defined as containment and doing whatever needs doing to insure that those nukes in Pakistan can never be used, by anyone, against anyone.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No one can say exactly what that means in what the military likes to refer to as "kinetic action." But blunt force bombing -- the first choice among Bush administration hawks -- must be reserved should the day ever arrive when everything else has failed. Instead the Pentagon and CIA should use some to the $60 billion a year we give them for intelligence activities to get their hands on those nukes and get their hands on the key individuals in those countries who produced and/or proliferated them. And frankly I don't give fig how they go about getting that done - just that it gets done. Because when it comes to nuclear weapons it only takes one to ruin your day, and the day of a few hundred thousand close friends and relatives.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Finally, what about oil? If we contain the nations of the Muslim Middle East we can kiss our oil supply from there goodbye. What about that? Well the day was coming when the US would have to get off Middle East oil one way or another. We could have -- should have -- done so slowly, methodically and in ways that did not cause widespread hardship. But we didn't, so now we will just have to bite the bullet, declare a national energy emergency and do what we have to do to get by for a while. Sorry. But sometimes there are no sacrifice-free options in the world of realpoliks.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If we haven't learned these lessons yet we surely will. The only question is how many more US troops and treasure will have to be wasted beating our heads against that Islamic wall before we figure it out. They don't want democracy, at least not yet. And they won't want it until they get an industrial dose of what they keep telling us they want, Sharia (Islamic) law.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why I say to them, "bon appetite." Give us a ring when you've had a belly full.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The News For Real Wiki</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">http://newsforreal.wetpaint.com</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A clean and well-lighted place to blow off steam</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">-----------</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">December 19, 2007</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What an Annoying Year!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Whew, has this been an annoying year, or what! I figure 2007 has been the most annoying year of my 62. I even did up a list of just the top 20 things I became sick and tired of during the past year.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Here they are, in no particular order:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1) I'm sick and tired of being bombarded by TV ads with American Indians telling me that their casinos are making life better for everyone, not just the ten members of their tribe. Have you ever been in one of those casinos? Just how are casinos making life better for the bus loads of gray-haired codgers who upload their meager Social Security checks into Chief Wampum's slots? And what about all those already over-extended, mortgage-poor, credit card maxed out working stiffs so desperate their last remaining hope to hit a progressive-slot jackpot? How is the spreading plague of Indian casinos helping those folks?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So knock it off with those phony feel-good ads and replace them with something that at least approximates the truth. Something like this would be more tolerable:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"We had a sweet thing going before Europeans showed up, uninvited, and mugged the living crap out of Indian tribes from coast to shinning coast. Well that hunk of Karma has come home to roost at our Indian Casinos where we are now happily, and profitably, doing the same thing to you. We even have a name for you... The White Buffalo."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now, that's at least true, and defensible. I can live with that. But even white-guilt has its limits and those spoken-with-forketh-tongue, Indian-casinos-are-good-for-us TV ads have pushed that limit well beyond the breaking point.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">2) I'm sick and tired of all things bimbo. Paris, Britney, Lohan...and all those like them. The only time such appaulingly stupid people should appear on my evening news is if they should stumble in front of the Presidential limo, get run over but survived and, once out of a coma, scribble out the solution to Einstein's unified field theory. Otherwise I never want to hear their names or see their vacant faces on the news again. They are nature's most useless and annoying creatures. CNN and MSNBC -- don't waste another electron reporting on these people because electrons have more important things to do -- and so do you.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">3) I'm sick and tired of having to pretend that Christian fundamentalists are entirely sane when they announce with straight faces that the earth was created in six days, and is not billions of years old but actually just 6000 years old. And that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because, "In fact, at Answers in Genesis, we call dinosaurs 'missionary lizards.' No sane literate person would -- could -- hold such utter nonsense to be true. Such pronouncements should be treated for what they are -- evidence of ignornace, mental illness or both.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Because they are provably false. They are NOT a equally valid scientific theory. They are the product of mass-hysterical-crazy thinking -- viral nonsense. People who believe such things, and try to get others to believe them, should be treated the exactly how we treat people who walk city streets shouting at things only they can see. And when one of these zombies shows up at a school board meeting demanding religious mythology be taught in science class, they should be politely asked to either shut up or leave. If they refuse then someone needs to call the cops to remove them to the nearest psychiatric facility and placed on a 36-hour hold. (Except in Texas, which we all know is a lost cause.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">4) I'm sick and tired of every politician running for election or re-election testifying that they, too, "believe." Believe what? Well, they keep that kinda of fuzzy. Politicians understand that, when you're seeking the votes of people who believe crazy things, you've gotta stay vague. That's because metaphysical-crazy comes in more flavors than Baskin-Robbins. No two crazies are the same, but they do all have one thing in common; they believe crazies of a different flavor are ... well, crazy. Which is why politicians play their "crazy belief cards" close to the vest. Instead of risking losing crazy votes by getting specific about precisely what kind of metaphysical things they may or may not believe in, they vaguely reasure them with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- "Just trust me folks. I'm at least as crazy as you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">5) I'm sick and tired of my country listing among our "friends and allies" creepy, unsavory, smarmy, self-indulgent, utterly despicable regimes -- to wit -- Saudi Arabia and the Saudi "royal" family. John Gotti's family had more royal blood in it than the 7000-odd dictatorial, misogynistic sheiks that run Saudi Arabia. If they weren't squatting atop lakes of oil the only kingdom they'd be lording over would have horns and require milking twice a day. If there's a more despicable bunch of mobsters masquerading as leaders today, I can't think of it. And I'm sick of seeing our moron of a President walking hand in hand with these cross-dressing, lying, cheating, terrorist-financing, rape-victim-lashing Arab home-boys, at the same time we continue embargoing Cuba and shaking a threatening fist at Iran.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">6) I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Pakistan is a "valuable ally in the war on terror." No they're not. Hell, they're not even a real democracy anymore. Also everyone knows that the Pakistan army and intelligence services are lousy with al Qaida and Taliban sympathizers. Calling Pakistan an ally is like declaring George W. Bush one of America's most accomplished Presidents. The day Pervez Musharraf fired the whole Supreme Court and replaced them with handpicked Clarence Thomas' and Anthony Scalia's, we should have given NATO troops in Afghanistan the green light go into Pakistan's tribal regions and do whatever needed doing there. The other thing we should have done a long time ago is to dispatch a team of Navy Seals to snatch A.Q. Khan -- the guy who spread nuclear bomb technology from North Korea, to Lybia and Iran. Khan is currently under "house arrest" in Pakistan. Snatching him and bringing him to justice would send a message to anyone thinking of peddling nukes that they'll never live to spend the money.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">7) I'm sick and tired of "Billery." Bill and Hillary Clinton have worn out their welcome in my head. I appreciate Bill's accomplishments as President. But fine, can we move on now? I didn't appreciate the Bill and Hillary soap operas the first time around. But now the nation and world are too much in crisis to restart that kind of unhelpful diversions. Hillary is a smart and viciously accomplished pol. But rather than president, her skills could be put to better use as Senate Majority Leader. Ditch the nearly comatose Harry Reid and put Hillary in that important post. Because, unlike Reid, Hillary knows how to jerk leashes -- and actually likes it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">8) I'm sick and tired of the global warming deniers. They should be treated with the same sense of anger and disgust as Holocaust deniers... just more so. Denying the Holocaust only denies the murder of six million humans. Denying global warming and it's causes threatens to sentence hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of humans to slow, painful untimely deaths. I can't punch global warming deniers, though I'd like to. But if they persist they and their families should all be required to relocate to the lowest laying atoll in the Pacific.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">9) I'm sick and tired of Wall Street and government "economists" blowing smoke up my ass about the state of the economy. I cut my journalistic teeth on financial crisis, so I know one when I see one coming. And one is coming. In fact, it's just now arriving. Don't tell me the "underlying strength of the US economy is strong." Bullshit. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the US economy, and those consumers are tapped out. They can't even mug another dime of equity out of their now over encumbered homes. Even those usurious credit card companies won't lend them anymore until they pay off their overdue balances. Hello.....</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The truth is we are heading into the worst case of stagflation in a quarter century. So, economists, spare me the happy talk. That crap might buy you some time by creating sucker rallies on Wall Street, but you are about to run out of suckers. Do you have a plan for that? If so, that's what what I want to hear from you... and quickly please.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">10) I'm sick and tired of defense contractors, like Lockheed, running TV ads trying to convince me that everything they do is "for our troops in harms way." Gag me with a rocket launcher! Everything defense contractors do is in pursuit of billions of defense tax dollars. That's why they do it --- the ONLY reason they do it. They never seem to mention in their ads that every year... without exception...every year, they are each one caught red handed lying, cheating and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars more. And that, even when caught, not one of them has spent a day in the slammer for it. So, shut up with the "we do it all for our troops," crap, will ya? It makes me wanna reach through the TV and Blackwater your asses.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">11) I'm sick and tired of teachers absolving themselves of any responsibility for the dismal state of American education. When I sat on a school board I suggested we grant teachers even more in pay raises than they were requesting. I only had one condition; that we be allowed to bypass teacher union roadblocks when we wanted to reward exceptional teachers and could promptly fire the well known loser teachers on our staff. Their response -- "No way Jose." You would have thought I'd asked them to undress or something. No personal accountability for teachers, not even if we paid them for it. If private industry had those kind of rules America would look like Somalia today -- which is why our education system nearly does.