How the Media Sold Their Souls to Wall Street

How the Media Sold Their Souls to Wall Street | AfterDowningStreet.org

If you are like me, the pundits, and 99.9% of the American public, you really don't know much about economics. And despite Monday's refreshing moment of rebellion in the Congress, in all likelihood the House and Senate will pass a modified version of the $700 billion handout this week to fat cat Wall Street financiers.

The likely result, according to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz: "The unemployment rate will still increase, growth will remain anemic, house prices will continue to fall, the number of houses in foreclosure will continue to rise, credit will be harder to get, states and localities will remain in a fiscal crisis, and there will be cutbacks in basic public services. .... Our living standards in the future will be lower than they otherwise would have been. "

Here's the problem: None of us really know that the hell is going on, and what the largest financial bailout in the history of our nation would actually achieve. Based on McCain and Obama's hasty support of the bailout, it would seem they are both too far under the thumb of Wall Street to look at viable alternatives to an unprecedented handout to the same reckless bankers who got us into this mess.

And like they did in the run-up to war in Iraq and the passage of the Patriot Act, the media are compounding the problem rather than helping it. While TV devotes 24/7 coverage to pretending that mudslinging Democrats and Republicans represent the full range of debate, while right-wing radio hosts scream socialism, and while pundits like Thomas Friedman implore Congress "to give them the capital and the flexibility to put out this fire," the American people are getting virtually no hard economic analysis about what the bailout would achieve or what the range of options are.

Why aren't Luc Laeven and Fabian Valencia on television right now? They just submitted a comprehensive report to the International Monetary Fund after studying 42 banking crises over the past 37 years. Their conclusion: Bailouts often do not work, they often result in more bad practices, and they distort economies by transferring wealth from taxpayers to bankers and their customers.

Why hasn't economist Dean Baker been invited onto a single television program in the past week ? He is one of the guys who actually predicted the current crisis. He wrote this week: "There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. The worst case scenario is that we have an extremely scary day in which the markets freeze for a few hours. Then the Fed steps in and takes over the major banks. The system of payments continues to operate exactly as before, but the bank executives are out of their jobs and the bank shareholders have likely lost most of their money. In other words, the banks have a gun pointed to their heads and are threatening to pull the trigger unless we hand them $700 billion."

Why isn't New York University economist Nouriel Roubini all over the news right now? He says the claim that "spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit - at a huge expense for the U.S. taxpayer - the shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. ....The pockets of reckless bankers and investors (will) have been made fatter under the fake argument that bailing out Wall Street was necessary to rescue Main Street from a severe recession."

Roubini continues, "Instead, the restoration of the financial health of distressed financial firms could have been achieved with a cheaper and better use of public money. It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. ... and it is a scandal that even Congressional Democrats have fallen for this Treasury scam that does little to resolve the debt burden of millions of distressed home owners."

But turn on your television - the place where more than 60% of Americans get their primary news - turn on your radio, or open your local newspaper, and you're not going to see what these top economists are saying. It's a McCain quote, an Obama sound byte, and the same pundits who have proven their incompetence over and over. The result is an American public that is fundamentally uninformed about the issues that matter most - like economics, health care, and war - and over-informed about those that matter least: sports, celebrity, the latest campaign ad, and horserace analysis of elections.
We have no reason to believe that the press -- and along with it, most politicians -- will ask the tough questions, expand the range of debate, and bring the facts to the American people. But until they do, our economy - and our democracy -- will continue its race to the bottom.

Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

Josh Silver is the Executive Director of Free Press a national, nonpartisan organization that he co-founded with Robert McChesney and John Nichols in 2002 to engage citizens in media policy debates and create a more democratic and diverse media system.

Woman Buys House For $1.75 On EBay

Woman Buys House For $1.75 On EBay [Money Meltdown]

from Consumerist by Chris Walters

Joanne Smith from Chicago now owns an abandoned home in Saginaw, Michigan, and she only paid $1.75 for it on eBay. Well, there's also $850 in "back taxes and yard cleanup cost," reports MSNBC. Smith says she hasn't seen the house yet or visited the town, but we're thinking hello summer home! Or maybe it's a good place to put the parents when they retire.

The company that auctioned the home wasn't available for comment, so we'll be curious to see whether they try to squirm out of the deal. Like, oh, maybe saying a bunch of Canadianized killer bees moved in.

"$1.75 eBay bid gets abandoned Michigan home" [MSNBC.com] (Thanks to Scott!)

FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS

FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS | AfterDowningStreet.org

The FBI has blocked two of its veteran counterterrorism agents from going public with accusations that the CIA deliberately withheld crucial intelligence before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

FBI Special Agents Mark Rossini and Douglas Miller have asked for permission to appear in an upcoming public television documentary, scheduled to air in January, on pre-9/11 rivalries between the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The program is a spin-off from The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by acclaimed investigative reporter James Bamford, due out in a matter of days.

The FBI denied Rossini and Miller permission to participate in the book or the PBS "NOVA" documentary, which is also being written and produced by Bamford, on grounds that the FBI "doesn't want to stir up old conflicts with the CIA," according to multiple reliable sources.
Bamford, contacted by phone, said he could not comment because his publisher has embargoed his new book for release around Oct. 10.

The author of two other ground-breaking books on the NSA, Bamford also said his general policy is not to discuss his negotiations for interviews with intelligence agencies.

Pre-9/11 intelligence mishaps have been generally attributed to bureaucratic screw-ups -- a "failure to connect the dots," exacerbated by spy agency rivalries.

But Rossini and Miller, who were assigned to the CIA-run Counterterrorist Center during the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, are prepared to describe on camera how the CIA blocked them from sharing crucial intelligence with FBI headquarters - and then later pressured them not to tell the truth to investigators.

The first allegation is not entirely new, having been reported by author Lawrence Wright in his 2006 book, The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, among other places.

But what is new is that Rossini and Miller -- who still hold sensitive jobs in the FBI, and are identified here for the first time -- are prepared to say publicly that, under pressure from the CIA, they kept the full the truth from the Justice Department's Inspector General, which looked into the FBI's handling of pre-9/11 intelligence in 2004.

"There was pressure on people not to disclose what really happened," said sources close to the IG investigation.

Rossini, in particular, is said to have felt threatened that the CIA would have him prosecuted for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act if he told the IG investigators what really happened inside the CTC.

CIA officials were in the room when he and Miller, as well as a sympathetic CIA officer, were questioned.

The IG investigators showed them copies of CTC intelligence reports and e-mails.

But the FBI agents suddenly couldn't remember details about who said what, or who reported what, to whom, about the presence of two al Qaeda agents in the U.S. prior to the 9/11 attacks,

The IG investigators were suspicious.

Indeed, their report, which used pseudonyms for the CIA and FBI agents its interviewed -- Rossini and Miller were called "Malcolm" and "Dwight," a CIA analyst was dubbed "Eric" -- hinted at a cover-up.

"When we interviewed all of the individuals involved about the CIR [Current Intelligence Report] they asserted that they recalled nothing about it," it said

The focus of the IG was what the CIA had witheld about the movement of two al Qaeda operatives, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, from Malaysia to the U.S. in early 2000.

Dwight told the OIG that he did not recall being aware of the information about Mihdhar, did not recall drafting the CIR, did not recall whether he drafted the CIR on his own initiative or at the direction of his supervisor, and did not recall any discussions about the reasons for delaying completion and dissemination of the CIR. Malcolm said he did not recall reviewing any of the cable traffic or any information regarding Hazmi and Mihdhar. Eric told the OIG that he did not recall the CIR.

Subsequently, Rossini and Miller were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission to tell what they knew, even though sources say they were eager to do so.

But he and Miller did come clean during an internal FBI investigation, which remains under wraps.

Sources with direct knowledge of the FBI's internal probe say that the agents provided the bureau with unadulterated versions of their CTC experiences, including orders they were given by the center's then-Deputy Director, Tom Wilshire, to withhold intelligence about the movement of al Qaeda operatives into the country from the FBI.

When the agents asked permission to tell that same story on television, the FBI initially agreed, but then cancelled at the last moment, two sources involved in the deliberations said, with the explanation that it didn't want to risk inflaming the CIA.

The FBI's top spokesman, Assistant Director John Miller, did not address that issue directly.

But he said that the FBI had withheld permission for the agents to be named in various reports on 9/11 intelligence out of security and privacy concerns.

"These questions were examined extensively by several independent agencies and commissions," he said via e-mail Wednesday.

"It was determined that the two FBI employees would not be named in those reports because they continue to hold sensitive positions in the FBI as well as Privacy Act issues regarding current and former personnel."

Agent Douglas Miller has said that he doesn't have "a rational answer" to explain why the CIA blocked him from sharing information with the bureau, particularly a report of such obvious magnitude about al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. He speculated that CIA officials at the CTC were annoyed that he had encroached on their territory.

A CIA spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, ridiculed the allegations.

"I have every reason--every reason--to believe that's complete garbage," he said in a brief telephone interview. "Not only did the 9/11 Commission look at the matter in detail, but former Director George Tenet wrote about it at some length in his book."

But the Justice Department Inspector general contradicted Tenet's assertion that the CIA shared its intelligence on al Qaeda operatives in a timely fashion with the FBI.

"We reviewed whether this information was in fact passed to the FBI by the CIA, and based on the evidence, concluded that while the CIA passed some of the information about Mihdhar to the FBI, it did not contemporaneously pass the information about Mihdhar's U.S. visa to the FBI," the IG report said.

"We concluded it was not disclosed by the CIA until late August 2001, shortly before the September 11 terrorist attacks."

Another intelligence source said the CIA feared that if FBI headquarters learned of the suspects' arrival in the U.S., it would try to arrest them -- and bust up a sensitive CIA operation to penetrate al Qaeda.

Mihdhar and Hazmi were plotting an attack outside of the United States, the CIA believed, and wanted the FBI to stay clear of them.

"They said it has nothing to do with the FBI, the next attack will be in Southeast Asia," said a source familiar with the details. "They said, 'It's none of your business.'"

Rossini and other FBI counterterrorism agents were furious, according to a knowledgeable source. The FBI is responsible for investigating domestic-based plots.

"They're here!" Rossini protested to his CTC bosses. "It is FBI business."

The IG report criticized Douglas Miller ("Dwight") for not ignoring CIA objections and sending his crucially important report on Mihdhar to FBI headquarters.

But Miller, who held the relatively low rank of GS-12 at the time, told investigators that it was unthinkable for him to violate the orders of his CTC superiors. He would have been fired, "sent home," he told them.

Miller would be happy to give CIA officials the benefit of the doubt in a television interview, he has told friends, conceding that there may have been good reasons for their decisions that he was not aware of.

He has described the CTC as place filled with dedicated professionals who were "America's lowest paid professional workers on an hourly basis," for all the pressure-packed time they spent trying to detect terrorist plots.

But unless the FBI changes its mind, he'll have to keep that story to himself.

Fact check: Context of key debate claims

USA Today Does Its Job for Once, But Only Online Of Course | AfterDowningStreet.org

Fact check: Context of key debate claims
By Ken Dilanian and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
A look at some of the claims made by Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate Thursday night in St. Louis:

Tax votes

The claim: Palin said Sen. Barack Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes.

The facts: Non-partisan FactCheck.org called that count, which has been cited before by Republicans, "inflated and misleading." Examining the 94 votes at issue, FactCheck.org found that 23 were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals, according to FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

The 94 tally includes two, three and even four votes on the same measure.

Tax rate changes

The claim: Palin said Obama's plan to raise the top income tax rate would affect "millions of small businesses." Biden responded that the vast majority of small businesses do not report more than $250,000 in income.

The facts: The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, citing 2003 data from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, said in a report that 436,000 tax filers with small-business income — 1.3% of the 32.8 million filers with small-business income — were subject to the top income tax rate. Another Tax Policy Center analysis concluded that "roughly 97% of small businesses would not be affected at all by increases in the top two tax rates."

Health care

The claim: Palin said Obama wants a "universal, government-run program" and "health care being taken over by the feds."

The facts: Obama's health-care plan does not call for a government takeover. In fact, it isn't even universal. It would only cover all children. Obama's plan would give Americans the opportunity to have government health insurance, but they also could pick a private plan.

Energy

The claim: Biden said he has "always" supported clean coal. He said "a comment made at a rope line was taken out of context" by John McCain's campaign.

The facts: In the video, recorded at the beginning of Biden's bus trip across Ohio last week, he is seen responding to a question about why the campaign is supporting clean coal. "We're not supporting clean coal," he says. "Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States, it's causing people to die."

As the exchange continues, Biden says: "China's gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up, because it's gonna ruin your lungs, and there's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build 'em, if they're gonna build 'em, over there and make 'em clean because they're killing you."

Mortgage crisis

The claim: Biden said McCain said he was "surprised" by the subprime mortgage crisis.

The facts: McCain's use of the word "surprised" came in response to a leading question in New Hampshire last December. At the time, he compared it to the dot-com collapse of the late 1990s, adding: "I was surprised at other times in our history. I don't know if surprised is the word." Later in the same interview, he said, "When I say 'surprised,' I'm not surprised when in capitalist systems that there's greed and excess."

Troop funding

The claim: Each vice presidential candidate said the opposing presidential candidate voted against funding U.S. troops in Iraq.

The facts: Palin's charge that Obama voted against funding the troops is true. But Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, but the bill in question didn't include a requirement that President Bush begin bringing troops home. Similarly, Biden's charge that McCain also voted against funding is true — because the bill in question included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and McCain opposes timelines.

Diplomacy

The claim: Biden said Obama did not say he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is simply not true about Barack Obama," he said. "He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad."

The facts: At a news conference in New York City in September 2007, Obama was asked, "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad … would you still meet with him today?" He replied: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-02-fact-check...

fact checks from last night's debate

PolitiFact | Hooey in St. Louie

SUMMARY: Vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden meet in St. Louis. We check their facts and find some stretching and mistakes from both.

It began with a friendly handshake and a folksy question from Palin, "Can I call you Joe?"