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">12) I'm sick and tired of hearing that the US has "the best health care in the world." First of all my wife is a health care professional, which means I hear the real scoop every day she returns from work. Tales that curl the blood. We don't have the best health care in the world, we just have the most expensive health care in the world. It's a system run by a bunch of blood sucking private insurance companies that cherry pick the actuarial pool. They insure only those unlikely to need medical care, and reject anyone who just might. Those they refuse to insure eventually end up getting medical care on the public nickel. Wouldn't you love a business deal like that, one where you get to shove your risks off on the government allowing you to pocket all that low/no risk gravy? I sure would. I'm sick of it... pun intended.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">13) I'm sick of paying a higher percentage of my adjusted gross income than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Bush tax cuts have been a bonanza for the already super rich, and a big lump of coal for everyone else. For our national infrastructure the Bush tax cuts were a "who needs public infrastructure anyway!" The truth is that the rich got rich largely thanks to Americas generous, reliable and efficient taxpayer funded infrastructure -- roads, bridges, airports, ports and such. Therefore they should pay taxes that adequately reflect and reimburse the nation for that. At the end of the day, every road is a toll road, and the rich are nolonger paying their fair share of tolls.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">14) On the same subject, I'm also sick and tired of hearing Republicans spout the nonsense that if you cut a rich person or corporation's taxes they will use that extra money to "create jobs for working Americans." No they won't. And no, they haven't.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">What they have done with their Bush's tax cut bonanza is sock it away in tax-protected family trusts and then lobby Congress to eliminate the estate tax so their heirs can keep every dime of it. If any of that extra money does end up getting invested in a job-creating enterprise you can bet your low-wage bippy those jobs end up in China or someplace like China. So, spare the "trickle down" crapola fellas.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">15) I'm sick and tired of spending $60 billion a year on intelligence services that aren't.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">16) I'm sick and tired of Neo-con, lap-dog Republicans who have defended and aided administration officials who openly champion views of governance so un-American they border on neo-fascism.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">17) I'm sick and tired of conniving, weaselly, cowardly Democrats who could have obstructed our nations slide toward totalitarianism -- but didn't -- and still haven't.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">18) I'm sick and tired of hearing American auto makers whine about how they can't possibly meet higher fuel economy standards while the Japanese clean up doing just that. The last time this happened, back in the 1970s, the Japanese whipped Detroit's sorry ass by making higher mileage small cars while Detroit keep spitting out 8-cylinder behemoths. Then Uncle Sam ended up having to bail out Chrysler and put import quotas on Japanese cars so we didn't have to bailout the out GM and Ford as well. The Big Three dinosaurs are at it again, addicted to selling Hummers and gas-guzzling SUVs and fighting every effort to get them to switch to higher millage and alternative fuel vehicles. Maybe if we hadn't bailed them out of their last self-inflicted wounds they'd have come out with a Prisus before the Japanese this time. If GM had an ounce of sense it would change it's name from General Motors to Green Machines and get with the frigging program. I'm sick and tired of rewarding and enabling such stubborn, corporate stupidity and public and social malfeasance.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">19) I'm sick and tired of soap-opera news stories that have runs longer than most Broadway plays. The next time some guy's wife goes missing, and authorities suspect he killed her and dumped her body someplace, don't tell me about -- at least until they solve the crime and actually know what happened. Even then such stories are for local news, so why are they on the national news in the first place? I'm sick and tired of these long, drawn out tales of dysfunctional relationships turned deadly. Nothing about these tales matters to anyone except the poor people directly involved, their families and immediate neighbors. There's absolutely no national news value to running these stories night after night, except a sick "entertainment" value. So, unless these sad cases are being caused by some communicable virus that's spreading at an alarming rate and heading my way, I don't want to hear about them -- it's not "news I need" -- or even want.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">20) I'm sick and tired of these new "Christians are being persecuted" TV ads. You know, the ones where some Chinese kid narrates how she was forced to walk barefoot through the snow to a detention center because she wrote stuff about Jesus ... blah, blah, blah. The truth is the overly religious thrive on claims of persecution, real or Madison Avenue-imagined. Nothing stirs up the religiously enthralled like a ripping, tear-jerking tale of persecution. More importantly, nothing opens up the wallets of the herd faster either. One might suggest to them that maybe if fundamentalist Christians tried to be a little less "up everyone's nose," every time we turn around these days they might face less persecution. That assumes, of course, they really are being "persecuted" every time they make the claim -- which I doubt. Often what they view as persecution is simple, non-violent, rhetorical push-back from those of us who've heard quite enough about their supernatural pretend friend(s) of choice. They consider such push back "persecution." We call it self-defense.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So there, my top 20 list of things I got sick and tired of in 2007. Send me your list and I'll add it in the best ones in days ahead. Listing them probably won't change anything, but it's very cathartic.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Readers "Sick Of's"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Posted on our new News For Real Wiki page: HERE</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(And don't be shy about posting your own list there as well. It's easy. Just click the "Easy Edit" button and go to town.)</p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-45893445549618737542007-12-19T10:52:00.000-08:002007-12-19T10:53:26.980-08:00December 19, 2007<div><br /></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">YIKES! I've Been Assimilated</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Remember StarTrek, The Next Generation, when Captain Jean-Luc Picard was captured by the Borg Collective?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Well, now it's happened to me. I'm being assimilated. I fought it as long as could, but they're right when they warn that "resistance is futile." It really is. And yes, you'll be next. (Oh yes you will.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">While my new overlords are busy recharging, let me explain how this came to pass.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">All the way back to my earliest years I've been an out-layer. I never joined groups, unless forced to, like when I ended up in the military in the late 60's. And when I was forced to join a group it was nothing but irritation for everyone involved, me, them and anyone close enough to hear my complaints.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The bigger the group, the more I distrust and dislike it. Beginning right with kindergarden I instinctively knew that group size and efficiency were inversely proportional. The larger the group the less real stuff gets done, and what does get done costs more and misses the original goals by a mile.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Large working groups are especially vulnerable to a form of social affirmative action. At least a third of the people who make up a large working group are always useless as tits on a boar. Still everyone has to treat them as valuable members of "the team." They never do anything useful, say anything useful and, when given a task that requires them to actually produce something, they scurry from cubicle to cubicle bothering the other two-thirds: "Hey, Steve, can I pick your brain for minute." Then they turn in their (your) report. If these people were not allowed to be part of a group they would most surely die of starvation.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's been my experience, anyway. So I have spent my entire adult life avoiding large groups, be they in they workplace, political, religious, clubs, fads... you name it. And, up until last month, it worked pretty well -- except for that military business... but trust me, when my term of service was over, they were as glad to see me gone as I was to be gone. (Corporal Clinger couldn't hold a candle to Lance Corporal Pizzo.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But I digress. A few months ago my wife, Sue, who works in private practice as a family nurse practitioner, decided to cut back to just two days a week. That meant we lost our health insurance which had been provided by her office.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So out onto the health insurance marketplace I ventured, for the first time.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I've written many times that nearly 50 million Americans were without health insurance, but in the abstract. Suddenly there I was about to be one of them if I did not pick a plan. So we applied to all kinds of companies to see what we could get that was affordable. That meant a high deductible, but I was alright with that.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The first place we applied rejected me. This was the first time the shoe was on my other foot. Suddenly a group had rejected ME. Bastards, I thought. Then I noticed the reason.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> A couple of years earlier my doctor had noticed my recent blood test showed my liver enzymes were up a bit. Nothing serious, but he wanted to see if that was just the way my liver worked or if there was something else going on.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Doctor Paul asked me how much alcohol I consumed each day. Not very much, I told him, a glass of wine with dinner and shot of brandy before bedtime.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">He suggested I try dropping one or the other for a while and retest later to see if that was what causing it. (It wasn't) What I didn't know was the doc had written on my chart: "Try reducing alcohol consumption." I know it now because it was the reason the insurnace company cited for rejecting me -- that one sentence. I could just see the image the insurance company screener had in her head of wino Steve, laying in a puddle of his own urine, drinking Ripple out of a brown paper bag behind the local Stop-n-Shop.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Lesson: Don't tell your doctor anything. "Do you consume alcohol?" Nope. "Do you now or have you ever smoked?" Nope. "Do you use recreational drugs?" Nope. "Do you eat a lot of red meat?" Nope. That's all that's ever going to appear on my future medical files, page after page of "nope."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Well, to make a long story shorter, we ended up at Kaiser Permanente -- the Borg of American health care. Now I don't want to diss Kaiser because they do a fine job. They are completely modern, wired to extreme, Web-friendly and remarkably efficient. Even so, they ain't cheap. With a high deductible we still have to cough up $760 a month. (It's like having to make two car payments every month, but you don't get the cars.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Even with that hefty outlay every month, if I want to talk to a doctor I have to cough up another seventy bucks. Consequently the only time I'll be seeing a Kaiser doc is if I can't staunch the bleeding by fashioning a tourniquet out of my own belt.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Of course what you really are paying for under these high-deductible plans is coverage for the day when the big "C" or something like it, gets it's teeth into you. Without catastrophic coverage you end up in the hospital with doctors pumping you full of stuff that costs so much it chews through a lifetime of savings in three days then goes to work on your house, cars and jewelry. (All that platinum plated healthcare is still only likely to keep you alive long enough to drag your now hairless, emaciated and totally broke self to the nearest bankruptcy court.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Then came the prescription meds shock. When I found out how much the two meds I take cost I almost fell off the butcher-paper covered exam table. But then I was advised that there was an alternative -- Wal-Mart, the Borg of American retailing. Wal-Mart would provide my generic prescription drugs for just four bucks for a 30-day supply!