That was fine with Joe. But it didn't take long for the two vice presidential candidates to get into some sharp exchanges about tax policy, bipartisanship and the Iraq war.

We examined many of their claims and found that:

•  Biden was wrong that John McCain's tax plan provides "virtually nothing to the middle class." We rated that one Barely True.

•  Palin wrongly characterized Barack Obama's health plan when she said it would be "government-run." Another Barely True.

•  Biden was pretty much on the mark when he quoted McCain saying he was "surprised there was a subprime mortgage problem." We rated that one Mostly True.

•  Palin was right that Obama has voted with the Democrats 96 percent of the time. True.

•  Biden distorted McCain's comments about whether he would meet with the prime minister of Spain. Biden got a Barely True for that one.

• Palin was right that Biden "said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief." He said it in a Democratic debate in August 2007. We ruled this True.

"Florida Republican leaders hastily convened a top secret meeting this week to grapple with Sen. John McCain’s sagging performance in this must-win state."

Florida Republicans Hold Secret Meeting

from Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines

With several new polls showing Florida breaking for Barack Obama, the state's GOP leadership convened a secret meeting of top party and campaign officials. Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer, who organized the powwow, said, "It was just to ensure the ship is on its proper course. ..."

(h/t Political Wire)

---

St. Petersburg Times:

Florida Republican leaders hastily convened a top secret meeting this week to grapple with Sen. John McCain's sagging performance in this must-win state.

Their fears were confirmed Wednesday when four new polls showed Sen. Barack Obama leading, a reversal from just a few weeks ago when McCain was opening up an advantage.

The polls come amid a cascade of bad news about the economy, an issue that McCain has struggled with in recent days.

Read more

Homer Simpson Backs Obama

Homer Simpson Backs Obama

from Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines

In this apparently leaked clip from the slated Nov. 2 episode of "The Simpsons," the original "Joe Sixpack," Homer Simpson, tangles with a voting machine as he attempts to cast his vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Who will prevail? 

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

"suggests Obama's plan has the best chance of making health care more affordable, accessible, efficient"

Obama's Health Plan May Help More Uninsured

from Truthout - All Articles

    Chicago - An analysis of the two starkly different approaches to reforming the U.S. health care system offered by John McCain and Barack Obama suggests Obama's plan has the best chance of making health care more affordable, accessible, efficient and higher in quality.

    The report, released on Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, sized up the presidential candidates' plans for dealing with a health care system which has left nearly 46 million people uninsured and many more underinsured.

read more

"Freeze in credit would only worsen unemployment as economic slowdown intensifies."

Job Losses at 600,000 - and Counting

from Truthout - All Articles

    Freeze in credit would only worsen unemployment as economic slowdown intensifies.

    New York - Job losses have been mounting, and the slowing economy and credit crunch is likely to take an even greater toll in the coming months.

    Analysts on average forecast that the monthly employment report expected Friday will reveal that the economy shed 105,000 jobs in September - the largest monthly loss in five years. The economy already has lost 605,000 jobs this year.

read more

"showed his true anti-environmental credentials Tuesday when he vetoed the Fish Rescue Plans Bill "

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Fish Rescue Plans Bill, Campaigns for Delta's Destruction

from Truthout - All Articles

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, hailed as the "Green Governor" in recent news conferences and photo opportunities touting "green jobs," showed his true anti-environmental credentials Tuesday when he vetoed the Fish Rescue Plans Bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk.

    AB 1806, spurred by the fish kill at Prospect Island last fall, would require the Department of Fish and Game to develop a set of protocols to evaluate the need for fish rescue and relocation plans within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

read more

Iron Man Blu-Ray Release Connects To Internet When You Insert It

Iron Man Blu-Ray Release Connects To Internet When You Insert It [Tips]

from Consumerist by Chris Walters

If you buy the newly released "Iron Man" Blu-ray disc and pop it into your computer, and it starts trying to download some mystery content from the Internet for the next 30-45 minutes, here's what's happening and how to turn it off. Thanks, Paramount, for your shoddy "interactive" quiz nonsense.

Sean writes:

Iron Man was released [this week] on DVD and Blu-Ray and there is much ire in the Blu-Ray community regarding the BD-Live aspects of the disc. When the disc is first booted the disc loads some information from the internet and begins an auto download. This load is taking anywhere from 2 minutes to over 45 minutes.

Last night I struggled for over an hour and half trying to get the disc to play, but all I could get was an "Iron Man" heart on my screen that did nothing but flash. I finally consulted the internet and found some advice on a few forums stating that I needed to change the BD-Live function of my player from Auto to Confirm; then to reload the disc and not allow the BD-Live functionality.

There is no warning on the disc that this initial load could take 30+ minutes to load. And what does this time intensive application do? It loads an interactive quiz that viewers may take during the movie. This should be something that is offered after watching the movie for the first time from the menu, not during initial start up.

I wonder how many consumers are taking the discs back to the retailer thinking the disc is broken or defective, only to get home and see the same thing again.

A post on Consumerist could go a long way towards educating the public on another "wonderful" marketing idea.

Done! Change the BD-Live setting on your player from Auto to Confirm so you're not forced to deal with future auto-connect Blu-ray "features."

"Another election year, another apparent example of shady, under-handed efforts to discourage black people from voting."

Flyers Aim To Keep Black Philadelphians From Polls

from TPMmuckraker by Zachary Roth

Another election year, another apparent example of shady, under-handed efforts to discourage black people from voting.

The Philadelphia Daily News reported today that flyers have been making the rounds in some of the city's African-American neighborhoods, falsely claiming that voters who face outstanding arrest warrants and even unpaid parking tickets may be arrested at the polls.

The flyers could prove particularly effective at scaring people away from voting, because they attribute the falsehood to "an Obama supporter." They begin:

Recently, at school, an Obama supporter approached me during a rock the vote assembly. He informed me that on the day of the election there will be undercover officers to execute warrants on those who come to vote based on the anticipated turnout. He advised me if I had any outstanding warrants or traffic offenses I should clear them up prior to voting.

It is unclear who's behind the flyers, which are signed "anonymous". The mayor's office became aware of them last week, and has passed them on to the offices of the District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney. It also plans to record a public-service announcement for broadcast, to help get out the word that the flyers are bogus.

"We're watching, we're being very vigilant," Everett Gillison, the city's deputy mayor for public safety, told TPMmuckraker. "We're not gonna let anybody intimidate anybody into not voting."

Democrats, of course, are counting on a large African-American turnout in Philadelphia this November to help Barack Obama carry Pennsylvania, a key swing state.

So its official - your government sold you out to Wall Street

Pease bombard your Senators and Congressmen that this sucks ass.

-- The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171.

"An Alaska judge dismissed a suit brought by state GOP legislators that aimed to stop the Trooper-Gate investigation."

GOP Suit To Halt Trooper-Gate Probe Dismissed

from TPMmuckraker by Zachary Roth

An Alaska judge dismissed a suit brought by state GOP legislators that aimed to stop the Trooper-Gate investigation.

Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski wrote in his decision that "it is legitimately within the scope of the legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances of surrounding the termination of a public officer the legislature had previously confirmed."

The Republican lawmakers had argued that the probe had been inappropriately politicized by the Democrats overseeing it, and that the legislature did not have the authority to pursue the investigation.

According to Peter Maassen, an attorney representing the Democratic lawmakers who were named as defendants in the case, lawyers for the plaintiffs appeared to be creating a transcript of the proceedings, suggesting an intention to be appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

But for now at least, the probe can continue. Independent investigator Steve Branchflower is scheduled to deliver a report on his findings around October 11.

"It’s a rush job. Legislation was written by the banks. It’s a scandal that no professional economists were consulted."

Whoopee we're all gonna die. Roubini and Ritholtz on the financial crisis

from Politics in the Zeros. Anti-war, global warming, peak oil, progressive politics by Bob Morris

Ok, maybe it's not that bad. But Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz are not optimistic about what's coming down the economic pike, as witness their comments on a conference call today.

Roubini is a perma-bear who used to be considered a crank about due to his predictions of a coming crisis. Now he's considered more of a prophet.

His thoughts on the bailout:

- It's a rush job. Legislation was written by the banks. It's a scandal that no professional economists were consulted.

- The bailout as proposed won't help much. The market knows this. That's why it sold off today.

- The credit markets are currently seized up. No one is lending because no one trusts anyone or knows what the counterparty risk is. If this continues for another week or two, then there will be defaults in commercial markets and businesses won't be able to borrow what they need. The Fed will be forced to extend lending to corporate entities in the near future.

- His solution: Drastic measures are needed. The government makes a blanket guarantee of all bank deposits of all size to prevent the "silent run on the banking system" that is happening now. They do triage. Recapitalize the banks that can survive and take the weak ones out back and shoot them in the head.

Barry Ritholtz blogs at The Big Picture, is a financial commentator, and author of the soon to be published "Bailout Nation. How Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy"

His comments:

- Bailouts have unintended consequences, and can lead to the next bailout. When LTCM blew up, they got bailed out and "No one got stung" and the rules weren't changed. Which inexorably led to the current crisis.

- On the current bailout: "What are the consequences of giving the most reckless players on Wall Street a pass?"

- The bailout won't help because it solves a balance sheet problem not a capitalization problem.

The next cards to fall are commercial real estate, credit card debt, and car loan debt. What started in a seemingly isolated part of the financial markets, subprime, has spread its rot to the financial sector in general, and now to business at large. European banks are even worse than US banks, as they can be leveraged 60-to-1, rather than 30-to-1 like here.

So, things may well get even bumpier. Given the useless lame duck George Bush, it is probable that the presidential candidates will call for a blue ribbon panel of actual experts to determine what to do - which is what Congress should be doing now rather than rushing through a bad bill.

"the investigation is on and the subpoenas are active again"'

Court Greenlights Troopergate Investigation; Slaps Down McCain Campaign

from Emptywheel by bmaz

photo by EarthPro flickr cc

Since nominating Sarah Palin for the Republican VP slot, John McCain and his campaign have put on a full court press in Alaska to shut down the Troopergate investigation. The main effort centered on the McCain Campaign strongarming several Republican Legislators in Alaska into filing a lawsuit seeking to halt the investigation into Palin's alleged wrongful firing of her Director of Public Safety and abuse of the power of her office as Governor.

Yesterday, lost in the commotion of the debate, the Superior Court of Alaska slapped down the McCain Campaign's attempt at obstruction:

An Anchorage judge today refused to halt the Legislature's investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin and denied the state attorney general's attempt to throw out legislative subpoenas.
...
Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski heard arguments from both sides Thursday morning and ruled just before 5 p.m. Alaska time.

"I think it's great. It's a big day for the state of Alaska," said Peter Maassen, the lawyer representing the Legislative Council, which ordered the investigation.

It is indeed a big day for Alaska. Their Constitutional separation of powers has been affirmed, and despite the brazen malevolent attempt by John McCain to thwart it, the will of the Alaskan people through the unanimous bi-partisan voice of their Legislative Council, has been honored.

But not just will the investigation and report by Investigator Steve Branchflower proceed with a due date of October 10, the court took woefully unqualified and incompetent Alaska Attorney General Tavis Colberg, a cipher in office only because he is Palin's childhood friend, to the woodshed over his obstruction of enforcement of the subpoenas duly issued by the Alaska Legislature.

Judge Peter Michalski said the Alaska Legislative Council can move ahead with its investigation, including having the state Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena Palin aides to testify.

"It is legitimately within the scope of the Legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the termination of a public officer," Michalski wrote in his ruling.

Barring the extremely unlikely intervention of the Alaska Supreme Court, the investigation is on and the subpoenas are active again. Branchflower may demand that the state employees, and First Dude Todd Palin, submit immediately to their depositions, and if they continue to refuse, it is quite clear that they will be subject to criminal prosecution, and potential incarceration, if convicted pursuant to Sec. 24.25.080 of the Alaska Statutory Code.

Well, this pretty much puts the lie to McCain's disingenuous blathering about the illegitimacy of the Troopergate Investigation. I wonder what smoke the McCain Campaign will blow up our southside next?

Game on!

"Sarah Palin required women to pay for their own rape examinations"

Mayor Sarah Palin Billed Rape Victims for Police Investigation, Says New TV Ad

from Political Affairs Magazine

As mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin required women to pay for their own rape examinations, charges a new TV ad by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

"keep on speaking out and never, ever give up"

Be Of Strong And Valiant Heart Today And Demand That Wall Street Pay For It's Own Bailout

from AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! by davidswanson

Important Update: Despite what the lying media would have you believe
about the House servers limiting emails, ALL of our email messages
are getting through, and our action pages now have a special process
in place to make sure they do go through. So keep on speaking out and
never, ever give up!

The corporate media has also been propagating the most despicable lie
about the backwards bailout we are all so opposed to, that the stock
market dropped BECAUSE the House rejected it. That black hearted and
categorical lie is just being used as propaganda to try to scare the
American people, and Congress, into taking a very bad deal.

The FACT is that the market was already down 600 points before the
vote was even taken. And then it went UP 500 points the next day
AFTER the rejection. And now that the Senate has betrayed us all by
caving in, it's down 350 points again in one day.

Bottom line: Any bailout must be financed by the Wall Street

read more

Obama and McCain Order Their Servants in the House to Vote for Paulson's Plunder

Obama and McCain Order Their Servants in the House to Vote for Paulson's Plunder - True Bipartisan Misrepresentation

from AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! by davidswanson

Wave of House converts jump aboard the $700B financial bailout on eve of make-or-break vote
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD, Associated Press

A wave of House converts jumped aboard the $700 billion financial industry bailout Thursday on the eve of a make-or-break second vote, as lawmakers responded to an awakening among voters to the pain ahead of them if stability isn't restored to the tottering economy.

Black lawmakers said personal calls from Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama helped switch them from "no" to "yes." Republicans and Democrats alike said appeals from credit-starved small businessmen and the Senate's addition of $110 billion in tax breaks had persuaded them to drop their opposition.

"I hate it," but "inaction to me is a greater danger to our country than this bill," said GOP Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, one of the 133 House Republicans who joined 95 Democrats in rejecting the measure Monday, sending the stock market plummeting.

read more

Goldman Sachs Bribed Senate To Pass Bailout Bill

Goldman Sachs Bribed Senate To Pass Bailout Bill

from AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! by Chip

Popout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek7zc0lJxbM

Congress Threatened with Martial Law If Bailout Bill Is Not Passed

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) Says Congress Threatened with Martial Law If Bailout Bill Is Not Passed

from AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! by Chip

Popout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

Dick Cheney’s rather extraordinary claim that the Vice President’s office is outside of the Executive Branch: "That pitbull with lipstick agrees with Cheney"

VP Debate: Biden - "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history."

from Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heather)

There was a moment in last night's debate that sent a cold shiver down my spine.  That moment was when moderator Gwen Ifill asked Sarah Palin whether she agreed with Dick Cheney's rather extraordinary claim that the Vice President's office is outside of the Executive Branch (truthfully, Cheney argued that it was outside the Legislative branch too, apparently occupying some nebulous and untouchable fourth branch of government).  Wouldn't you know?   That pitbull with lipstick agrees with Cheney.   

Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. 

The mind shudders at the thought.  Thankfully, Joe Biden knew exactly how to respond to someone who admires the least popular Vice President in American history (and if you were watching the debates on CNN, you'd know that those dial pollsters loved his response too):

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. [..] The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

See, Palin, that's real straight talk.

Transcripts (courtesy of CNN) below the fold

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Palin’s debate flow chart

Palin's debate flow chart

from Scholars and Rogues by Dr. Slammy

Ah - this explains a lot.

"allegedly raised the concerns of a mayor in Wasilla, Alaska a while back."

Open Thread

from Crooks and Liars by bluegal

Happy Banned Books Week, everyone. Shown above is the children's book, "Daddy's Roommate," which allegedly raised the concerns of a mayor in Wasilla, Alaska a while back.

"More than 40 percent of children in the United Kingdom are living in poverty, according to the latest research"

Britain: Forty percent of children live in poverty

More than 40 percent of children in the United Kingdom are living in poverty, according to the latest research. That is some 5.5 million children.

Whilst official measures of child poverty are based on a national survey of family income, the new research published by the Campaign to End Child Poverty was compiled using tax credit data. This gives the percentage of children on low incomes in local authorities and constituencies across the UK, as well as at the more local ward level in England and Wales and in local zones in Scotland.

There are two groups of children whose families receive the maximum Child Tax Credit because they have low incomes. Some 2,895,000 children are in families claiming Child Tax Credit, plus a Working Tax Credit entitlement related to their earnings. Another 2,664,000 children live in families claiming tax credits that also depend on benefits, because no one in the family is employed.

In 174 of the 646 parliamentary constituencies across the UK, more than 50 percent of children fall into these categories. Naturally there is a wide discrepancy between affluent and poorer constituencies.

Whilst the constituencies with the lowest levels of families in poverty are Buckingham and the prosperous constituency of Sheffield Hallam, both with 17 percent, the parliamentary constituency with the highest number is in Birmingham Ladywood, with 81 percent or 28,420 children living in poverty.

Other areas with high child poverty are Bethnal Green and Bow in London, with 79 percent (23,450), Bradford West with 75 percent (24,900) and Nottingham East with 68 percent (12,360).

At more localised levels, the poverty rate is even higher. For example, in the London electoral wards of Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green South and St. Dunstan's and Stepney Green there are very high levels of child poverty, with 87 percent. When broken down still further, the concentration is even greater. For example, in the two zones selected by the Campaign to End Child Poverty in parts of Glasgow Baillieston—Central Easterhouse and North Barlarnark and Easterhouse South—98 percent of children are living in poverty.

The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion has compiled the research figures by using data from August 2006. Economic developments since then will have already further increased child poverty. Rising food and energy prices and the slump of the housing market are pushing ever more people to the brink.

The Campaign to End Child Poverty, which is made up of more than 120 organisations including children's charities, child welfare organisations, social justice groups, faith groups, trade unions and others, will stage a rally in Trafalgar Square as part of its Keep The Promise campaign on Saturday, October 4. The "promise" refers to the pledge to end child poverty made by Tony Blair when the Labour Party came to power in 1997.

At last week's Labour Party Conference, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced plans described as "ground-breaking legislation" to enshrine in law Labour's pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 and to end it fully by 2020.

However, Brown gave no concrete details on this legislation or the policies that would be employed by Labour to this end. And there has been no further information forthcoming. Not only is the target of halving child poverty out of reach, but figures show that it has in fact increased over the last two years by 200,000.

In reality, Brown's pledge was made in recognition of the fact that Labour's original promise is nowhere near being met. Nor could it be, given that the Labour government is entirely beholden to big business and the super-rich and that all its policies to this end have only increased social inequalities.

While Labour continues to make empty promises, it is fully aware that these cannot be squared with its using billions of taxpayers' money to bail out billionaire and multimillionaire shareholders and bankers. Brown's never-ending guarantees to do whatever is necessary to save the system will mean further handouts for failing banks and rising taxes, rising prices and deeper attacks on social benefits for workers, driving even more children into poverty.

“I’ve seen members turn to each other and say if we don’t pass this bill, we’re going to have martial law in the United States.”

US congressman: "If we don't pass this bill, we're going to have martial law in the United States"

In the wake of Monday's vote in the US House of Representatives rejecting the $700 billion bailout package for the American financial industry, prominent voices in the US and international media have responded by denouncing the lower house of Congress and complaining that the American political system is too susceptible to popular opinion and insufficiently obedient to the will of the corporate and political elite.

The yearning for more authoritarian forms of rule was expressed by, among others, Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush. In a column in the Washington Post, he complained, "[I]t is now clear that American political elites have lost the ability to quickly respond to a national challenge by imposing their collective will." The Times of London, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, was even more blunt, headlining a column, "Congress is the Best Advert for Dictatorship."

Socialist Equality Party (SEP) vice presidential candidate Bill Van Auken authored an article on the World Socialist Web Site Wednesday ("The Wall Street bailout and the threat of dictatorship") explaining the connection between the appearance of such openly anti-democratic polemics in the mainstream media and the bill to bail out Wall Street that is being pushed through Congress.

Van Auken wrote, "The furor over the vote in the House serves as a warning that capitalism in crisis will inevitably move toward new forms of rule capable of defending the economic dictatorship of finance capital by means of an open political dictatorship against the working class."

The next day, the Los Angeles Times, in an article on the Senate passage of the bailout measure, noted in passing a statement by Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman from the San Fernando Valley in Southern California which underscores the authoritarian atmosphere surrounding the proceedings in Congress.

Sherman, who voted against the bailout bill on Monday, said, "The one thing that's been proven is the absolute fear-mongering that's being used to drive us is false." He continued, "I've seen members turn to each other and say if we don't pass this bill, we're going to have martial law in the United States."

The Los Angeles Times offered no comment on this astounding statement.

The World Socialist Web Site has long warned that the growing concentration of wealth and widening social inequality in the US are ultimately incompatible with democratic forms of rule. These deeply anti-democratic tendencies are being accelerated by the eruption of the financial crisis and the response of the American ruling elite and both of its political parties.

As Van Auken wrote:

"The crisis is being utilized to effect an ever more immense concentration of economic power that is incompatible with political democracy. Three banking behemoths—Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase—are gobbling up their failing competitors and now control fully a third of US bank deposits... These intense social antagonisms cannot be contained within America's existing political set-up."

Senate bailout: "Why the utter indifference to the plight of the American people—6 million of whom are expected to default on their mortgage payments"

The Senate bailout bill: How the Democrats do the bidding of Wall Street

If this does not piss you off nothing will.....

-The Senate-passed bill contains no help for the middle class while adding more tax breaks for corporate interests
-The Bill represents a caving in by the Democrats to the right, which turned a 3 page proposal into a mammoth bill, blinged out like a Christmas tree, with all sorts of changes for the benefit of the banking special interest
-The increased FDIC limit of $250K will benefit the wealthy mostly; the FDIC will not need to pay any premiums for that insurance. The Government will foot the bill for any deposits lost which will add to the price of the Bill
-Even worse, the accounting rules which forced banks to record these bad investments at the amount of their worse NOW will be changed so that they can record the investments at the amounts they were bought at, thus inflating their value, which they can then turn around and sell to the Government at these prices. Thus, the Government bears the economic loss since they are buying inflated assets that are worthless on the open market
-The Democrats re-did the bill to make it more likely to pass another vote by basically caving in to the right and giving the elite an "even bigger windfall"; they included credits for r and d for big business  and even incentives to make more movies in California
-There is no relief for the 6 million plus people who are likely to lost their homes; the democrats left out a provision that would have made it possible for bankruptcy judges to help with mortgages. Lobbiests worked furiously to make sure this was never put into the bill
-They included a provision to make it impossible to challenge this bill

The revised Wall Street bailout bill passed by the US Senate on Wednesday goes substantially beyond the version voted down Monday by the House of Representatives in committing taxpayer money to prop up the banks. It also adds $150.5 billion in tax breaks, mainly for corporate interests.

All of the changes from the defeated House bill incorporate pro-business proposals pushed by right-wing Republican House members who opposed the original measure, as well as provisions for which banking and corporate interest have been lobbying.

For example, the Senate bill raises the limit on bank accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) from $100,000 to $250,000, a measure that largely benefits the wealthy and provides a bigger backstop to the speculative activities of the banks.

The banks will not be forced to pay premiums to finance the increased government insurance for their deposits. Instead, the FDIC will be given an unlimited line of credit by the US Treasury—meaning taxpayer money will be used to cover the billions of dollars in deposits squandered by failing banks. This provision could add many billions to the price tab to be picked up by the American people.

The Senate bill urges a change in accounting rules, to allow the banks to value their assets at the price at which they purchased them, rather than the price they can now fetch on the market. The banks have been lobbying furiously for this provision, because it will allow them to conceal their losses on their balance sheets, overvalue their asset-backed securities and other speculative holdings, and offload a portion of them to the Treasury at inflated prices.

The tax breaks are apportioned to a variety of business interests, including, according to the Wall Street Journal, "research-and-development tax credits coveted by high-tech companies and drug makers." Other tax windfalls reported in the press include incentives to Hollywood to make films in the US.

There are no doubt many more handouts to corporate interests buried in the 451-page bill. It should be recalled that when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson first presented his three-page bailout proposal to congressional leaders two weeks ago, and some Democrats called for the addition of measures to help distressed homeowners, he and President Bush put their foot down, demanding a "clean" bill with no "irrelevant" or "controversial" add-ons. The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate banking committees quickly responded with promises not to "Christmas tree" the bill.

Now, at the bidding of big business, the Democrats have loaded the bill with ornaments, all of them directed to powerful financial interests.

By contrast, not a single concession has been made in the revised bill to accommodate the massive popular opposition to the bailout. Proposals advanced by Democratic opponents of the House bill to impose some penalties on Wall Street speculators and provide a measure of relief for distressed homeowners have simply been ignored.

As in the House, the drive to push through the Senate bill was spearheaded by the Democratic leadership, working in close collaboration with the Bush administration and Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs CEO who authored the scheme to use at least $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy worthless securities from the banks.

The Democratic Party leadership has thus responded to the defeat of the original House bill—in large part at the hands of congressmen who feared being tossed out of office in November by constituents furious over a bailout of the richest people in the country—by refashioning the measure in advance of Friday's revote in the House to provide an even bigger windfall for the American financial elite.

How is this to be explained?

It cannot be accounted for on the basis of the numerical division of the House between the two parties. The Democrats have a clear majority, 235 to 200. The bailout bill was defeated Monday by a vote of 228 to 205. The party leadership could seek to obtain the additional 13 votes it needs by winning over some of the 95 Democrats who opposed the bill, many on the grounds that it was too blatant a handout to Wall Street and lacked any provisions to address the crisis facing ordinary working people.

But the Democratic leadership never considered such a move. Rather, its response to the defeat of the initial bill was consistent with the position it has adopted unwaveringly since Paulson first broached his scheme to bail out Wall Street. That is, unqualified support for the basic framework of the Paulson plan, with a few cosmetic gestures toward "transparency" and "oversight," supposed restrictions on executive pay that can easily by circumvented, and token provisions for homeowner relief, which were subsequently dropped at the insistence of Paulson and Bush.

Why the utter indifference to the plight of the American people—6 million of whom are expected to default on their mortgage payments this year and next—and complete subservience to a few thousand multi-millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street?

There is really no mystery here. The Democratic leadership—from its presidential and vice presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Hillary and Bill Clinton and on down—has deliberately worked to pass legislation whose sole purpose is to protect the interests of the most powerful sections of the American financial elite.

They have even agreed to an unconstitutional provision that will make it virtually impossible to challenge the bailout program, its overseers and the participating banks in court—a measure that amounts to a blank check for self-dealing and corruption.

They are well aware that the bailout will do nothing to resolve the economic crisis that is deepening by the day and threatening the working class, both in the United States and around the world, with a social catastrophe. But that is not the real purpose of the plan.

Besides covering a portion of Wall Street's bad debts, the bailout serves a broader strategy of utilizing the financial crisis as a means of increasing the economic and political power of the most dominant banks and financial institutions. A process is well underway by which economic power in the US will be concentrated in the hands of a few banking behemoths, enabling them to set interest rates and fees and exercise dictatorial control over the economy.

All of these measures are things the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to see enacted. They have formed a united front with Wall Street's representative Paulson and Bush because they and the party they lead are, as the World Socialist Web Site pointed out on October 1, "deeply embedded in the milieu of Wall Street and consider their most critical constituency to be the financial aristocracy and the richest layers of the upper middle class."

To cite some illustrative facts: Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and one of the leaders of the drive to pass the bailout plan, leads all congressmen in the amount of cash received from banking and securities firms. According to the web site MapLight.org, over the past five years he has taken in $1,636,000 from these sources. Barney Frank, who has led the bailout effort for the Democrats, ranks fourth, with a take of $1,033,000.