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And so here I am, after a lifetime of skipping around the edges of society, all at once -- assimilated. Just like that. Now I can "look forward" to being promoted in three years to the Borg of American Social Programs, MediCare/Social Security and AARP, which has been on my tail since I turned 50, and is gaining on me.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Let me tell ya, its all come as quite a shock to this old Haight-Ashbury hippie. It's like totally un-groovy. Nevertheless, here I am, assigned my very own recharging station at the local Kaiser cube, and schlepping around Wal-Mart in search of cheap drugs that don't even make me "happy," when they're taken as directed.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And what are you smiling about? They're gonna get you too, eventually. It's all a matter of scale. As more and more people occupy finite earth-space, and consume more and more finite resources, the only way all of them can get a piece of the action is through maximization of efficiencies of scale. Eventually the US will go with a single Borg-ish insurance system, because nothing else works, as we are already seeing.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We are about to all be living in a world that bears a striking similarity to the old science fiction movies we used to watch as kids, you know where everyone dresses alike and says things like, "It's another beautiful day in the village."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's not as much Big Brother as it is Big Borg. Big Brother just controlled what people said, saw, heard, and knew. The Borg cuts out the middle man and simply assimilates.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's not the kind of world I chose on my own. Instead it's like climate change. It's too late to avoid it. Now we have to learn to adjust to conditions beyond our control. Most of what's about to happen is already baked into the cake. I wish it were otherwise, but it is what is.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Sometimes we can change events and sometimes events change us.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And so it has come to pass - my assimilation has begun. Resistance is futile. My goal now has become to be the most annoying, under-achieving, obnoxious, passive-aggressive little shit the Borg ever assimilated. Who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and they'll spit me back out.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In the meantime here's where I draw a red line in the sand: they'll have to pry my nightly snort of brandy out of my cold, dead fingers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">December 7, 2007</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mitt & Me</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> <br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If Mitt Romney hoped to quell concerns about his religious beliefs yesterday he failed miserably. In fact, I believe he revealed himself in ways that should cause every American to worry more, not less, about what's rattling around in this guy's well-groomed head.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During his speech Romney made several pronouncements as though they were accepted facts.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Here are those statements, in his own words, followed by my reaction as I listened to his speech: (Which I emailed to the Romney campaign headquarters as well.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: You're only half right, Mitt. The free and open practice of religion depends entirely on the freedom -- freedom to worship as one pleases, or not to worship at all. But freedom itself is not so constrained. Freedom, unlike religion, is the natural state of being. It's how humans would live unless one of two outside, artificial forces step in and restrict freedom. Those two forces are government and religion. Each of those two forces have, in more ways than can be counted over the eons, done more to restrict human freedom than any other forces in the universe.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Freedom also opens the windows of the mind which for many leads humans to discover that religions -- all of them -- are remnants of primitive mankind's fear of the unknown and unknowable. Religious ceremonies were -- and remain -- mankind's feeble attempts to reassure itself they could have some control over the gigantic natural forces that surrounded them and which nurtured them one day and tried to kill them the next. So they turned to magic and prayers. (How prayers are really treated)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: You got that sound bite exactly backwards, Mitt. Throughout human history it's been the first goal of any religion to trim freedom's wings. The first thing a new religion does is to start making a list of things it wants people to stop doing. And, as time goes on, those list grow. They can never seem to stop with common sense rules like "don't kill and steal from each other." Sooner or later the list of "sins" grow to include sexual behavior, what people can and can't eat and drink, what they can and can't say -- or even think, where they can and can't go, even what they can and can't wear. So Mitt, you were dead wrong here. Religion has always been at odds with freedom. And the more freedom given to the religious, the less freedom the religious were willing to grant the (once) free.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br />"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Absolutely right, but not for the reasons you would cite, Mitt. Two decades ago America's Christian right decided their religious opposition to certain entirely secular behaviors needed to be outlawed or otherwise restricted, not by changing people's minds, but by law. That religious blacklist included abortion, condoms use by teens, birth control, foreign aid for family planning, same-sex marriages, gays, prayer in schools.. on and on. Fundamentalist Christians pushed to elect leaders who promised to codify their shared religious beliefs into civil law. And so it came to pass that millions of Americans who did not share those beliefs saw their freedoms eroded. Choice, and choices, narrowed. Freedoms narrowed. Had that not occurred I would have no reason to care what religious dogma a candidate holds dear. We secularists didn't start this fight, they did. The so-called "war on religion in the public square" is a self-inflicted wound. Because once one side breaches the barrier between church and state the other side will try to fill that breach.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Oh, man, what chutzpah. Do you mean like you did when you were pro-choice to win the governorship of Mass. and then switched to anti-choice to appeal to the religious right in the presidential primaries? So you mean someone just like you, Mitt.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "<br />It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Well, excuuuuuuuse me for even existing, Mitt. As a non-theist I, and tens of millions of Americans like me, do not share a common creed with theists. We do not share your belief in the spirit-world. Rather than sharing those beliefs we rejectas a nonsensical belief in the supernatural. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: <br /><br />"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Is that why the Christian right been insisting that its theologically-based moral codes be imposed on our entire population? Is that why the current "born-again" President has been stacking government agencies, such as the Federal Drug Administration to the courts, Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, even the Supreme Court, with those who share the narrow beliefs of fundamentalist Christian sects? What does the term "separation" mean to you Mitt -- separating us from the freedom to live as we each wish?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God... They wish to remove all mention of religion from the public square."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Whew! Where do I begin? First of all, in a free country, the public square is a debating society, not a lecture hall. If you come to the public square espousing your beliefs expect an argument. When you say people like me want to chase religion from the public square what you are really saying is you don't want us to challenge religious beliefs. Well, forget about it. Besides, people like you are yourself highly selective when it comes to just which metaphysical beliefs that are acceptable in the public squares. Just let some believers in astrology erect a monument to astrology on a courthouse steps and see how fast mainstream religious folk scream foul.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Yes, and that's the right way to view it too. There's all kinds of things about other's lives I have no interest in knowing about; what they did in bed last night and with whom, who they voted for, how much money they earn and, right on the top of that list, their religious/metaphysical beliefs. All that kind of stuff falls smack dab into the "don't ask, don't tell" category as far as I'm concerned. The only time I get concerned is when some group starts insisting that I believe and/or live as they do. That's when your religious beliefs stop being a private affair and becomes extremely personal -- to me.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "It is as if they're (secularists) intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong."<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Ah, now, isn't THAT a telling comment. You believe that people like me are trying to sneak a new religion into the mix -- "secularism." Don't you see the irony in that remarkable remark? Wasn't it your "prophet," Joseph Smith, who himself "snuck" a new religion into the established Christian pack as recently as the 1830s? If I recall from my reading of history Smith was not viewed much differently than you now view we secularists. But hey, maybe he's given me an idea. If the religious right is successful in finishing the job of breaking down the wall between church and state, the only way we secularists may be able to get what we want is to call ourselves a religion. Then we could demand our rights too. We could demand that our "religious beliefs" be codified into law too. And, whenever we are opposed by anyone we can accuse them of "religious persecution." Then we too could take advantage of all those juicy tax breaks religions get. (The Church of Secularism ... services every weekend starting at 9 pm at Filmore East -- Hymns by the Greatful Dead. )</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.<br /><br />"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places.<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)<br /><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: I know you have trouble seeing it from your vantage, but Islam is one the fastest growing religions in the US. What happens if the day arrives when Muslims outnumber Christians in the US? Would you be for changing the pledge and currency to, "In Allah We Trust?" I Didn't think so. Seems your religious tolerance has its limits. Well, mine too.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: I thought George Washington gave us liberty. I thought it was the courage and valor of George and all the men and women who died over the past couple of centuries to defeat those who would take or freedoms away, who we honor for our liberties. That's where our liberty came from, and that's where it's defended. And you dishonor those heroes whey you ascribe those victories to the intercession of a supernatural spirit. Every time you do that you reduce those heroes to little more godly canon fodder.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"We (Americans) believe that every single human being is a child of God –"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: There you go again. No Mitt, not every American believes "every single human being" is "a child of God." Many of us believe we are extraordinarily fortunate accidents of universal forces -- forces we are just beginning to unravel, but may be destined to never fully understand. We believe we are creatures of the universe, maybe the only such creatures. Maybe not the only such creatures. Maybe we're the smartest creatures in the universe, maybe not. But rather than children of some supernatural being, we believe we are, as the song in Hair put it, "stardust." And that's where our beliefs coincide: "From dust, to dust."