The Democratic Party is a party of the American financial oligarchy. For four decades it has moved ever further to the right, aligning itself more closely with Wall Street while repudiating any program of social reform. Its trajectory has reflected the evolution of sections of the middle class that long constituted a core constituency. These layers enriched themselves, benefiting from booming stock prices based on financial speculation and parasitism.

The Democrats have sought to obscure their class position and right-wing orientation by adopting liberal positions on so-called "social issues"—abortion, gay rights, affirmative action—all of which are defined within the framework of identity politics. Barack Obama, whose posture of "change" and "new politics" is based entirely on his identity, and whose policies of militarism and defense of corporate interests are virtually indistinguishable from those of his Republican opponent, embodies the duplicitous and reactionary nature of the Democratic Party.

"...the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. "

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Let the Rich Bail Them Out | AfterDowningStreet.org

...the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

The Senate approved a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the bill that would put Wall Street's burden on the backs of the American middle class. "The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be," Sanders said. "If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people."

Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million a year and individuals earning over $500,00 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.

In a Senate floor speech, Sanders elaborated on the bailout bill's flaws:

This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been handpicked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today: the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks, we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

There is one issue that is even more profound and more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is if a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this bailout, which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street operatives who have made billions in recent years?

The American people are bitter. They are angry and they are confused. Over the last seven and a half years, since George W. Bush has been president, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are in poverty, and today working families are lining up at emergency food shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for working-age families has declined by over $2,000. More than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance. Over four million have lost their pensions. Consumer debt has more than doubled. And foreclosures are the highest on record. Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college, and other basic necessities has soared.

While the middle class has declined under President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have never had it so good. For the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth and, at the end of 2007, owned over $1.5 trillion in wealth. That is just 400 families, a $670 billion increase in wealth since Bush has been in office.

In our country today, we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth, with the top 1 percent earning more income than the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We are living at a time when we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest people in this country, when, among others, CEOs of Wall Street firms received unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including $39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major investment houses. We have seen the incredible greed of the financial services industry manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their industry, so that hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions of dollars in esoteric financial instruments, in unregulated industries, which no more than a handful of people even understand. We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.

Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight.

In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under President Bush, to pick up the tab.

I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased; then, $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout.

Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns, after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.

Last week, I placed on my web site a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years - they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: "We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout."

The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists, who are running amok all over the Capitol building, from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Bankers Association, to the Business Roundtable, all of these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all kinds of money on lobbyists - they're here loud and clear. They don't want to pay for this bailout; they want middle America to pay for it.

"a 17-year old girl who struck out two of the biggest names in baseball, only to be kicked out of the sport. "

The Woman Who Struck Out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig

from mental_floss Blog by Mangesh Hattikudur

I learned plenty of strange facts this weekend at the Baseball Hall of Fame. But by far, the most amazing story I heard was this one: about a 17-year old girl who struck out two of the biggest names in baseball, only to be kicked out of the sport. Here's the full story: Virnett "Jackie" Mitchell was a left-handed phenom. Encouraged by her father to pick up sports at an early age, Jackie excelled at everything from boxing to shooting to basketball. But baseball was her greatest strength. As a teenage pitcher, Jackie became legendary at the local sandlot for striking out 9 men consecutively. Stranger still, she only had one pitch in her arsenal: a curveball. Her biggest skill, however, was that she hurled pitches with startling accuracy, and had an uncanny knack for pinpointing a player's weakness. When Chatanooga Lookouts owner Joe Engel saw her playing in Georgia, he decided he had to have her on his minor league team.

Whether or not Engel knew her full potential is debatable. As the self-professed "Barnum of Baseball", Engel was known for press-friendly stunts, like when he traded his shortstop for a 25-pound turkey. As soon as he signed Mitchell, he began promoting the Lookouts as the only team in baseball with a female pitcher.

Amazingly, Mitchell's first game as a pro was in an exhibition game against the Yankees. And her first pitch was against Babe Ruth! Here's how the Baseball Hall of Fame describes it:

In the first inning, after starter Clyde Barfoot surrendered hits to the Yankees' first two batters, Mitchell was called upon to face the heart of "Murderers' Row," Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig… [Her] uncanny knack came in handy when Mitchell faced Ruth, who watched her first sinker dart low for ball one. Mitchell followed with a sinker on the outside corner, which the Babe swung through and missed. Grinning, the "Sultan of Swat" swung at the next offering and missed for strike two. The next pitch was another sinker on the corner of the plate, which Ruth watched sail by for called strike three. At that point, the Babe "kicked the dirt" and "gave his bat a wild heave" as he stormed unhappily to the dugout…

Next up was Gehrig, who promptly missed three straight dipping sinkers, swinging early each time. On seven pitches, Mitchell had struck out Ruth and Gehrig, two of the game's greatest sluggers. The Chattanooga crowd responded with a rousing standing ovation. Mitchell faced the next Yankees' batter, second baseman Tony Lazzeri, who tried to bunt the first pitch but failed. Lazzeri eventually walked and Mitchell was removed from the game. Engel had maximized her gate appeal by using her to face the heart of baseball's greatest lineup. The 17-year old had squared off against three future Hall of Famers, striking out two of them. The next day, one newspaper would speculate that "maybe her curves were too much for them."

Sadly, Mitchell's game against the Yankees also proved to be her last. Just days after her legendary performance, commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis voided her contract. Citing that the sport was "too strenuous for women," Landis essentially wrecked Mitchell's professional career. While Jackie went on to tour with other prominent female athletes (like Babe Didrikson) and play on women's teams for short spells, she bowed out of sports at just 23.

“I don’t know what yardstick Senator McCain uses, but where I come from, there is nothing more ‘fundamental’ than a job. "

Obama Hits Back Hard Against McCain on the Economy

from Crooks and Liars by bluegal

"I don't know what yardstick Senator McCain uses, but where I come from, there is nothing more 'fundamental' than a job.  The fundamentals of our economy are not strong and it's time we had a President who understands that."

  Download | Play   Download | Play  (h/t Heather)

Obama also explains his vote in favor of the "rescue plan" last night, and calls this crisis the "final verdict" on trickle-down economics and deregulation. 

Transcript of the entire speech (available here) below the fold

The events of the last few weeks have shown us that the stakes in this election could not be higher.

We are in a financial crisis as serious as any we've faced since the Great Depression. In recent weeks, we've seen our financial landscape shift before our eyes. We've seen a growing credit crunch put new pressures on banks, businesses, and families. And on Monday, we saw the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades - a decline that threatens not just the wealth of Wall Street executives, but the life savings, jobs, and economic security of millions of ordinary Americans.

Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many of you here in Michigan, it isn't really news at all.

600,000 jobs have been lost since the year began, including about 30,000 in Michigan. The unemployment rate here in Grand Rapids and other parts of this state is nearly double what it is across this country. And a new jobs report is coming out tomorrow that experts predict will show our ninth straight month of job loss.

Nine straight months of job loss! Yet, just the other week, John McCain said the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." Well, I don't know what yardstick Senator McCain uses, but where I come from, there's nothing more fundamental than a job. And when we're losing jobs month after month after month, when good, hard-working Americans who've done everything right watch their dreams slip away, the fundamentals of our economy are not strong, and it's time we had a President who understands that.

But it's not just jobs. Home values are falling. Wages are flat-lining. And the cost of everything from gas to groceries is going up and up. These are the quiet storms that our families have been facing for months if not years, and these are the storms that will only grow worse if we do not act - and act now - to pass the rescue plan that's before Congress. Democrats and Republicans in the House need to do what the Senate did last night and do what's right for this country.

If the financial markets collapse, and loans are not available, businesses, large and small, will follow. It's your jobs, your savings, your ability to pursue your dreams for your children that are at risk. That's why we have to act. That's why we have to set aside the politics of the moment and exercise something we haven't seen in Washington lately - responsibility.

Now, let me be perfectly clear. The fact that we are in this mess is an outrage. It's an outrage because we did not get here by accident. This was not a normal part of the business cycle. This did not happen because of a few bad apples.

This financial crisis is a direct result of the greed and irresponsibility that has dominated Washington and Wall Street for years. It's the result of speculators who gamed the system, regulators who looked the other way, and lobbyists who bought their way into our government. It's the result of an economic philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else; a philosophy that views even the most common-sense regulations as unwise and unnecessary. Well, this crisis is nothing less than a final verdict on this failed philosophy - and it's a philosophy I'm running for President to end.

That's what this election is all about.

Because despite my opponent's best efforts to make you think otherwise, this is the philosophy he's embraced during his twenty-six years in Washington. Over the past few days, he's talked a lot about getting tough on Wall Street, but over the past few decades, he's fought against the very rules of the road that could've stopped this mess. He says he'll take on corporate lobbyists now, but he put seven of the biggest lobbyists in Washington in charge of his campaign. And if you think those lobbyists are working day and night to elect him just to put themselves out of business, well I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska.

The truth is, my opponent's philosophy isn't just wrong-headed, it reveals how out of touch he really is. How else could he offer $200 billion in tax cuts for big corporations at a time like this? How else could he propose giving the average Fortune 500 CEO a $700,000 tax cut at a time when millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills? How else could he come up with an economic plan that leaves out more than 100 million middle class families at the very moment they need help most?

Senator McCain just doesn't get it. Well, Michigan, you and I do get it. That's why we're here today. We know the next four years don't have to look like the last eight. We know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because that's who we are. Because this is America. We're a nation that's faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats. And at each and every moment, we've risen to meet these challenges because we've never forgotten that fundamental truth - that here, in this country, our destiny is not written for us; it's written by us.

It's time to take our destiny into our own hands and reclaim our economic future. Part of what that means is passing the rescue plan that's before Congress. I know many people were outraged when this administration initially asked the American people to sign a blank check to solve this crisis. I was outraged too. That's why I fought to make sure the rescue plan protects taxpayers, provides oversight and accountability, helps struggling homeowners stay in their homes, and doesn't reward the Wall Street executives whose greed and irresponsibility led us to this perilous moment.

While these taxpayer protections are now part of the rescue plan, this plan still isn't perfect. But it's what we must do to prevent a crisis from turning into a catastrophe. But understand, even with this plan, we may face a long and difficult road to recovery. That is why, if I'm President, passing this rescue plan won't be the end of what we do to strengthen our economy, it'll be the beginning. It'll be the beginning of a long-term rescue plan for our middle class - a plan that will create millions of new jobs; help families keep up with rising costs; relieve the burden of crushing health care costs; and educate the next generation of Americans with the skills and knowledge to compete with any workers, anywhere in the world.

Now, people have asked whether the size of the plan that Congress is voting on, together with the weakening economy, means that the next President will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals. And there's no doubt that some programs or policies that I've proposed on the campaign trail may require more time to achieve. But I reject the idea that you can't build a strong middle class at a time when our economy is weak. I believe that building a strong middle class is the key to making our economy strong.

And that's what we'll do when I'm President of the United States.

To create new jobs, we'll not only invest in rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and our outdated electricity grid - we'll strengthen the auto industry that built the middle class in this country. A number of auto companies are showing real leadership in building fuel-efficient cars, and I applaud them for it. But I refuse to accept that Washington has to stand idly by while foreign automakers outpace us. I'm running for President to make sure the cars of the future are made in the same place they've always been made - right here in Michigan. I'll be a President who finally keeps the promise that's made year after year by providing the funding our automakers need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars and trucks.

And as we fight to reverse the decline in manufacturing over the last eight years, we'll also bring manufacturing into the 21st century by building an American green energy sector. We'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced. Because the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America's future - and I believe that's a fight this country will win.

I will also reform our tax code so that it doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups, so that we can grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn't want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does - because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will reform our health care system so we can relieve families, businesses, and our economy from the crushing cost of health care by investing in new technology and preventative care. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And we'll reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions - because that's how we'll make our companies more competitive in the 21st century.

And if I am President, I will meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Finally, I will modernize our outdated financial regulations and put in place the common-sense rules of the road I've been calling for since March - rules that will keep our market free, fair, and honest; rules that will restore accountability and responsibility in the boardroom, and make sure Wall Street can never get away with the stunts that caused this crisis again.

But just as we demand accountability on Wall Street, we must also demand it in Washington. Because we cannot afford another four years of the kind of deficits we've seen during the past eight. We cannot afford to mortgage our children's future on another mountain of debt. That's why I'm not going to stand here and simply tell you what I'm going to spend, I'm going to tell you how we're going to save when I am President.

I will go through the entire federal budget, page by page, line by line, and eliminate programs that don't work and aren't needed. We'll start by ending a war in Iraq that's costing $10 billion a month while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus. And we'll save billions of dollars by shutting the overseas tax havens that let companies avoid paying taxes here in America.

And as for those programs we do need, I'll make them work better and cost less. We'll save billions by cutting waste, improving management, and strengthening oversight. And I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all - the days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House.

These are the changes and reforms that we need. A new era of responsibility and accountability on Wall Street and in Washington. Common-sense regulations to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. Investments in the technology and innovation that will restore prosperity and lead to new jobs and a new economy for the 21st century. Bottom-up growth that will create opportunity for every American.

I won't pretend this will be easy or come without cost. We will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together. What this crisis has taught us is that at the end of the day, there is no real separation between Main Street and Wall Street. There is only the road we're traveling on as Americans - and we will rise or fall on that journey as one nation; as one people.

This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession?

Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?

This is one of those moments. I realize you're cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you're disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what's been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history. I ask you to believe - to believe in yourselves, in each other, and in the future we can build together.

Because together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves.

We can do this. Americans have done this before. Some of us had grandparents or parents who said maybe I can't go to college but my child can; maybe I can't have my own business but my child can. I may have to rent, but maybe my children will have a home they can call their own. I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.

Now it falls to us. Together, we cannot fail. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change - if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education that helps your kids compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, make some calls, talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you - we will win Michigan, we will win this election, and then you and I - together - will change this country and change this world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Is it ok to fly the Mexican flag in Cicero, Illinois?

Cicero's Mexican Flag Controversy

from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

There's trouble brewing in Cicero over a flag. Besides the U.S. and Illinois flags, as well as what the Trib refers to as "sports flags," a community park has recently displayed the Mexican flag. Over recent years, Cicero's population has shifted from Eastern European to a majority of Latino residents (80 percent, according to a Town Trustee). Still, the non-Latino residents weren't happy about it. Helen Brave saw the flag at a recent park opening and said, "You know, it really hurts me...There were a lot of different people at the park, including Polish, Lithuanian and Italian people. Yet they were flying the Mexican flag?" She also suggested an ordinance to ban flying foreign flags on public property. Resident Susan Masek had harsher words at a recent town meeting, saying, "We are at war and you're flying a foreign flag? We want that flag down. This is the United States. Only the American flag should be there."

For his part, Town President Larry Dominick offered the explanation that the flag was flown Labor Day weekend in celebration of the beginning of Latin Heritage Month. The flag was then taken down but raised again to celebrate El Grito, honoring Mexican independence, and was taken down last week. A town official said national flags of various heritages are rotated at Town Hall. A Cicero spokesman said there are no intentions of passing any ordinance similar to what Brave suggested and that the town would continue to fly foreign flags at the park on corresponding ethnicholidays.

The issue of which flags to fly can be a slippery slope. If the Mexican flag was flown only on the appropriate holidays and other ethnic groups are fairly represented, then reactions like that of Masek are jingoistic hyperbole. This isn't the Confederate flag over a state capitol, after all. But Cicero is setting itself up for a bevy of complaints. If it plans to honor everyone equally, where does it end? How much of the town's population should be represented to have the appropriate flag flown?

Ted Stevens trial: "this is very offensive conduct from a due process standpoint. The withheld evidence goes directly, and I mean directly, to the element of intent"

Prosecution Tanks In Toobz Stevens Trial

from Emptywheel by bmaz

Ted Stevens has been sitting in the courtroom of Judge Emmet Sullivan in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in DC since jury selection began on September 22. This morning the excrement hit the fan. Big time. Stevens' attorney, Brendan Suyllivan, has moved for dismissal of the charges against Stevens, and he just may get it. The prosecution has screwed the pooch in a fundamental and intentional way.

From a wire report off of Reuters filed an hour ago:

Lawyers for Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska urged a judge Thursday to dismiss the corruption case against him because they said prosecutors had withheld evidence helpful to their defense.

U.S. Justice Department prosecutor Brenda Morris admitted a mistake had been made, but asked the judge to allow the trial to go forward. "We are human and we made an error," she said. "It was a mistake."

The information involved an interview by an FBI agent with Bill Allen, the prosecution's star witness. In the interview, Allen said he believed Stevens and his wife would have paid for the renovations to their home in Alaska if Allen had sent them a bill.

Prosecutors had notified the defense about the information only late Wednesday, after Allen had completed his second day of testimony.

Stevens's attorney Brendan Sullivan asked the judge to dismiss the indictment. "It goes to the core of the defense," he said.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan did not immediately rule on the request to throw out the case, but he clearly was angered by the mistake, calling it "unbelievable" and "very troubling." (emphasis added)

This is really bad. Blatant intentional withholding by the prosecution of exculpatory evidence. And it is evidence that bores straight into the heart of Stevens' not guilty defense. The defense did not learn of the existence of this until long after Allen took the stand. The directly and materially exculpatory to Stevens. There is no way to argue that Stevens' attorney would not have conducted his examination of all witnesses to date, much less Bill Allen, differently with knowledge of this in the government's evidence set.

Here is the clincher.

The new evidence involved an interview that had been turned over to the defense, but the key part of what Allen said -- that the couple would pay if they had been sent a bill -- had been blacked out.

How do you not view this as intentional and malicious conduct by the prosecution? The key exculpatory portion of the witness statement, of the most important and star prosecution witness, Bill Allen, owner of VECO, blacked out and hidden from the defense? Please. That is intentional and flagrant.

When you hear legal types discussing "Brady material" or "Brady evidence", this is exactly what they are describing. Under the seminal case of Brady v. Maryland (maybe we should ask Sarah Palin) the prosecution must disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess. Failure to so disclose can result in the dismissal of a case.

The situation in Stevens' case is awfully blatant and clearly exculpatory. It should result in at least a mistrial; if I were the judge I would bounce the entire indictment with prejudice. If a defendant can't obtain relief on this fact set, then the theory in Brady v. Maryland has no meaning. Those judges in DC must be ready to explode over what this justice department has done over the last 8 years. The prosecution is in for a reaming of some sort either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: McClatchy has some additional information up:

The lead Justice Department prosecutor, Brenda Morris, equally angry, had this response: "He's getting a fair trial, believe me. You're getting a great fair trial."

Infuriated, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he found it "unbelievable."

"It strikes me this is probably intentional," the judge said. "This is the government's chief witness!"
...
Judge Sullivan sent the jurors home for the day. He'll hold a hearing later Thursday afternoon to determine whether to dismiss the case.

"Maybe they'll come back tomorrow for further service, maybe they won't," he said.

Even if it wasn't intentional, he told prosecutors, it was "gross negligence on the part of the government."

He bristled at the prosecution's characterization that it was "lucky" that Allen was still on the stand and had yet to finish his testimony for the government, let alone be cross-examined by Stevens' attorneys.

"It shouldn't have to be lucky to get the government to do its job," Sullivan said. "The fair administration of justice doesn't depend on the luck of the draw, a lucky day or a lucky continuance."

The judge is right, this is very offensive conduct from a due process standpoint. The withheld evidence goes directly, and I mean directly, to the element of intent. The prosecution argues that it is harmless error because they have adduced testimony that Stevens requested bills (actually additional bills, because it is established that Stevens paid a substantial sum, just not enough to allegedly cover all the work), but that Allen didn't forward them. However, the blacked out (redacted) portion of their disclosure directly and unequivocally states that Allen believes that Stevens would have paid if he had been billed further. This mitigates intent as to Stevens and belief in existence of a crime on the part of the key prosecution witness, Allen.

There is some salvation in that Allen has not been cross-examined yet; but if the defense can show how they would have done things with the opening statement and examination of other witnesses sufficiently differently, they have a heck of an argument.

If I were Stevens' attorney, I would already have had the junior members of my team combing the daily express court transcripts for instances in the opening statement, and with every witness that has been on the stand to date, as to how I might have argued and examined differently; specifically with an eye to how the theory of defense itself may have been altered. Might even go back into motions if there is any ground there to plow there.

If the prosecution argues that it is explained by mistake because Stevens demanded a quick trial, I would jam that up their rear. Exercise of Constitutional speedy trial rights does not mitigate due process guarantees and they ought to be humiliated in so arguing. Did they say they were not ready for trial because they needed more time to comply? No. By arguing that nonsense, the prosecution only looks worse.

It will be fascinating to see what remedy for the prosecutorial misconduct Judge Sullivan imposes. And, as Christy noted earlier, there has been other misconduct that the judge already was not happy about.

Spammers are posing as your grandkids???!!!

Scammers Pose As Grandchildren Pleading For Emergency Cash [Scams]

from Consumerist by Meg Marco

The BBB has issued a warning about a distressing telephone scam that's increasing in popularity. The target? Grandparents. Scammers based in Canada are thought to be randomly dialing US phone numbers until they reach someone who sounds like a senior citizen. They then pose as a grandchild who has been in a car accident and needs emergency money.

The BBB says:

While many seniors have reported the scam without falling prey to it, unfortunately, many others have been victimized. One well-meaning grandmother sent $15,000 to scammers, thinking she was helping a grandchild who had been in an auto accident.
...
Law enforcement officials are not certain how perpetrators are obtaining phone numbers for so many senior citizens across the U.S. However, it is believed that scammers are most likely calling random numbers until they happen to reach a senior citizen. The scammers' basic tactic is to pose as a grandchild and let the unsuspecting grandparent fill in the blanks. For example, the scam caller might say, "It's me, your favorite grandchild," to which the grandparent will guess the name of the grandchild it sounds the most like, and then the call proceeds from there.

The BBB also alerted us to several examples of people who have been victimized by the scam. Here's one from Utah:

When the phone rang in the middle of the night, Vernon and Alice Harper knew something was wrong. Alice said the caller told her, "Oh, I'm sorry, Grandma. I'm really sorry to do this to you." She said it sounded a little bit like he was crying. The caller told them, "I'm in trouble, Grandma. I'm up here in Toronto. I need money. I'm in jail. I had a rented car, and I wrecked it."

They thought the caller was their grandson, so Alice wired $4,400. The caller said his calling card only had a few minutes and he didn't have much time, but could she wire the money within two hours? He would call back in two hours to get the personal identification number.

Once Alice got to Wal-Mart to get the MoneyGram, she wanted to be safe about it, so she asked the clerk to tack on a security question, something only her grandson would know. But on the other end of the transaction, nobody asked her security question to the con artist. She had already given him the personal identification number, and that's all the clerk on the Canada end asked for. MoneyGrams use personal identification numbers instead of requiring ID to wire money. As long as you have the pin, you can get the money.

And here's another one where a grandmother sent $5,300 to someone claiming to be one of her 50 grandchildren.

The BBB has some advice for people who spot this scam, or are victimized by it:

BBB recommends reporting the incident immediately to local police departments and state Attorneys General offices. If there is a request to wire money to Canada, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre has established the PhoneBusters hotline and Web site to report such fraud. Reports can be filed easily online through the PhoneBusters site at: www.phonebusters.com, or by phone, toll free at, 1-888-495-8501.

BBB Alert: Senior Citizens Nationwide Report Losing Thousands of Dollars to Telephone Scam

Auto dealers: "I've been doing this for 25 years in some form or another, and I have never seen consolidation like this going on,"

Hundreds Of Car Dealerships Are Apparently Doomed [Money Meltdown]

from Consumerist by Meg Marco

After the failure of the nation's largest Chevy dealerships brought the plight of the car dealer to everyone's attention, the bleeding hasn't stopped. The California New Car Dealers Association says dozens of dealerships in CA have also closed.

"I've been doing this for 25 years in some form or another, and I have never seen consolidation like this going on," said Peter Welch, association president.

The National Automobile Dealers Association says that they expect 600 dealerships to close this year, and domestic dealerships are going to be the hardest hit. There are just too many dealerships and not enough market share for domestic cars:

There were just too many GM dealers chasing dwindling market share, he said. GM commanded 40 percent of the market in the 1980s, selling cars through 7,000 dealerships. But while GM's slice of the market tumbled by 40 percent or more, the number of dealers has declined by 1 or 2 percent, Mattia said.

"The dealers will have to suck it up and go away," said Mattia, who now leads Auto Engage, a consulting firm for dealers and manufacturers. "It wouldn't surprise me if we didn't have a nationwide loss of 10 percent of the dealers."

Economy forcing more car dealers to close [SFGate] (Thanks, Big Keytee!)

'The situation for Florida Republicans does sound extremely dire:"

Fla. GOPs Call Double-Top-Secret Meeting on McCain Trainwreck

from Pensito Review by Buck

Leaders of Florida's Republican party have their panties in a twist over recent polls showing Barack Obama leading John McCain in Florida, what was once a solidly red state but is seemingly getting purpler by the minute. The St. Petersburg Times is reporting that following the results of four polls released Tuesday, state GOP leaders hightailed it to Tallahassee:

With some grass roots organizers complaining about coordination problems with the campaign, Republican Party chairman Jim Greer gathered top officials at the state headquarters in Tallahassee on Tuesday afternoon. He swore the group to secrecy.

When asked about it by the St. Petersburg Times, Greer confirmed the meeting. He largely declined to discuss what was said, but sought to play down any strife.

Over the course of an hour, described by some as tense, Greer offered a forceful assessment of where McCain stands in Florida and what needs to be done to win in a battleground state that could decide the election.

"I have a responsibility to make sure things are done right, and we win these campaigns," Greer said. "I'm sure everyone in the room understands that I take that responsibility very seriously."

The situation for Florida Republicans does sound extremely dire:

Complaints range from not getting yard signs quickly enough to knowing who will speak at events and overall manpower coordination.

At least if Obama carries the state, McCain can always point to a dearth of yard signs as the reason for the loss. That, and his boneheaded moves on the economic crisis and his boneheaded pick for veep and his general maverickyness.

The problem is, this state is turning. With new voter registrations running two to one Democratic, a robust and active state and local Democratic Party and general disaffection with the ruling party, Florida is simply not so Republianish as it used to be.

Of course, then we have to actually allow voters to vote and then we have to actually count the votes correctly … so McCain still has a chance to steal the election in Florida, á la George Bush in 2000.

STATEMENT ON THE SENATE-PASSED FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

New from the Center

STATEMENT BY
ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND
CHAD STONE, CHIEF ECONOMIST,
ON THE SENATE-PASSED FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

The House should quickly approve the financial rescue plan that the Senate approved in strong bipartisan fashion yesterday.  Further delay would leave the U.S. economy increasingly vulnerable to a contraction more severe than any since the 1930s — one that could trigger large increases in unemployment and poverty and the loss of a sizeable portion of many families' retirement savings.

The Senate-approved plan is far from perfect, although it includes important improvements to Secretary Paulson's original plan that provide greater oversight and reduce the risks to taxpayers (the same improvements included in the bill the House defeated Monday) and also increases the amount of an individual's bank deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from the current $100,000 to $250,000. 

The Senate demonstrated a lack of fiscal responsibility by adding an array of tax-cut extenders that are unrelated to the rescue plan and would be deficit-financed rather than paid for by closing unproductive (and in some cases, egregious) tax loopholes, as the House had sought to do in a separate "extenders" bill it passed last month.  The package also lacks various elements that it would have been beneficial to include, such as bankruptcy protection for people facing foreclosure.  Even with this financial rescue package in place, the federal government will need to undertake more work ahead to address the ongoing economic fallout from the mess on Wall Street.

The bottom line, however, is that the potential consequences of defeating this legislation are far too grave to ignore.  Quick action to enact this legislation is imperative in order to reduce the great risk of a financial market meltdown that would harm millions of low- and moderate-income households.  If a malfunctioning credit market cripples banks' ability to lend to individuals and businesses, the already weak economy will become much more vulnerable to a severe recession.  And that, in turn, would trigger a rapid increase in unemployment.  In addition, millions of people who are by no means affluent could see their retirement savings shrink. 