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT:<br /><br />"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: What planet are you living on, Mitt? It sure can't be this one. Freedom is a gift of good government. Bad governments take freedom away. It's all about who's in charge. Look no further than our current (self-described God-fearing, Christian) administration. It turned out to be the first American government to sanction torture of other human beings. Under these "good Christian" leaders we've lost, rather than gained, freedom. They rolled back freedoms, like Habeus Corpus, privacy, detention without court review and spies on it's own citizens. In all fairness, "God" had nothing to do with any of that. Men did it. Men who were elected in part touting their Christian credentials. Men who promised that their faith would "inform" their time in office. And now you tell me that your Mormon faith will "inform" your administration, if you are elected. Thanks for the heads up.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT: "I've visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, and so empty."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: True. But did you take the time to ask why? There are several reasons those grand cathedrals are now empty. Europeans got tired of being shaken down by the church to build giant edifices to itself while so many lived in squalor. They got tired of priestly meddling in civil affairs. They got educated -- better educated than today's Americans -- and education leads to enlightenment. Yes Mitt, they've stopped going to church, and look what happened. Europe prospers. Their social safety net makes the lives of families and the elderly far more secure than in families in church-going America. While nearly 50 million Americans can't afford health care, nearly everyone is covered in "church empty" Europe. Meanwhile Americans can only pray they don't get sick. Even the Euro is now worth one and half times more than the "In God We Trust" US dollar. That's why those cathedrals have taken their rightful place alongside Europe's other monuments to the past, like the Colosseum. And those missing worshipers will not be returning to fill those empty pews any more than gladiators and lions will be returning to the Colosseum.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br />MITT: "In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day."<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Wrong, again. Reason and religion are like oil and water.. you have to shake the hell out of the bottle, and keep shaking, or they quickly separate. Because the two are diametrically opposite forces. Religion is based on blind faith and the suspension of critical thinking. Reason is eyes-wide open, question everything, show me the proof, critical thinking. For example, science and reason instruct us that the earth is billions of years old. Fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is just 6000-years old. Only one of those two views can be right. Deciding which one is right, and taught to budding scientists in our schools, will decide if we continue as a nation of innovation and progress or slouch into an intellectually crippled, backward, Taliban-like, society.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: And those of us who don't kneel in prayer to a supernatural being, are we not your "friends?" Are we then your enemies, or are you simply indifferent to our very existence? Since you repeatedly equate belief and prayer as core attributes of America and Americans, does that make us un-American. See where such statements lead? Do secularists have to worry that, should you win, we might be getting visits from avenging angels of a Danite-like Romney administration? Probably not. But I am offended by the statement nonetheless, and I worry what kind public policies would grow out such exclusionary feelings.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT:<br /><br />"And, in that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.' Thank you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: No. Let me tell you what I hope (rather than pray) for. I hope we have enough sense as a nation to tell the Christian right to get back into their churches and keep it there. If they want to believe that the universe is ruled by an invisible 6-foot white rabbit, I don't care. Just leave the rest of us alone about it. I don't want a bunch of temperance-types running around demanding the rest of us be "saved" and toe their line.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The constitution gave religious folk all they need and all they deserve -- the right to believe whatever they want, worship however they wish without government sticking its nose into their religions. But that seems not to have been enough for them. They continue to demand a voice in government as well. Ironically conservatives are forever complaining about intrusive "nanny government," but seem eager to accommodate the hype-nanny-ish "values" demands of Bible thumpers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On the other hand we secularists don't ask for much. We aren't looking for special tax breaks, nor are we trying to force anyone to do anything they believe is wrong. If we have a creed it can pretty much be summed up as, "live and let live" and "do onto others as you would have others do onto you." Beyond that we secularists are mostly Greta Garbo's at heart... we only "want to be left alone."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We only ask of the religious among us to stay out of secular matters. If you are against abortion, then walk your talk -- don't have one. If you're against booze, then don't drink the stuff. If you're against sex -- good. There's already too many pushy religious busy bodies on the planet.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Finally let me thank Mitt Romney for his speech. Ben Johnson once wrote, "Speak, that I may see thee."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mr. Deity</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A content-appropriate video for your secular viewing pleasure.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> </div>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-71974233935330921742007-12-13T09:15:00.001-08:002007-12-13T09:15:53.084-08:00Mitt & Me<div><br /></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">December 7, 2007</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mitt & Me</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> <br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">If Mitt Romney hoped to quell concerns about his religious beliefs yesterday he failed miserably. In fact, I believe he revealed himself in ways that should cause every American to worry more, not less, about what's rattling around in this guy's well-groomed head.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">During his speech Romney made several pronouncements as though they were accepted facts.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Here are those statements, in his own words, followed by my reaction as I listened to his speech: (Which I emailed to the Romney campaign headquarters as well.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: You're only half right, Mitt. The free and open practice of religion depends entirely on the freedom -- freedom to worship as one pleases, or not to worship at all. But freedom itself is not so constrained. Freedom, unlike religion, is the natural state of being. It's how humans would live unless one of two outside, artificial forces step in and restrict freedom. Those two forces are government and religion. Each of those two forces have, in more ways than can be counted over the eons, done more to restrict human freedom than any other forces in the universe.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Freedom also opens the windows of the mind which for many leads humans to discover that religions -- all of them -- are remnants of primitive mankind's fear of the unknown and unknowable. Religious ceremonies were -- and remain -- mankind's feeble attempts to reassure itself they could have some control over the gigantic natural forces that surrounded them and which nurtured them one day and tried to kill them the next. So they turned to magic and prayers. (How prayers are really treated)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."<br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: You got that sound bite exactly backwards, Mitt. Throughout human history it's been the first goal of any religion to trim freedom's wings. The first thing a new religion does is to start making a list of things it wants people to stop doing. And, as time goes on, those list grow. They can never seem to stop with common sense rules like "don't kill and steal from each other." Sooner or later the list of "sins" grow to include sexual behavior, what people can and can't eat and drink, what they can and can't say -- or even think, where they can and can't go, even what they can and can't wear. So Mitt, you were dead wrong here. Religion has always been at odds with freedom. And the more freedom given to the religious, the less freedom the religious were willing to grant the (once) free.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br />"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Absolutely right, but not for the reasons you would cite, Mitt. Two decades ago America's Christian right decided their religious opposition to certain entirely secular behaviors needed to be outlawed or otherwise restricted, not by changing people's minds, but by law. That religious blacklist included abortion, condoms use by teens, birth control, foreign aid for family planning, same-sex marriages, gays, prayer in schools.. on and on. Fundamentalist Christians pushed to elect leaders who promised to codify their shared religious beliefs into civil law. And so it came to pass that millions of Americans who did not share those beliefs saw their freedoms eroded. Choice, and choices, narrowed. Freedoms narrowed. Had that not occurred I would have no reason to care what religious dogma a candidate holds dear. We secularists didn't start this fight, they did. The so-called "war on religion in the public square" is a self-inflicted wound. Because once one side breaches the barrier between church and state the other side will try to fill that breach.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Oh, man, what chutzpah. Do you mean like you did when you were pro-choice to win the governorship of Mass. and then switched to anti-choice to appeal to the religious right in the presidential primaries? So you mean someone just like you, Mitt.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "<br />It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Well, excuuuuuuuse me for even existing, Mitt. As a non-theist I, and tens of millions of Americans like me, do not share a common creed with theists. We do not share your belief in the spirit-world. Rather than sharing those beliefs we rejectas a nonsensical belief in the supernatural. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: <br /><br />"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Is that why the Christian right been insisting that its theologically-based moral codes be imposed on our entire population? Is that why the current "born-again" President has been stacking government agencies, such as the Federal Drug Administration to the courts, Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, even the Supreme Court, with those who share the narrow beliefs of fundamentalist Christian sects? What does the term "separation" mean to you Mitt -- separating us from the freedom to live as we each wish?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God... They wish to remove all mention of religion from the public square."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Whew! Where do I begin? First of all, in a free country, the public square is a debating society, not a lecture hall. If you come to the public square espousing your beliefs expect an argument. When you say people like me want to chase religion from the public square what you are really saying is you don't want us to challenge religious beliefs. Well, forget about it. Besides, people like you are yourself highly selective when it comes to just which metaphysical beliefs that are acceptable in the public squares. Just let some believers in astrology erect a monument to astrology on a courthouse steps and see how fast mainstream religious folk scream foul.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Yes, and that's the right way to view it too. There's all kinds of things about other's lives I have no interest in knowing about; what they did in bed last night and with whom, who they voted for, how much money they earn and, right on the top of that list, their religious/metaphysical beliefs. All that kind of stuff falls smack dab into the "don't ask, don't tell" category as far as I'm concerned. The only time I get concerned is when some group starts insisting that I believe and/or live as they do. That's when your religious beliefs stop being a private affair and becomes extremely personal -- to me.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "It is as if they're (secularists) intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong."<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Ah, now, isn't THAT a telling comment. You believe that people like me are trying to sneak a new religion into the mix -- "secularism." Don't you see the irony in that remarkable remark? Wasn't it your "prophet," Joseph Smith, who himself "snuck" a new religion into the established Christian pack as recently as the 1830s? If I recall from my reading of history Smith was not viewed much differently than you now view we secularists. But hey, maybe he's given me an idea. If the religious right is successful in finishing the job of breaking down the wall between church and state, the only way we secularists may be able to get what we want is to call ourselves a religion. Then we could demand our rights too. We could demand that our "religious beliefs" be codified into law too. And, whenever we are opposed by anyone we can accuse them of "religious persecution." Then we too could take advantage of all those juicy tax breaks religions get. (The Church of Secularism ... services every weekend starting at 9 pm at Filmore East -- Hymns by the Greatful Dead. )</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.<br /><br />"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places.<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)<br /><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: I know you have trouble seeing it from your vantage, but Islam is one the fastest growing religions in the US. What happens if the day arrives when Muslims outnumber Christians in the US? Would you be for changing the pledge and currency to, "In Allah We Trust?" I Didn't think so. Seems your religious tolerance has its limits. Well, mine too.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT: "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: I thought George Washington gave us liberty. I thought it was the courage and valor of George and all the men and women who died over the past couple of centuries to defeat those who would take or freedoms away, who we honor for our liberties. That's where our liberty came from, and that's where it's defended. And you dishonor those heroes whey you ascribe those victories to the intercession of a supernatural spirit. Every time you do that you reduce those heroes to little more godly canon fodder.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"We (Americans) believe that every single human being is a child of God –"</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: There you go again. No Mitt, not every American believes "every single human being" is "a child of God." Many of us believe we are extraordinarily fortunate accidents of universal forces -- forces we are just beginning to unravel, but may be destined to never fully understand. We believe we are creatures of the universe, maybe the only such creatures. Maybe not the only such creatures. Maybe we're the smartest creatures in the universe, maybe not. But rather than children of some supernatural being, we believe we are, as the song in Hair put it, "stardust." And that's where our beliefs coincide: "From dust, to dust."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT:<br /><br />"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: What planet are you living on, Mitt? It sure can't be this one. Freedom is a gift of good government. Bad governments take freedom away. It's all about who's in charge. Look no further than our current (self-described God-fearing, Christian) administration. It turned out to be the first American government to sanction torture of other human beings. Under these "good Christian" leaders we've lost, rather than gained, freedom. They rolled back freedoms, like Habeus Corpus, privacy, detention without court review and spies on it's own citizens. In all fairness, "God" had nothing to do with any of that. Men did it. Men who were elected in part touting their Christian credentials. Men who promised that their faith would "inform" their time in office. And now you tell me that your Mormon faith will "inform" your administration, if you are elected. Thanks for the heads up.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT: "I've visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, and so empty."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: True. But did you take the time to ask why? There are several reasons those grand cathedrals are now empty. Europeans got tired of being shaken down by the church to build giant edifices to itself while so many lived in squalor. They got tired of priestly meddling in civil affairs. They got educated -- better educated than today's Americans -- and education leads to enlightenment. Yes Mitt, they've stopped going to church, and look what happened. Europe prospers. Their social safety net makes the lives of families and the elderly far more secure than in families in church-going America. While nearly 50 million Americans can't afford health care, nearly everyone is covered in "church empty" Europe. Meanwhile Americans can only pray they don't get sick. Even the Euro is now worth one and half times more than the "In God We Trust" US dollar. That's why those cathedrals have taken their rightful place alongside Europe's other monuments to the past, like the Colosseum. And those missing worshipers will not be returning to fill those empty pews any more than gladiators and lions will be returning to the Colosseum.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br />MITT: "In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day."<br /><br />(APPLAUSE)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: Wrong, again. Reason and religion are like oil and water.. you have to shake the hell out of the bottle, and keep shaking, or they quickly separate. Because the two are diametrically opposite forces. Religion is based on blind faith and the suspension of critical thinking. Reason is eyes-wide open, question everything, show me the proof, critical thinking. For example, science and reason instruct us that the earth is billions of years old. Fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is just 6000-years old. Only one of those two views can be right. Deciding which one is right, and taught to budding scientists in our schools, will decide if we continue as a nation of innovation and progress or slouch into an intellectually crippled, backward, Taliban-like, society.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">MITT:<br /><br />"And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: And those of us who don't kneel in prayer to a supernatural being, are we not your "friends?" Are we then your enemies, or are you simply indifferent to our very existence? Since you repeatedly equate belief and prayer as core attributes of America and Americans, does that make us un-American. See where such statements lead? Do secularists have to worry that, should you win, we might be getting visits from avenging angels of a Danite-like Romney administration? Probably not. But I am offended by the statement nonetheless, and I worry what kind public policies would grow out such exclusionary feelings.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> MITT:<br /><br />"And, in that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.' Thank you."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">ME: No. Let me tell you what I hope (rather than pray) for. I hope we have enough sense as a nation to tell the Christian right to get back into their churches and keep it there. If they want to believe that the universe is ruled by an invisible 6-foot white rabbit, I don't care. Just leave the rest of us alone about it. I don't want a bunch of temperance-types running around demanding the rest of us be "saved" and toe their line.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The constitution gave religious folk all they need and all they deserve -- the right to believe whatever they want, worship however they wish without government sticking its nose into their religions. But that seems not to have been enough for them. They continue to demand a voice in government as well. Ironically conservatives are forever complaining about intrusive "nanny government," but seem eager to accommodate the hype-nanny-ish "values" demands of Bible thumpers.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On the other hand we secularists don't ask for much. We aren't looking for special tax breaks, nor are we trying to force anyone to do anything they believe is wrong. If we have a creed it can pretty much be summed up as, "live and let live" and "do onto others as you would have others do onto you." Beyond that we secularists are mostly Greta Garbo's at heart... we only "want to be left alone."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">We only ask of the religious among us to stay out of secular matters. If you are against abortion, then walk your talk -- don't have one. If you're against booze, then don't drink the stuff. If you're against sex -- good. There's already too many pushy religious busy bodies on the planet.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Finally let me thank Mitt Romney for his speech. Ben Johnson once wrote, "Speak, that I may see thee."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mr. Deity</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A content-appropriate video for your secular viewing pleasure.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> </div>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-20765052818586856262007-12-07T09:03:00.000-08:002007-12-07T09:04:24.181-08:00December 6, 2007<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">People of The Book(s)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">(A gratuitously offensive look at religion and religion in politics.)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On Thursday Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, will give a speech addressing his religion, Mormonism. Romney hopes to repeat John F. Kennedy's success when he dampened concerns about his Catholic faith.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Good luck. Kennedy had a much easier task than Romney faces, for several reasons.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">First, the Catholic Church had been around for at least a millennium and a half. Hell, once upon a time it was about the only (legal) Christian faith around. It was be Catholic or meet Mr. Stretching Machine. Back then the Catholic Church virtually ran Europe for hundreds of years. (Run little altar boys, run. )</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Catholics eventually become something of burr under the saddle of Western civilization, resulting in fracture of Christianity into the Mulligan stew of Christian sects we have today. Still, JFK didn't have to convince other Christians that his faith was basically under the same tent with theirs.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On the other hand Romney's Mormon faith is viewed by many Christians as not under their tent at all. They tend to lump Mormonism in with the likes of Rev. Moon's church, the Branch Dividians and Scientology. Mormons went off and formed their own gang, they use different gang signs, wear secret colors (under their cloths) and generally roll with their own on on their own turf.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But Romney's biggest hurdle will be explaining why two volumes of revelation weren't enough for Mormons. Why the Old and New Testaments were insufficient. Why Mormons felt a third book was required, one that neither Moses or Jesus seemed to need, never mentioned and -- to many of us who've actually read it -- is, well, kinda nutty. (I understand that when it comes to religious tracts the term "nutty" is relative. But if there were a machine able to measure the nuttiness content of three books in question, the BOM would most surely be required to carry a warning label.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">How did we end up with Three Bibles?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The appearance of the New Testament nearly two millennia ago is easy to explain. The first book, the Old Testament, imposed on unruly desert tribes a wrathful God, one for whom smiting anything that moved verged on being a nervous tick. He turned people in pillars of salt for sight-seeing without permission. He was forever knocking down city walls, turning rivers red, deploying swarms of bugs, visiting plagues and contagious diseases upon those who displeased Him. In short, the God of the Old Testament was a real SOB.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The God of the Old Testament had to be an SOB, of course. A touchy-feelie God back then would not have done at all. The God of the Old Testament was tasked with lording over a hundred million loose canons. Leaders at the time were having a devil of a time trying to organize their unruly, footloose tribes into some semblance of an orderly society. So they had to come up with a terrifying celestial vestige just to get them to stop killing, raping, coveting and otherwise running amok. ("Just wait until your father gets home!") So Moses went up the mountain and came back with the new rules. It all got boiled down to a simple message : mess with the God of the Old Testament and you're toast.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And it worked, at least for about three thousand years. (Not a bad shelf-life by modern marketing standards!)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">But around 2,100 years ago marketing a "just-bomb-em" Cheney-like God of the Old Testament began wearing thin with the flock. Followers of the Old Testament had gotten the whole social order thing down, and they were sick and tired of being treated like a bunch of hen-pecked husbands by their God. Some in the flock began yearning for, and predicting the arrival of, a kinder, gentler Supreme Being ... one they could worship because they wanted to rather than because they were afraid not to.