A severe recession also would damage federal, state, and local budgets, primarily by shrinking government revenues considerably.  In fact, it would undercut government's ability to meet Americans' needs in areas like health care and education much more severely than would the additional federal debt incurred under the rescue plan.  States would be especially hard hit; many would be forced to make substantially larger budget cuts than those they are already contemplating.

We also note that the rescue legislation would likely cost far less than the $700 billion the federal government would have available to buy troubled assets.  The Congressional Budget Office has pegged the cost at "substantially smaller than $700 billion." 

Members of Congress have been buffeted by arguments about who would "win" or "lose" from this legislation.  Ordinary Americans, especially those of little or moderate means, will likely be the biggest losers if this imperfect but necessary legislation doesn't pass.

View the Statement on our Website:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-2-08bud-stmt.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/10-2-08bud-stmt.pdf

this pretty much sums up last night's Cubs loss

Google Stock Snafu Explained

Google Stock Snafu Explained | The Big Money
If yesterday's radical, last-minute devaluation of Google's stock seemed a little odd, you hit the nail on the head. The company's stock had settled into a fairly tight trading range after Monday's tanking, but starting around 3:57 p.m., Google suddenly starting soaring and dropping erratically, plunging as low as $25.80. According to CNN Money, Nasdaq officials intervened after determining that a stock trader accidentally "sent in a large number of orders and drive the price down." Officials refused to elaborate, but invalidated all stock trades outside a certain price range between 3:57 and 4:02, setting the closing price at $400.52. Which means, however artificially, Google's back above $400. The Los Angeles Times' Jessica Guynn wrote, "Wiping out trades is not a happy business at Nasdaq. It's both rare and embarrassing. But at least fund managers' hearts are no longer in their throats." The stock is up slightly in Wednesday morning trading.

Hedge funds run by US manager John Paulson, one of last year’s best performers and a short- seller of UK banks, have bucked a trend of worldwide hedge fund losses by making returns of more than 19% this year.

Deal Journal - WSJ.com : John Paulson's Hedge Funds Return 19% in a Down Market

Hedge funds run by US manager John Paulson, one of last year's best performers and a short- seller of UK banks, have bucked a trend of worldwide hedge fund losses by making returns of more than 19% this year.

One fund generated 589.62% in what is thought to be the largest dollar return in a year from a single hedge fund.

Investors said the Paulson Advantage Plus fund was one of the best performers so far this year, with a net return of 19.44% for the year to the end of August. The fund made 158.75% last year and, through a combination of investment gains and new capital, has grown from about $100m (€70m) at the start of 2007 to almost $9bn, Financial News Online can exclusively reveal.

The hedge fund industry as a whole was down 4.85% for the year to the end of August, according to the non-investable index published by US data provider Hedge Fund Research. This is the worst start to the year since the firm's records began in 1990. Its investable index, which is based on a small sample of funds but is considered an early indicator of the main index's returns, was down 7.11% in the month to September 29.

Paulson's Advantage fund was up 13.22% for the year to the end of August, having made 100.15% last year. Its Credit Opportunities fund was up 12.95%, having made 351.72% last year; its Credit Opportunities fund was up 12.46%, having made 589.62% last year; its Enhanced fund was up 8.17%, having made 116.48% last year; and its International fund was up 5.17%, having made 51.7% last year.

Paulson turned a $500m investment in its Credit Opportunities fund into $3.5bn over the course of last year, considered by investment consultants and investors the largest dollar amount ever generated by a hedge fund in a year.

Paulson & Co. as a whole managed $35bn at the end of June, making it one of the largest 10 hedge fund managers. Last week it disclosed short positions in HBOS, Lloyds TSB, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland. It short positions, which will have made money as the banks' share price fell, ranged from 0.9% to 1.8% of each bank's market capitalisation.

Paulson & Co made billions of dollars for it investors and an estimated $3.7bn for John Paulson himself last year after spotting an opportunity to one side of its primary focus.

John Paulson, a former mergers and acquisitions banker, established his firm as a merger arbitrage hedge fund manager, seeking to make money from situations when one public company announces plans to take over another. Merger arbitrage hedge funds primarily study equity markets, but they also research the market for credit default swaps, a form of insurance that starts paying out as soon as a credit security falls in value. Managers using merger arbitrage strategies are motivated to look at the credit default swaps market because a failure to raise debt finance is frequently a reason for a proposed takeover to be abandoned, which would cost them money, so an appropriate credit default swap will hedge some of the risks in their long and short equity positions.

In 2006, Paulson realized that banks were selling credit default swaps on the BBB-rated tranches of securities backed by US sub-prime mortgages. The buyer had to pay a premium of 1% a year to the banks, which undertook to pay out the value of any falls in the tranches. It was a kind of insurance contract for the buyer, while the banks were effectively writing a put option, taking the risk of a sudden, large loss.

Paulson considered this the opportunity of a lifetime, because warnings were already being made about the growing risk of default on mortgages made to sub-prime US household borrowers, and he raised $100m to invest in it.

Paulson Europe LLP, the firm's UK subsidiary, did not return a call seeking comment. The US firm was not available for comment at press time.

"William F. Buckley made sure, on his death bed, to deny this illegitimate grandchild a dime of his fortune. He called him out by name in the will!"

William F. Buckley, Asshole Even In Death [Family Matters]

from Gawker by Pareene

Conservative thinkin' guy William F. Buckley left his huge fortune almost entirely to his son, novelist Christopher Buckley. The rest went to Chris Buckley's two children with his wife. None of it went to Chris Buckley's third child, who he fathered with his former publicist. That child, 7-year-old Johnathan, suffers from ADHD. Buckley pays $3k a month to the mother, Irina Woelfle. Woelfle would maybe like that amount raised a bit, because now Chris Buckley has like tens of millions of dollars! But rascally old William F. Buckley made sure, on his death bed, to deny this illegitimate grandchild a dime of his fortune. He called him out by name in the will!

In his will, William F. Buckley Jr. leaves the contents of his estate to Christopher and the two children he fathered with his wife — and leaves no doubt that Jonathan will get none of the money.

"I intentionally make no provision herein for said Jonathan, who for all purposes ... shall be deemed to have predeceased me," wrote William Buckley, who died in February.

What an asshole! "The language seems a little over the top; almost mean-spirited," said Greenwich lawyer Patrick R. Gil, who is not afraid of vast understatements.

And so the Buckley family name continues to represent wit and unconscionable dickery. Hooray!

Update: Oh, we should at least point out that Chris Buckley has been separated from his wife for some time. He's currently dating another publicist, named Jolie Hunt.

"let’s not forget where McCain himself was during Katrina: posing with George W. Bush and a birthday cake. They didn’t even eat the cake. As Americans died."

McCain Compares Obama To Bush During Katrina. Right. - Jack & Jill Politics

via Politico

Yesterday, Democrats compared McCain's first response to the financial crisis to Bush and New Orleans, and today McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds returns the favor:

"We welcome Barack Obama's new-found interest in passing this critical economic rescue of our economy, but the American people needed leadership last week, and our next President can't wait until after the levees break to start making phone calls."

What's wrong with these people? They can't make their own campaign signs or slogans or policies, and now they're cribbin disses too!? It all just rings so hollow. Life must be pretty messed up at Camp McPain right about now for folks to so ineffectively flail like this.

Also, let's not forget where McCain himself was during Katrina: posing with George W. Bush and a birthday cake. They didn't even eat the cake. As Americans died.

If you actually care about the victims of Hurricane Katrina beyond your ability to use them in a trifling stunt of political "verbiage" please check out this dkos diary which links to good New Orleans blog sources.

"Americans will finally realize that whatever "prosperity" our economy has seen over the past three decades has been nothing more than a credit-fueled mirage"

BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How the American Economy Became a Sleazy Carnival Freak Show
Whatever happened to the once-mighty American economy?

The United States once had the mightiest economic juggernaut of any nation in history. Our "Arsenal of Democracy" played a big role in winning World War II. During that conflict, we overwhelmed our enemies with a tidal wave of efficient industrial production of everything from bombers to jeeps to battleships.

During the 1950s, America's industrial might was at its peak. We were the richest, most prosperous nation in history. U.S. workers earned the highest wages in the world. We enjoyed the most generous benefits and vacation time of any First World nation. American products, from planes to cars to televisions, were second to none in quality and were in demand worldwide. The Great American Middle Class was a prosperous and growing club that saw its fortunes improve, year after year.

Today, all of this seems like a distant memory. America's economy today is a joke. "Made in the U.S.A." is no longer a symbol of quality. In fact, our nation doesn't make much of anything these days. Our trade deficits are at nightmarish levels. And in three short decades, we've gone from being the world's biggest creditor nation to its biggest debtor nation.

Since we don't manufacture anything these days, all we Americans do these days is buy stuff made in other nations. And we really don't even have the money to do that, so we borrow trillions of dollars from prosperous nations in East Asia.

In fact, the U.S. economy today resembles a sleazy carnival midway. Rather than producing useful goods and services, our Carnival Freak Show Economy these days spends more and more time running scams and swindling people (think Wall Street). We've exported most of the good-paying jobs that sustained our once-mighty middle class. And the gulf between the haves and have-nots has grown to its widest since the infamous Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

A half-century ago, General Motors was the nation's biggest employer. Today it's Wal-Mart, a company that offers such paltry wages and benefits that many of its workers have to file for public assistance just to make ends meet.

And that's just one of the ways that Wal-Mart, and other Fortune 500 companies, pocket corporate welfare. In fact, corporate welfare plays a big role in today's Carnival Freak Show Economy.

Not only have the good middle-class jobs disappeared from the U.S. economy, but ordinary workers who do still have jobs have seen their wages stagnate for the past 30 years. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent now garner the largest share of the national income since 1929.

One might ask: if the once-great American economy no longer produces anything useful, what exactly does it do these days?

Good question.

Decades ago, America's great corporations were widely admired. Most Americans back then felt they were a positive force in American society. Back then, corporations created good jobs and produced things of value. They also paid taxes (back in the 1950s, for example, corporations paid half of all taxes---today, it's less than 10 percent).

Contrast that to today. Today's biggest corporations, from ExxonMobil to Wal-Mart, are increasingly feared and hated. Many Americans regard them as greedy money-grubbing entities that can't be trusted.

The same could be said of today's CEOs in general. As recently as 1982, the average CEO made around 42 times what the average worker earned. By 2005, CEOs made around 431 times what the average worker earned.

And what, exactly, have CEOs done to earn this phenomenal increase in pay? It's hard to say. In fact, in recent years, there has been an increasingly disconnect between soaring CEO pay and the performance of U.S. corporations.

Take Peter Cartwright of Calpine, a maker of gas-fired power plants, for example. In 2005, Forbes reported that Calpine's average annual return to shareholders over the past six years had been minus 7 percent. During the same period, Cartwright pocketed an average annual $13 million. So much for the wisdom of the "free market."

In fact, the "free market" has nothing to do with it. It's a rigged game---just like the crooked games one encounters at a sleazy carnival midway.

When you go to a carnival midway, it's wise to keep an eye on your wallet. And America's Carnival Freak Show economy is no different these days.

The Military-Industrial Complex: A Profiteering Monster

As an example, take a look at America's military-industrial complex, a major pillar of the modern U.S. economy.

Today's military-industrial complex has turned into the very threat to democracy that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in 1961.

It's a bloated, inefficient, tax dollar-devouring, profiteering monster that is out of control. And for all the trillions of dollars it consumes, it's difficult to really see how the nation benefits from it. After all, for all the ocean of dollars our nation has sunk into the Pentagon, it wasn't able to prevent 19 young men armed with nothing more than box cutters from inflicting on our nation the worst terrorist attack in history.

Curiously, for such a major, and costly, part of our economy, the military-industrial complex gets little scrutiny from our politicians these days. They're happy to continue feeding the monster, with little oversight, as long as the big defense contractors are generous with their campaign contributions.

And although Halliburton has garnered the most headlines as the biggest piglet at the trough, it's hardly the only defense contractor reaping fat, no-bid, "cost-plus" contracts, year after year.

In fact, the Center for Public Integrity revealed in 2005 that some $900 billion in defense contracts since 1998 had been awarded without competitive bidding or effective oversight. It's crony "capitalism" at its finest. And the suckers on the carnival midway are We The People: the taxpayers who fund the whole racket.

Wall Street: Crony Capitalism

Continuing our tour of America's Freak Show economy, lets take a look at a second major pillar of the modern U.S. economy: Wall Street.

While never universally loved, Wall Street has captured the American imagination over the decades as a symbol of U.S. economic might. But these days, most Americans fear and detest Wall Street---and for good reason.

Wall Street once played an indispensable role in the U.S. economy. But it's increasingly difficult to determine what, exactly, Wall Street does that is useful these days. Wall Street's idea of "innovation" these days is to create ever-increasingly complex financial instruments that no one can figure out. It's all a scam that is becoming unglued as investors become increasingly wary of what they're putting their money into.

And like the military-industrial complex, it seems Wall Street can only function these days with a hefty dose of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. (Take, for example, the Fed's recent bailout of investment bank, Bear Stearns). Although U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson defended the bailout as necessary, ordinary American saw it as yet another example of rigged crony, "capitalism."

The Great American Prison Industry

Continuing our tour of America's Carnival Freak Show Economy, let's not leave out what has emerged in recent decades as the fastest-growing sector of our economy: the Great American Prison Industry.

America, the "land of the free," now has the world's biggest prison population, with a staggering 2.3 million people behind bars. Not surprisingly, the prison industry has become one of America's leading employers. And towns with bleak economic prospects now court new prisons the way they once courted new factories. Increasingly, Americans are either in prison, or working for a prison (a strange trend for a nation likes to think of itself as a beacon of freedom).

In past decades, Americans used industry and manufacturing to build our nation into the greatest superpower the world had ever seen. Today, we've "outsourced" our manufacturing and made shopping (with borrowed dollars) the main pillar of our nation's Carnival Freak Show economy.