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why once Jesus started preaching his message of love and forgiveness, it was as though Mr. Rogers had replaced Darth Vader. Jesus was the Bill Clinton of his time. He "felt their pain," got down with the common folk and even women of ill repute were welcomed with open arms. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">In short, Jesus was a breath of fresh air. He didn't threaten them with plagues or infestations. Instead Jesus did stuff for them, like turning water into wine. (Wine was the big deal 2000 years ago. Imagine if some guy came into your dorm and turned a tub of bath water into delicious beer! That's how popular Jesus was back then. Brilliant!) </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Jewish by birth, Jesus also liked to show off his natural delicatessen skills to those who showed up to his rallies by serving them up apparently bottomless picnick baskets of fish and bread. And Jesus not only didn't go around smiting folks but actually un-smited one guy and gave eyesight back to those the old God had visually smited.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It was a tour de force, and a game-changer. In a matter of a few short years the mean-God of the Old Testament was plummeting in the polls and the Jesus campaign was on a roll. Of course that greatly displeased supporters (the Jewish version of our modern-day neo-cons) of the old mean God. They'd had a long run and built up a sure thing with scared people, money changers and all. They were not about to let this Jesus guy get a piece of that action. (The job of getting rid of this nuisance would eventually be given to Jerusalem-based Paulie Walnutstein and his crew.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The whole Jesus thing really caught fire though when the twelves-member PR firm of Simon, James, John, Mathew, et al, threw it's weight behind Jesus and began touring with him. In what must go down as history's most successful turning of a lemon into lemonade the twelve men leveraged Jesus' execution into a 2000-year worldwide run of success. Talk about viral marketing! (Eat your hearts out Nike, Microsoft & Apple.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So there's my version of how we ended up with two Bibles. After 3000 years of slinking around expecting to get their pathetic butts smited at the drop of a hat,. the people were primed for a kinder, gentler, less smite-crazy God. And that was Jesus, at least as the 12 apostle PR men went on to memorialize him in what became The New Testament. Jesus was their client, their only client, and even in death they figured out how to keep their thing going. Which explains how the New Testament came into being, sparking the Energizer Bunny of religions. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Now Mitt Romney has to explain that third book, the one they claim completes the Biblical set - The Book of Mormon (BOM). I've read it..or at least tried to read it. How is it? Well let's see. Take any one of the Harry Potter novels, drain any semblance of personality from the characters, remove the plot but leave in the fantasy, magic and imaginary people and places -- and you get a rough idea. (Mark Twain described the BOM as, "Chloroform in print." Actually it's more along the lines of chloroform/LSD in print.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Which is why I figure Mitt has job cut out for him Thursday. I suspect he won't go anywhere near the BOM during that little televised chat. Because he sure as hell doesn't want to try explaining to Mildred and Willard Smith of Dog Flats Iowa just how some American Indians became one of the lost tribes of Israel. (Jewish Indians? Oy Vey!) Or how Mormon founder, Joseph Smith used a magic stone (a "seer stone") to translate long dead (and even never existed) languages in English. Or how living the letter of the law, as outline in the BOM, gets rewarded with your own planet to rule over after you die.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> ("Yo, Houston, we've got a problem -- Deep Space One here. We've discovered a really weird planet ruled by some guy claiming his name is Jack Monroe, formerly of Salt Lake City, Utah. He says he wants to transport a couple of neatly-dressed young men to our ship for a little chat. Please advise Houston.")</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No, Mitt will have to steer clear of the details of his Mormon faith. Because if voters knew the kinds things he believes are true they'd never let him within a hundred miles of the Oval Office.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The bottom line is that most (sane & well-adjusted) modern humans have a built-in credulity fuse. They can only internalize a certain level of metaphysical nonsense before that fuse blows. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And Mitt Romney's Bible - Vol. No. 3 -- the Book of Mormon -- is a real fuse blower.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"> </p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346198.post-3209107055447036342007-12-04T10:00:00.000-08:002007-12-04T10:01:09.305-08:00December 3, 2007<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">December 3, 2007</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Boo Hoo</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Deja Vu</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Every time I post an article warning that the US economy is about to go bust I get emails from right-wingers telling me I'm an idiot, un-American, a closet-commie, and worse. They point out that everything is fine, never been better and, "just look at the stock market," it's up.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I take such criticism seriously -- even personally. So I hit the history books to see what people of that ilk were saying and doing just before the US stock market cratered in October 1929. (Hint: They were doing and saying exactly the same thing.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">That's when I came across a remarkably well-written detailed history of pre-depression American by historian (and former Harper Magazine Editor,) Fredrick Lewis Allen. It was long and you can – and should – read the whole thing yourself. It's free and it's online. (Here)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When I read it I kept having to check the dates he quoted be sure he was talking about the two-termed Calvin Coolidge administration and not the two-term George W. Bush administration. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I lifted some of the most startling similarities from Allen's tome and linked them to their 2007 corollaries. Sorry for the length of this, but it was unavoidable -- a LOT shorter than the whole book.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(Portions by Fredrick Lewis Allen in black text. My additions in red text.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Auto-craze drives economy during 1920s</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"In 1919 there had been 6, 771,000 passenger cars in service in the United States; by 1929 there were no less than 23 million There you have possibly the most potent statistic of Coolidge Prosperity.... As early as the end of 1923 there were two cars for every three families in "Middletown," a typical American City...Investigators interviewed 123 working-class families of "Middletown" and found that 60 of them had cars. Of these 60, 26 lived in such shabby-looking houses that the investigators thought to ask whether they had bathtubs, and discovered that as many as 21 of the 26 had none. The automobile came even before the tub!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">There are about 300 million Americans, and if you suppose that everyone over 18 drives, that is 285 million people. Subtract 10% for the blind and disabled and elderly, and just for error correction. There are actually more cars than there are people to drive them, so... There are more than 276 million cars in the US.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">and</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Study: Auto Loans For American-Made Cars More Likely To Default</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (August 7, 2007) – New research co-authored by a professor at Penn State's Smeal College of Business could change the way banks assign interest rates to auto loans based on the make of the car being financed. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Radio technology pushes market in 1920s.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"The radio manufacturer occupied a less important seat than the automobile manufacturer on the prosperity bandwagon, but he had the distinction of being the youngest rider. You will remember that there was no such thing as radio broadcasting to the public until the autumn of 1920, but that by the spring of 1922 radio had become a craze-as much talked about as Mah Jong was to be the following year or cross-word puzzles the year after. In 1922 the sales of radio sets, parts, and accessories amounted to $60,000,000. In 1922 radio sales amounted to just $60 million. By early 1929 it had exploded 1400 percent to nearly $850 million.)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today: Back then it was the nacient tele-communications and automobile industry booms that drove the market up. Over the last decade it was a housing boom.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Large Retailers squeeze out community shops.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“While the independent storekeeper struggled to hold his own, the amount of retail business done in chain stores and department stores jumped by leaps and bounds. For every $100 worth of business done in 1919, by 1927 the five-and-ten-cent chains were doing $260 worth, the cigar chains $153 worth, the drug chains $224 worth, and the grocery chains $387 worth. Mrs. Smith no longer patronized her "neighborhood" store; she climbed into her two-thousand-dollar car to drive to the red-fronted chain grocery and save twenty-seven cents on her daily purchases.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today: WalMart, Target and other Big Box stores have been doing the same thing to small merchants.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Utah activists parade against big chain stores</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">11/18/2007Activists dress up to boost support for locally owned businesses, saying they invest in the community "The Four Horsemen of the Shopocalypse" - greed, waste, vanity...</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Dressed up as a giant green elf, University of Utah student Robbie Rich pushed his shopping cart through the streets of downtown Salt Lake City. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> The entertainment industry prospered in the 1920s</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“The movies prospered, sending their celluloid reels all over the world and making Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Gloria Swanson, Rudolph Valentino and Clara Bow familiar figures to the Eskimo, the Malay, and the heathen Chinese; while at home the attendance at the motion-picture houses of "Middletown" during a single month (December, 1923) amounted to four and a half times the entire population of the city. Men, women, and children, rich and poor, the Middletowners went to the movies at an average rate of better than once a week!”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">JPMorgan To Invest $200 Mln In Entertainment Sector</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">12/3/2007 -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) confirmed its plans of investing in entertainment sector. The New York-based investment bank said it would invest $200 million of its own capital in the entertainment industry. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Corporate profits soared in 1920s</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Was this Coolidge Prosperity real? Farmers did not think so. Perhaps the textile manufacturers did not think so. But soaring corporation profits and wages and incomes left little room for doubt. “</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Profits surge to 40-year high</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">When will corporations spend some of their hoard?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">March 30, 2006 -- WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Easy Credit in 1920 fuels the market</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Prosperity was assisted...by two new stimulants to purchasing, each of which mortgaged the future but kept the factories roaring while it was being injected....The first was the increase in the installment buying. People were getting to consider it old-fashioned to limit their purchases to the amount of their cash balance; the thing to do was to "exercise their credit." By the latter part of the decade, economists figured that 15 per cent of all retail sales were on an installment basis, and that there were some six billions of "easy payment" paper outstanding.