Of course, it's all a big Ponzi scheme that is unsustainable. The nations that hold our increasingly worthless currency are likely to eventually get spooked and start off-loading their dollars. When that day comes, Americans will finally realize that whatever "prosperity" our economy has seen over the past three decades has been nothing more than a credit-fueled mirage.

When that day comes, we Americans will finally realize that we've been swindled like suckers at a sleazy carnival midway. P.T. Barnum would be proud.

"Investors in gold are demanding “unprecedented” amounts of bullion bars and coins and moving them into their own vaults as fears about the health of the global financial system deepen"

cryptogon.com » Archives » Wealthy Investors Hoard Bullion

Via: Financial Times:

Investors in gold are demanding "unprecedented" amounts of bullion bars and coins and moving them into their own vaults as fears about the health of the global financial system deepen.

Industry executives and bankers at the London Bullion Market Association annual meeting said the extent of the move into physical gold was unseen and driven by the very rich.

"There is an enormous pick-up in investment demand. I have never seen a market like this in my 33-year career," said Jeremy Charles, chairman of the LBMA. "The gold refineries cannot produce enough bars."

The move comes as fears grow among investors over the losses at investment vehicles previously considered almost risk-free, such as money funds.

Philip Clewes-Garner, associate director of precious metals at HSBC, added that investors were not flying into gold simply because they saw it as a haven amid Wall Street's woes. "It is a flight into gold because it is a physical asset," he said.

"Vault staff are also doing overtime," another banker at the LBMA meeting said, adding that investors in some countries were paying premiums of up to $25 an ounce above the London spot price to secure scarce gold bars.

Spot gold prices in London on Tuesday traded at about $900 an ounce, more than 25 per cent above the level before Lehman Brothers' collapse. Although some traders said the rush into physical gold could boost prices, others cautioned that prices were depressing jewellery demand, capping any price gain. Industry executives said gold refineries and government mints were working at full throttle to keep up with investor demand, but acknowledged they were suffering from shortages, particularly on coins.

Johan Botha, a spokesman for the Rand Refinery in South Africa, which manufactures the Krugerrand, the world's most popular gold coin, said the plant was now running at full capacity seven days a week. "Even so, now and then we have shortages," he said.

The Austrian mint, which manufactures the Vienna Philharmonic, a popular gold coin in Europe, said it had extended work to the weekends to accommodate soaring demand.

Last week, the US mint suspended the sale of its American Buffalo coin after it ran out of stocks.

"After a dramatic 1-0 victory on Tuesday night, the White Sox are AL Central Champs"

Morning Box Score: Sox Win Division

from Chicagoist by Benjy Lipsman

After a dramatic 1-0 victory on Tuesday night, the White Sox are AL Central Champs.They sure didn't make it easy, though, did they? Had the White Sox not lost five games in a row last week, they probably could have locked up the division over the weekend and had a couple days of rest like all other playoff teams. Instead, in order to win the AL Central title they had to beat Detroit in a make-up game on Monday, and then play the Twins in a one-game playoff.

The White Sox join the Cubs in the postseason for the first time since they faced each other in the 1906 World Series. Which of course already has everyone fantasizing about a Crosstown World Series.

So how did the Sox squeeze their way into the playoffs? A number of White Sox players stepped up when called upon Tuesday night. No player had a bigger night than John Danks, who pitched eight innings of two-hit, shutout ball. Pitching on short rest and against a team who had pounded him in previous meetings this season, Danks pitched a masterpiece when he needed to.

Danks effort was critical, because the White Sox offense could muster only a lone run itself. That came on a solo home run by Jim Thome off Nick Blackburn in the seventh inning. Thome's 461-foot bomb was his 34th of the season and 541st of his career.

Defense also played a critical part in ensuring the Sox's trip to the postseason. Ken Griffey showed flashes of his younger days by gunning down Michael Cuddyer at home plate in the fifth inning, while his replacement in center field, Brian Anderson, made a diving catch of Alexi Casilla's fly ball to close out the game.

The White Sox will now head to Tampa, where they'll face the Rays in a best-of-five series beginning on Thursday. Now, is there any way this team can carry this momentum from three must win games through to the first round? Or have they left everything they had on the field these past few days? Like many, we were very skeptical of the team GM Kenny Williams put together, but now that they'll be playing in October we'd like to see them win it all (sorry, Cubs fans). [Ed's Note: No offense taken, Benjy. - M.G.]

"It's a stupid move at a time when violent crime is on the rise in Chicago"

City Jobs Being Eliminated Include Needed Police Vacancies

from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

Last week, we wrote about the shortage of police officers as crime in the city was rising, a correlation Mayor Daley denied. In keeping with his line of (faulty?) thought, a number of the proposed job vacancies being eliminated in the City's attempt to get it's $420 million budget under control includes several hundred police positions. According to the Sun Times, "the Chicago Police Department has 329 sworn vacancies and 424 openings for non-sworn police employees. That's in addition to the 705 officers on medical leave and 625 officers on limited or convalescent duty status." These vacancies would be eliminated in spite of Daley's promise earlier this year to add more officers to the force.

Understandably, none of this sits well with Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue, who said:

It's a stupid move at a time when violent crime is on the rise in Chicago. We recently lost two police officers -- and now, the mayor is gonna further reduce the numbers. This mayor -- or somebody in his administration -- needs to stop by midnight roll calls anywhere in the city and observe the number of one-man cars that are patrolling our city streets during some of the busiest hours.

For his part, Daley would only say, "We're looking at every department...You cannot say, 'These are sacred cows. Nothing can happen to them.' You take out 60, 70 percent of your budget. You can't do that." Note to Donahue: next time, make sure you mention how this might affect the city's 2016 Olympic bid. Then you might actually see some results.

"The Cubs are 0-for at least their last 6 games that Stockton has called"

Rumors and Rants » Blog Archive » TBS Dicks Over Cubs

My worst fears have come to fruition.

Just a few days ago, I was convinced that the Cubs were unquestionably the team to beat heading into the National League playoffs — the first time I've felt that way since I was a naive 7-year-old in 1989. And then TBS had to spoil everything and whip out its Dick.

Dick Stockton will be calling the Cubs-Dodgers series, which is the best thing that's happened to LA since Kobe was acquitted. As previously documented on this site, Stockton and the Cubs are a toxic mix, and not just because of his incompetence in the booth. (Though at his age we understand that incontinence in the booth may also be an issue). The Cubs are 0-for at least their last 6 games that Stockton has called.

The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan made the best of the dire situation, creating a "Dick Stocktionary" for the names he knows Stockton will mangle throughout the series. Somewhat disappointingly, Sully did not include Rodrigo Ramirez on the list.

Chef dies after eating 'super hot' chili

Spicy chili kills amateur chef

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 11:47 AM CDT

Andrew Lee, 33, apparently died after making and eating an intensely spicy chili. Lee was apparently in good health and toxicologists are running tests to figure out exactly what killed him. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

The forklift driver from Edlington, West Yorkshire in England, made a tomato sauce with red chillies grown by his father, but after eating it suffered intense discomfort and itching.

Mr Lee went to bed and asked his girlfriend, Samantha Bailey, to scratch his back until he fell asleep.

When she woke in the morning he was dead, possibly after suffering a heart attack, The Guardian said.

Chef dies after eating 'super hot' chili

Facebook hires general counsel as it continues to grow

Facebook hires key defender of Bush's attack on American civil liberties

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 08:17 PM CDT

Facebook's recently-beefed-up management team includes former White House lawyer Ted Ullyot, who...

... helped coordinate the response to the investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and serv[ed] as chief of staff to former U.S. Atty. General Alberto Gonzales. [He] will join Facebook as its vice president and general counsel next month. Ullyot, who also has had major private sector stints including as a top lawyer for AOL Time Warner Europe, is leaving a partnership with law firm Kirkland & Ellis and will relocate to the Bay Area, he said in an interview Friday.

Facebook hires general counsel as it continues to grow (LA Times, thanks @jameshome)

"Amnesty International has launched a petition to fight the British Government's proposal that it should be allowed to lock up anybody for 42 days just by saying the words 'terrorist threat'."

Brits! Sign petition to fight proposal to let the cops lock you up for 42 days without charge!

Posted: 01 Oct 2008 06:28 AM CDT

Carsetn sez, "Amnesty International has launched a petition to fight the British Government's proposal that it should be allowed to lock up anybody for 42 days just by saying the words 'terrorist threat'."

This autumn the Government wants to push through a Bill allowing police to lock people up for 42 days without charge if they are suspected of a terrorism-related offence. When the Counter-Terrorism Bill comes back to the House of Commons, your MP will have a chance to help defeat it: the Bill only passed by nine votes last time, so it will be close.

Allowing police to lock people up for a month-and-a-half without charge will undermine basic human rights to which everyone in the UK is entitled. It will also damage community relations, make intelligence gathering more difficult and possibly ruin the lives of innocent people. This Bill needlessly sacrifices important civil liberties but gains nothing in the way of security.

The only way to convince MPs to vote against 42 days is to show them how many of their constituents are against this unnecessary and counter-productive piece of legislation.

Say No to 42 Days! (Thanks, Carsten!)

Oh and by the way Mayor Daley just privatized Midway for 2 + billion; the city will clear about a billion

City's Budget Woes Leading To Layoffs, Fewer Garbage Pickups

from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

Union leaders for city workers have been informed by Daley aides that they should prepare their workers for as many as 1,000 layoffs in the near future due to the city's continuing budget woes. With the city facing a $400 million shortfall, Mayor Daley is slated to unveil the 2009 budget on October 15 and layoffs look to be a major part of saving money. Said Ald. Ed Smith (28th), "Probably everything will have to be done with layoffs." Daley is also eliminating 3,000 vacant positions. The layoffs are projected to save in the neighborhood of $100 million.

The hardest hit union looks to be Laborers Union Local 1001, who will see 300 layoffs in the Streets and Sanitation Department.

That's likely to mean major changes in garbage collection, tree trimming and other housekeeping services. Possibilities range from lengthening the time between pickups -- once-a-week now in most neighborhoods, twice-a-week in congested areas -- to privatizing recycling and shrinking crew sizes.

"They put an average of 350 trucks out-a-day. To cut 300 bodies -- they're probably gonna go to every other week pickup. That's probably the only way they can do it. Either that, or every 10 days," said Lou Phillips, business manager of Laborers Local 1001.

"You're gonna have to look at your garbage an extra three or four days -- and I don't know when they'll be able to get to your bulk. It's gonna create a rodent problem. You might even see a difference in the Loop area, as clean as the Loop is. That's the showcase." The union proposed alternative plans, including charging a $10 monthly collection fee. An aide for the mayor denies that garbage pickup would be affected but did suggest that it might lead to an increase of crews with just one laborer instead of two.

Obama Secures Crucial Woodland Creature Vote

Obama Secures Crucial Woodland Creature Vote

from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

The squirrels have spoken: they want change. And nuts. Lots and lots of nuts. [via Cute Overload]

Politico: Biden Will Go Soft on Palin

Politico: Biden Will Go Soft on Palin

from Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines

A campaign source tells the political rag that Joe Biden will avoid roughing up Sarah Palin during the debate Thursday, focusing his energies instead on John McCain. That might have something to do with a new poll, which suggests that most people think Biden will prove to be much more knowledgeable, but much less likeable.

---

The Politico:

If Sarah Palin goofs, flounders, stumbles or blunders during her debate against Joe Biden on Thursday night, Biden is going to let it slide.

"If she makes a gaffe, he underplays it," one of the people prepping Biden for his vice presidential debate told me. "At most, he says, 'I am not sure what Gov. Palin meant there.'"

There are three reasons for this. First, Biden does not want to look condescending. For the same reason, he plans on referring to Palin as "Gov. Palin" during the debate and never as "Sarah." (He will sometimes refer to John McCain as "John," however, because they have been senators together for many years.)

Read more

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

Pelosi Pushed Book, While Taxpayers Revolted Over Bailout

Pelosi Pushed Book, While Taxpayers Revolted Over Bailout

from AfterDowningStreet.org - Impeach Bush and Cheney Now! by davidswanson

By William Hughes ( liamhughes [at] comcast.net )

When the Congress was debating the $700 billion bailout of the greedy bankers on Wall St., an overconfident Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Baltimore hawking her book, "Know Your Power." On Sept. 29, 2008, the House of Representatives, responding to a taxpayers' revolt, rejected the Bush-Cheney Gang's bailout scheme. Speaker Peolsi, in her library spiel, conveyed a false sense of security about the grim economic situation facing the nation.

"The bailout is...economically foolish...downright sinister [and] makes a mockery of our Constitution." - Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

read more

OMG: Palin can’t name one magazine/newspaper she reads

OMG: Palin can't name one magazine/newspaper she reads

from Crooks and Liars by SilentPatriot

  She really is George Bush in lipstick. Katie Couric asks Palin another one of those "gotcha" questions, this time about which publications she reads to learn about the world.

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

COURIC: Like what ones specifically?

PALIN:  Umm… all of them. Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news… Alaska isn't a foreign country where it's kind of suggested it seems like, wow how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing, when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

Good Lord. Put this poor woman out of her misery already. 

DIGG IT!

UPDATE: Glenn gets it.

In order to learn the source of her political knowledge, Katie Couric asked her three times what specific newspapers she read prior to being selected as Vice President, and Palin — after trying to answer a couple times with her trademark rambling incoherence ("all of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me all these years . . . a vast variety") — abruptly decided that the question was an elitist, condescending East Coast media assault on Alaska and chided Couric accordingly, without answering. How could you mock that other than by repeating it verbatim?

Army Private Subjected to Anti-Semitic Attacks Brutally Beaten By Soldiers

Army Private Subjected to Anti-Semitic Attacks Brutally Beaten By Soldiers

from TPR: The Public Record | In-Depth, Incisive, Independent Reporting

A U.S. Army soldier was brutally beaten by other soldiers in his platoon earlier this month following two incidents in which a drill sergeants allegedly used anti-Semitic slurs to address the soldier.