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">According to CNNMoney, consumer spending accounts for some 70 percent of the US gross domestic product. “So the world economy is leveraged to the US consumer. And the US consumer is leveraged to the hilt,” states the web site.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">and</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Next Fear: Corporate Debt</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Wall Street Journal - Nov. 7, 2007 -- Financial markets have been hit by a wave of defaults on mortgage loans. Now it might be time to start worrying about a more-remote threat: shaky corporate debt. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Wall Street players prospered in the 1920s</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“The other stimulant was stock-market speculation. When stocks were skyrocketing in 1928 and 1929 it is probable that hundreds of thousands of people were buying goods with money which represented, essentially, a gamble on the business profits of the nineteen-thirties. It was fun while it lasted.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“In every American city and town, service clubs gathered the flower of the middle-class citizenry together for weekly luncheons noisy with good fellowship. They were growing fast, these service clubs. Rotary, the most famous of them, had been founded in 1905; by 1930 it had 150,000 members and boasted of--as a sign of its international influence--as many as 3,000 clubs in 44 countries....these clubs (did not) content themselves with singing songs and conducting social-service campaigns; they expressed the national faith in what one of their founders called "the redemptive and regenerative influence of business." The speakers before them pictured the businessman as a builder, a doer of great things, yes, and a dreamer whose imagination was ever seeking out new ways of serving humanity. ..The service clubs specialized in this sort of mysticism: a speaker of before the Rotarians of Waterloo, Iowa, quoted by the American Mercury declaring that "Rotary is a manifestation of the divine"?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">It's a Wall Street bonus bonanza</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"> NEW YORK--2006: — Executives at Wall Street's top financial firms will probably remember this holiday season with particular fondness, as soaring profits cascade down to traders and bankers in the form of multimillion-dollar bonuses...Big Business Lauded in the 1920s, and today.-- All told, this year's bonus pool for Wall Street executives hit $23.9 billion, the New York State Comptroller's office estimates. That's a 17% jump from last year's bonus pool of $20.5 billion, and it works out to an average bonus of $137,580 for every person employed in the financial services industry. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Business as a manifestation of Godliness</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Indeed, the association of business with religion was one of the most significant phenomena of the day. When the National Association of Credit Men held their annual convention at New York, there were provided for the three thousand delegates a special devotional service at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and five sessions of prayer conducted by Protestant clergymen, a Roman Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi; and the credit men were uplifted by a sermon by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman on "Religion in Business."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(From Small Business Admin. Web site:)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mission</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">SBA’s Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives seeks to empower faith-based and other community organizations to apply for federal social service grants. It supplies information and training, but does not make the actual funding decisions. Those decisions are made through procedures established by each grant program, generally involving a competitive process. There are no grant funding set-asides for faith-based organizations. Instead, the Faith-Based and Community Initiative creates a level playing field for faith-based as well as other community organizations to work with the government to meet the needs of America’s communities.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mainstream Media in 1920's</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Newspaper owners and editors found that whenever a Dayton trial or a Vestris disaster took place, they sold more papers if they gave it all they had-their star reporters, their front-page display, and the bulk of their space. They took full advantage of this discovery: according to Mr. Bent's compilations, the insignificant Gray-Snyder murder trial got a bigger "play" in the press than the sinking of the Titanic; Lindbergh's flight, than the Armistice and the overthrow of the German Empire. Syndicate managers and writers, advertisers, press agents, radio broadcasters, all were aware that mention of the leading event of the day, whatever it might be, was the key to public interest. The result was that when something happened which promised to appeal to the popular mind, one had it hurled at one in huge headlines, waded through page after page of syndicated discussion of it, heard about it on the radio, was reminded of it again and again in the outpourings of publicity-seeking orators and preachers, saw pictures of it in the Sunday papers and in the movies, and (unless one was a perverse individualist) enjoyed the sensation of vibrating to the same chord which thrilled a vast populace.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"The country had bread, but it wanted circuses-and now it could go to them a hundred million strong....For the system of easy nation-wide communication which had long since made the literate and prosperous American people a nation of faddists was rapidly becoming more widely extended, more centralized, and more effective than ever before.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today: Police car chases preempt regular programming. Britney, Paris... et al, Like, duh.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">And that brings us to where they were then and where we are today.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Market uncertainy grows</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“One Day in February, 1928, an investor asked an astute banker about the wisdom of buying common stocks. The banker shook his head. "Stocks look dangerously high to me," he said. "This bull market has been going on for a long time, and although prices have slipped a bit recently, they might easily slip a good deal more. Business is none too good. Of course if you buy the right stock you'll probably be all right in the long run and you may even make a profit. But if I were you I'd wait awhile and see what happens."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Federal Reserve steps in</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“The speculative fever had been intensified by the action of the Federal Reserve System in lowering the discount rate from 4 per cent to 3'/2 per cent in August, 1927, and purchasing Government securities in the open market. This action had been taken from the most laudable motives: several of the European nations were having difficulty in stabilizing their currencies, European exchanges were weak, and it seemed to the Reserve authorities that the easing of American money rates might prevent the further accumulation of gold in the United States and thus aid in the recovery of Europe and benefit foreign trade.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Is the dollar leading us into a depression?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">A fallen greenback could mean economic turmoil, or it could trigger an economic crisis. Economists are having trouble predicting the outcome because investors are not behaving rationally (Taipei Times)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">U.S. Fed Reserve Could Slash 25 Points More In Discount Rate Before Dec 11 Meeting:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">The Feds has already cut the funds rate two times in the last three months, brining the short-term interest rates to 4.50 percent...This time, the Feds are likely to reduce its discount rate by 25 basis points down to 4.75 percent. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Denial from above</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"American business was beginning to lose headway; the lowering of money rates might stimulate it. But the lowering of money rates also stimulated the stock market. The bull party in Wall Street had been still further encouraged by the remarkable solicitude of President Coolidge and Secretary Mellon, who whenever confidence showed signs of waning came out with opportunely reassuring statements which at once sent prices upward again. In January 1928, the President had actually taken the altogether unprecedented step of publicly stating that he did not consider (stock) brokers' loans too high, thus apparently giving White House sponsorship to the very inflation which was worrying the sober minds of the financial community.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">U.S. Treasury's Paulson says economy healthy</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nov 16, 2007 -- (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Friday Washington was following a strong dollar policy and indicated he expected it to rebound, emphasizing the U.S. economy's long-term strength should help the currency. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Sucker rallies of 1929</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"While stock prices had been climbing, business activity had been undeniably subsiding. The tone of the business analysts and forecasters-a fraternity whose numbers had hugely increased in recent years and whose lightest words carried weight-was anything but exuberant. The National City Bank looked for gradual improvement in business and the Standard Statistics Company suggested that a turn for the better had already arrived; but the latter agency also sagely predicted that the course of stocks during the coming months would depend "almost entirely upon the money situation." The financial editor of the New York Times described the picture of current conditions presented by the mercantile agencies as one of "hesitation." The newspaper advertisements of investment services testified to the uncomfortable temper of Wall Street with headlines like "Will You `Overstay' This Bull Market?" and "Is the Process of Deflation Under Way?" The air was fogged with uncertainty.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Bernanke and the Last Legs of the Stock Market Sucker's Rally</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Nouriel Roubini | Nov 29, 2007: How sharply will the US stock market fall if the US experiences a recession? Given the recent flow of very negative macro news, the likelihood of a US hard landing has sharply increased; thus, it is important to assess the implication of such growth slowdown, hard landing or outright recession on the stock market...It is true that in the last two days the US stock market has recovered sharply after a significant 10% downward correction in the period from early October until Monday. But the most sensible interpretation of the upward move on Tuesday and Wednesday this week (in spite of an onslaught of lousy macro news: consumer confidence, existing home sales, Beige Book, fall in durable goods orders, regional Fed manufacturing reports, initial claims for unemployment benefits, expectations that Q4 growth will be closer to 0% after the revised 4.9% in Q3, sharply rising credit losses, falling home prices and a worsening housing recession, etc.) is that this is the last leg of a sucker's rally (or dead cat's bounce) driven by wishful hopes that the Fed easing will prevent a recession. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Whistling past the graveyard in Fall of 1929</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Anybody who had chosen this moment to predict that the bull market was on the verge of a wild advance which would make all that had gone before seem trifling would have been quite mad-or else inspired with a genius for mass psychology. The banker who advised caution was quite right about financial conditions, and so were the forecasters. But they had not taken account of the boundless commercial romanticism of the American people, inflamed by year after plentiful year of Coolidge Prosperity. For on March 3, 1928-the very day when the Harvard prophets were talking about intermediate declines and the Times was talking about hesitation--the stock market entered upon its sensational phase.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">(In the weeks that followed the stock market actually rose.) "What on earth was happening? Wasn't business bad, and credit inflated, and the stock-price level dangerously high? Was the market going crazy? Suppose all these madmen who insisted on buying stocks at advancing prices tried to sell at the same moment! Canny investors, reading of the wild advance in Radio, felt much as did the forecasters of Moody's Investors Service a few days later: the practical question, they said, was "how long the opportunity to sell at the top will remain."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today: Pump it and dump it.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Insider/Government market-fixers</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“What was actually happening was that a group of powerful speculators with fortunes made in the automobile business and in the grain markets and in the earlier days of the bull market in stocks-men like W. C. Durant and Arthur Cutten and the Fisher Brothers and John J. Raskobwere buying in unparalleled volume.... The big bull operators knew, too, that thousands of speculators had been selling stocks short in the expectation of a collapse in the market, would continue to sell short, and could be forced to repurchase if prices were driven relentlessly up. And finally, they knew their American public. It could not resist the appeal of a surging market. It had an altogether normal desire to get rich quick, and it was ready to believe anything about the golden future of American business. If stocks started upward the public would buy, no matter what the forecasters said, no matter how obscure was the business prospect. They were right. The public bought.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Stock Market Manipulation!</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"When God throws ... The dice are loaded!"<br />Greek Proverb</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I have been around the markets for more time that I do care to remember and I have seen some really "incredible games" played by market makers, brokers, traders and many other individuals and or various groups! http://www.greekshares.com/manipulat.php</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">On June 12th 1928 a new decline began. The ticker slipped almost two hours behind in recording prices on the floor....But had the bull market collapsed? On June 13th it appeared to have regained its balance. On June 14th, the day of Hoover's nomination, it extended its recovery. The promised reckoning had been only partial. Prices still stood well above their February levels. A few thousand traders had been shaken out, a few big fortunes had been lost, a great many pretty paper profits had vanished; but the Big Bull Market was still young. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Volume and Volatility</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"During that "Hoover bull market" of November, 1928, the records made earlier in the year were smashed. Had brokers once spoken with awe of the possibility of five-million-share days? By the summer of 1929, prices had soared far above the stormy levels of the preceding winter into the blue and cloudless empyrean. All the old markers by which the price of a promising common stock could be measured had long since been passed; if a stock once valued at 100 went to 300, what on earth was to prevent it from sailing on to 400? And why not ride with it for 50 or 100 points, with Easy Street at the end of the journey?”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just two months ago the DOW Industrial average passed the 14,300 mark.. a new record high.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Rationalizations</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"By every rule of logic the situation had now become more perilous than ever. If inflation had been serious in 1927, it was far more serious in 1929, as the total of brokers' loans climbed toward six billion (it had been only three and a half billion at the end of 1927). If the price level had been extravagant in 1927 it was preposterous now; and in economics, as in physics, there is no gainsaying the ancient principle that the higher they go, the harder they fall. But the speculative memory is short. As people in the summer of 1929 looked back for precedents, they were comforted by the recollection that every crash of the past few years had been followed by a recovery, and that every recovery had ultimately brought prices to a new high point. Two steps up, one step down, two steps up again-that was how the market went. If you sold, you had only to wait for the next crash (they came every few months back then) and buy in again. And there was really no reason to sell at all: you were bound to win in the end if your stock was sound. The really wise man, it appeared, was he who "bought and held on."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">No Sign of `Sell' on Wall Street as Analysts Say: `Buy,' `Hold'</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Anybody who followed the advice of Wall Street's top-ranked analysts, none of whom would say ``sell'' for a single company in the securities industry this year, is reckoning with subprime-like losses...Merrill Lynch & Co.'s Guy Moszkowski, UBS AG's Glenn Schorr and Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.'s Brad Hintz maintained either buy or hold recommendations on Bear Stearns Cos. as it fell 39 percent in 2007, the most since the firm went public in 1985. Moszkowski and Hintz had buy ratings on Morgan Stanley while the stock shed 22 percent in New York trading. Moszkowski and Schorr advised holding on to Citigroup Inc. as it dropped 40 percent. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Warnings met by happy talk</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Time and again the economists and forecasters had cried, "Wolf, wolf," and the wolf had made only the most fleeting of visits. Time and again the Reserve Board had expressed fear of inflation, and inflation had failed to bring hard times. Business in danger? Why, nonsense!...On every side one heard the new wisdom sagely expressed: "Prosperity due for a decline? Why, man, we've scarcely started!" "Be a bull on America." "Never sell the United States short." "I tell you, some of these prices will look ridiculously low in another year or two." "Just watch that stock-it's going to five hundred." "The possibilities of that company are unlimited." "Never give up your position in a good stock."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">US News: Nov. 3, 2007 --About the only people who still see the glass half full are Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve Board. They propped the market up on Halloween with a treat of a quarter-point drop in the overnight bank lending rate to 4.5 percent and also pumped in $41 billion to help steady the credit markets. The Fed explained the rate cut in a statement that said the following in a nutshell: "Credit markets stable. Economy and inflation stable. We're done. Mission accomplished." But the happy talk was interrupted by panic on Wall Street, as traders digested news of more trouble at the world's big banks resulting from the ongoing credit crisis. (Full)</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">1929 "patriots" encouraged to shop</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Meanwhile, one heard, the future of American industry was to be assured by the application of a distinctly modern principle. Increased consumption, as Waddill Catchings and William T. Foster had pointed out, was the road to plenty. If we all would only spend more and more freely, the smoke would belch from every factory chimney, and dividends would mount.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"The unemployment rate has remained low, at 4.5 percent. A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more." George W. Bush -- December 2006</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Milking consumers</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Gradually the huge pyramid of capital rose. While super-salesmen of automobiles and radios and a hundred other gadgets were loading the ultimate consumer with new and shining wares, super-salesmen of securities were selling him shares of investment trusts which held stock in holding companies owned the stock of banks which had affiliates which in turn controlled holding companies--and so on ad infinitum. Though the shelves of manufacturing companies and jobbers and retailers were not overloaded, the shelves of the ultimate consumer and the shelves of the distributors of securities were groaning. Trouble was brewing-not the same sort of trouble which had visited the country in 1921, but trouble none the less. Still, however, the cloud in the summer sky looked no bigger than a man's hand.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Are you a patriot? Are you pulling your weight? Got your iPod, your X-Box, your Hummer, your iPhone? Why not? Why do you hate America?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Obscuring the “oh shit,”moment</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">“Early in September 1929 the stock market broke. It quickly recovered however, indeed, on September 19th the averages as compiled by the New York Times reached an even higher level than that of September 3rd. Once more it slipped, farther and faster, until by October 4th the prices of a good many stocks had coasted to what seemed first-class bargain levels.... there was little real alarm until the week of October 21st. The consensus of opinion, in the meantime, was merely that the equinoctial storm of September had not quite blown over. The market was readjusting itself into a "more secure technical position."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Today:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Stocks Rally Sharply; What Bad News?</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Barrons Dec. 3, 2007 -- AMNESIA HAS LONG BEEN A convenient plot device in daytime soap operas, but lately it's also showing up in stock-market dramas...We recount the saga of the market's epic run at a pivotal point: The Dow Jones Industrial Average had just careened to its first 10% correction of this bull market, and the U.S. economy was fighting the unknowable spread of mortgage-related cancer at its core when through the door burst the beloved Dr. Bernanke...So smooth was the good doctor (such soothing words! that authoritative beard!), and so effective his promise of relief (a likely interest-rate cut!) Full</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"In view of what was about to happen, it is enlightening to recall how things looked at this juncture to the financial prophets, those gentlemen whose wizardly reputations were based upon their supposed ability to examine a set of graphs brought to them by a statistician and discover, from the relation of curve to curve and index to index, whether things were going to get better or worse...Professor Irving Fisher, however, was more optimistic. In the newspapers of October 17, 1929 he was reported as telling the Purchasing Agents Association that stock prices had reached "what looks like a permanently high plateau." He expected to see the stock market, within a few months, "a good deal higher than it is today."</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"The disaster which was impending was destined to be as bewildering and frightening to the rich and the powerful and the customarily sagacious as to the foolish and unwary holder of fifty shares of margin stock. On October 29, 1929 the market crashed.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Prosperity is more than an economic condition; it is a state of mind. The Big Bull Market had been more than the climax of a business cycle; it had been the climax of a cycle in American mass thinking and mass emotion. There was hardly a man or woman in the country whose attitude toward life had not been affected by it in some degree and was not now affected by the sudden and brutal shattering of hope.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">"With the Big Bull Market zone and prosperity going, Americans were soon to find themselves living in an altered world which called for new adjustments. new ideas, new habits of thought, and a new order of values. The psychological climate was changing; the ever-shifting currents of American life were turning into new channels.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">My parents, now in the 80's, remember making those "adjustments," and were both painful and ugly. Eventually an unlikely savior -- a member of the very monied class that had pumped and dumped the entire American economy -- appeared on the scene and put America's engine back on the tracks. Franklin Roosevelt may have lived a privileged life but he understood the key ingredient that keeps any free market economy perking right along -- a vibrant working middle class. And that's where he began his rescue efforts with the WPA.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Roosevelt understood something that any good stone fence builder knows instinctually -- that when building a loose stone fence or wall the big rocks are impressive, but it's the little rocks that hold them in place. </p>Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782724774592709052noreply@blogger.com