Pvt. Michael Handman, 20, who has just completed his fifth week of basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, was recently released from a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, facial wounds, and severe oral injuries following the attack, according to the boy's father, Jonathan Handman.

The soldier's father said he received a disturbing telephone call last week from his son's commanding officer "to tell me that my son is OK and out of the hospital."

"Apparently he got his clocked cleaned and beat to the point that he was sent to the hospital by ambulance with a concussion," Jonathan Handman said in an interview. "He was in bad enough shape that they did a head and neck [CAT] scan."

Jonathan Handman said his son was lured into a laundry room at the Fort Benning Army base by other soldiers, knocked unconscious and beaten while he lay on the ground.

Michael Handman enlisted in the Army earlier this year. He wears a yarmulke with his uniform, which apparently led his drill sergeants to refer to him as a "fucking Jew" and a "kike" and a demand that he remove the yarmulke during dinner, according to his father. The soldier recently wrote a letter to his mother Randi recounting the anti-Semitism he has endured by his drill sergeants and members of his platoon since arriving for basic training at Fort Benning.

"I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion," Michael Handman wrote his mother. "I just feel like I'm always looking over my shoulder. Like my battle buddy heard some of the guys in my platoon talking about how they wanted to beat the shit out of me tonight when I'm sleeping. It just sucks. And the only justification they have is [because] I'm Jewish. Maybe your dad was right...The Army is not the place for a Jew."

A Fort Benning public affairs representative would not comment on the incidents saying the attack and the anti-Semitism are under investigation. Michael Handman's father said in an interview he fears for his son's safety and is worried that his son may continue to endure additional beat downs and taunts about his faith by drill sergeants.

"I'm scared he will become a victim of friendly fire." Jonathan Handman said. "The Army is not doing enough to protect him. They have mentally broken him to the point that he is willing to ruin his life by getting a dishonorable discharge."

After he was released from the hospital, Pvt. Handman was sent back to the same platoon to face the soldiers who attacked him. He was then moved to a different company within the same platoon. But Jonathan Handman said his son told him the anti-Semitism has continued, according to a conversation he had with his son.

A week ago Jonathan Handman took action and began a fierce letter writing campaign in an effort to get his son some help. He reached out to his state's U.S. senator, Saxby Chambliss, the Republican of Georgia. Chambliss immediately contacted the Pentagon to investigate and, surprisingly, the Department of Defense sent Chambliss a detailed letter last week confirming that Pvt. Handman was the victim of anti-Semitism.

"Based on [Private] Handman's statement and the seriousness of the allegations, the command immediately initiated a commander's inquiry," stated a Sept. 26 letter sent to Chambliss by Samuel Selby Rollinson, the Department of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff. "Based on the inquiry, the Army found that two [non-commissioned officers] inadvertently violated the Army Regulation concerning the free exercise of religion by requiring the Soldier to remove his yarmulke and by using inappropriate terms when referencing the Jewish faith.

"While the actions of the NCO's were not meant to be malicious, and were done out of ignorance for regulations and cultural awareness, this does not excuse their conduct. The command intends to reprimand both NCO's for their conduct; require them to present formal blocks of instruction on what religious are authorized for wear; and finally, the battalion chaplain will instruct all cadre members on the Army policy concerning religious accommodation."

The investigation by the Pentagon was limited to the anti-Semitism and did not include an inquiry into the beating.

Prior to receiving a copy of the letter from Chambliss, the elder Handman contacted Mikey Weinstein, the president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a nonprofit government watchdog group that aims to keep a close eye on the military to ensure its adherence to the law mandating the separation between church and state. Weinstein spent a decade working as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), was formerly legal counsel in the Reagan White House and was General Counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot.

Handman's allegations that his son was the victim of anti-Semitism and that his son was allegedly beaten because of his Jewish faith resonated immediately with Weinstein.

While attending the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in the 1970s, Weinstein was subjected to a virulent series of anti-Semitic attacks which he describes in gripping detail in his book, With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup in America's Military (St. Martins Press, 2006).

Recently, In fact, Weinstein launched MRFF more than three years ago after his sons, Casey and Curtis, also U.S. Air Force Academy graduates, told him they were harassed about their Jewish faith and urged by other cadets and Air Force officials to convert to Christianity. Weinstein's daughter-in-law, Amanda, likewise an Air Force Academy graduate and a Christian, also experienced wrongful religious pressure from Christian fundamentalist officers at the Academy. Weinstein said his son Curtis, like Michael Handman, was also called "A fucking Jew."  

Recently, Weinstein's family was the subject of a much-publicized hate crime attack where, among other things, his house was marked with a swastika and a crucifix.

The Army's cavalier attitude toward the anti-Semitic attacks on Pvt. Handman, as described in the letter to Chambliss, rubs Weinstein the wrong way.

"The Army's wretched response to this hate crime is, sadly and typically, to trivialize the entire sordid matter," Weinstein said in an interview. "Those found to be responsible need to face a criminal trial by general courts martial. The United States Army needs to learn, and learn fast, that persecuting anyone and marginalizing them by asserting that they lack character, integrity, veracity and courage because of their chosen religious faith, or lack thereof, is exactly the same thing as attacking someone and telling them that they're stupid for the color of their skin. Shame, shame on the United States Army."

After speaking with Jonathan Handman, Mikey Weinstein contacted Lt. Dan Kim, the company commander at Fort Benning, and demanded to be fully briefed "about a hate crime" involving Pvt. Handman.

Weinstein said Kim told him he had "100 sworn affidavits" denying that Pvt. Handman was the victim of anti-Semitism and even went so far as to insinuate that it was possible that Pvt. Handman may have instigated the attack.

Kim would not return messages left on his cell phone or at his office.

"The moment we were contacted by the father, Jonathan Handman, MRFF did what it always does in these ever more frequent, tragic matters of unbridled, military-sponsored Christian religious oppression; we moved at light speed to ensure the victim's immediate safety. Next, we demanded that the victim's chain of command comprehensively and fairly investigate and punish those responsible. As that will only happen "when hell freezes over", I want the Army to understand that MRFF will now use this entire incident in our just-filed Federal litigation against the Department of Defense.

"Indeed, it will serve as yet another heinous example of the pernicious and pervasive pattern and practice of unconstitutional rape of the religious liberties of our honorable and noble U.S. service members by their military superiors unlawfully using the armed forces chain of command to force one and only one biblical worldview on their otherwise helpless subordinates."

Weinstein's MRFF is a co-plaintiff in a Federal civil suit filed last week in the United States District Court of Kansas against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates alleging the U.S. Army has been subjecting soldiers to fundamentalist Christian prayer ceremonies against their will during mandatory military events. He reiterated that he intends to defend Handman's case vigorously.

This is not the first incident of anti-Semitism that Weinstein's organization has exposed that has resulted in the Army running for cover.

Weinstein and MRFF exposed a pattern of anti-Semitic Biblical teachings by chaplains at Fort Leavenworth. He also signed on to help defend former Army Chaplain, Rabbi Jeffrey Goldman, a Toronto native, who was taunted by senior military officers at a prayer breakfast one morning in May 2001 as his chaplain colleagues had placed Nazi uniforms and swastikas on the wall of the officers' club at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Handman and his wife, Randi, continue to worry about their son's well being.

"I feel like this was written from the movie "A Few Good Men" and we all know the outcome there," Handman said, referring to the 1992 Tom Cruise blockbuster about Marines accused of murdering a colleague. "That is what terrifies me. I do not want to bury my only son."

The Chicago White Sox are in!!!!!

The Sox won the AL Central with an amazing pitching performance from John Danks, a rookie!  He went 8 innings, gave up a couple of hits and walks but the defense came through big time and Jim Thome, a future hall of famer, hit the only home run of the game. The old guys came through big time tonight as Ken Griffey Jr caught a pop fly with a man on third base, who tagged up and attempted to score home. Junior threw to the White Sox catcher, who was bowled over but held onto the ball. That play was key; the other old timer, Jim Thome, was responsible for the sole run of the game.  Sox reliever Bobby Jenks came into the 9th and the game was won with an amazing catch by Brian Anderson.  Its a special win because this very well may be the last time Thome and Griffey get the chance to win a ring.

The Sox are the first team in major league history to end a season by beating three different teams in a row. Its also the 1st time in approxamately 100 years that both Chicago teams make the post season at the same time. The Sox will face the Tampa Bay Rays on Thursday.

""Tom" Colicchio, of Top Chef fame, is going to be back in the kitchen, cooking food! Not for you, of course—for 80 lucky people per month who score reservations"

Hot New Restaurant Brings High Prices, Hassle, Mystery To Dining Experience [Trendwatch]

from Gawker by Hamilton Nolan

Celebrity chef Tom "Tom" Colicchio, of Top Chef fame, is going to be back in the kitchen, cooking food! Not for you, of course—for 80 lucky people per month who score reservations to his crazy new momentary pop-up restaurant. Which is really just an idea of a restaurant, existing only in the minds of those who can pay $250 to eat... something that Tom Colicchio decides to cook. Could be anything! Let's break down this brilliant new way to soak rich foodies in these lean, Kool-Aid times:

See, Colicchio's not actually opening a new restaurant; he's starting a venture called "Tom: Tuesday Dinner" that will open up every other Tuesday, then disappear! The first exotic location for your pricey meal? A "tiny space" in the private dining room of Craft, another one of his already existing restaurants!

Reservations will be taken by telephone six weeks in advance, and the price of the meal ($150 to $250 depending on the menu) will have to be prepaid with a credit card. Menus will only be announced about a week before each meal; they will be posted on a website, tomtuesdaydinner.com.

If this works out, we're starting a new venture: "Track me down at an undisclosed location and pay me $1,000 and I will tell you where the nearest McDonald's is."

"The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis"

Grand Theft America | AfterDowningStreet.org

The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis. Economist Michael Hudson and others refer to a kleptocracy. A Ponzi scheme writ large. Maybe an out-of-control Andromeda Strain. An economic one. Deadly. Unrecallable. Science fiction now real life. Potentially catastrophic. World governments trying to contain it. Trying everything but not sure what can work. Maybe only able to paper it over for short-term relief. Buy time but in the end vindicate the maxim that things that can't go on forever, won't.

The world as we know it is changing. Industrial capitalism. The entire global economic system. Interconnected. What affects one nation touches others. If the troubled country is America it reaches everywhere, and if the crisis is great enough, the disease may be fatal and human wreckage catastrophic. Precisely the current dilemma that world leaders and financial experts are scrambling to figure out. Desperate to contain, and not sure what, if anything, can work. How did this happen and why?

The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies....and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism....blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.

He said "free markets" work best. Unfettered by rules, regulations, onerous taxes or any at all, trade barriers, entrenched interests, and human interference. That anything government does, business does better, so let it. That the best government is one that governs least. That public wealth should be in private hands. The accumulation of profits unrestrained. Corporate taxes abolished. Social services also, and that "economic freedom is an end to itself....and an indispensable means toward (achieving) political freedom."

He called most all government interference a restriction of freedom. Opposed foreign aid. Subsidies. Import quotas and tariffs, and illicit drug laws for being a subsidy to organized crime, but he found no fault with major banks laundering their profits. He believed business should be unrestrained in maximizing them, even the illegal kind apparently.

He opposed the minimum wage and right of unions to bargain collectively on equal terms with management. He believed high wages and benefits harm everyone. They raise prices, and in the end, hurt workers as well as management. He called Social Security "The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth," even though it's been the most effective poverty reduction program ever for millions of seniors who'd be desperate without it. Especially today given a deepening economic crisis. The nation's social safety net disappearing, and heading everyone toward managing on his or her own. Dependent on their ingenuity, resources, and good fortune. Milton Friedman's ideal world. For those who can't make it, it's their own fault. It's everyone for him or herself in his judgment, and let the devil take the hindmost.

As for today's largest ever unraveling Ponzi scheme, it's just the workings of the "free market." Creative destruction. "Freedom to choose." The best of all possible worlds, and unfettered capitalism will figure out the right solutions. Provided government gets out of the way and gives it free reign. Free money also to wreck world economies and human lives even more than what's already done.

The Chickens Are Home to Roost

Are they ever, and here's what we've got. A global asset bubble. A predictable crisis allowed to build and mushroom. Begun after Chicago School economics took hold under Ronald Reagan. Continued under GHW Bush. Became religion under Bill Clinton, and ultimately fundamentalism under GW Bush.

The result - a "slow motion train wreck" gaining speed. Banks and other financial institutions failing globally. On September 25, the largest bank failure in US history with Washington Mutual's collapse. Earlier it was giant insurer AIG. Before that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch a forced liquidation to Bank of America.

Others are now teetering on the edge. Strapped by toxic debt. The result of out-of-control greed for easy profits. Massive fraud to get them. Thinking they're the best and brightest, and only mere mortals mess up. Knowing Fed moral hazard will cushion them if they do. True for some. Not for others, and learning that the Federal Reserve (the world's key central bank) failed in its primary job. To protect the country's financial system from insolvency. By contributing to a financial crisis and one of confidence. By creating near-limitless amounts of capital. Fueling a housing bubble. Outsized consumer debt, and irresponsible investments free from government oversight. Fraudulent ones involving multi-trillions of dollars.

Partnering with government to make it easy. Risking a global economic meltdown as a result. Scrambling to find solutions. Unsure if there are any. The present crisis is unparalled. Maybe it can be fixed, and maybe not. The problem is multi-fold. A perfect storm involving:

• residential housing;
• commercial real estate;
• consumer over-indebtedness;
• unknown amounts of toxic debt (in the multi-trillions);
• affecting world finance and economies;
• causing bankruptcies;
• many more will follow;
• selected ones bailed out;
• the entire system endangered;
• consumer money market, bank accounts and private pension funds as well; government backing is needed to protect them; there's not enough money to do it; and
• the contagion is spreading; threatening world economies and people everywhere.

This time is really different. A $700 billion bailout (called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - EESA) is just a down payment. Trillions will be needed in the end. Other nations contributing to help. The problems are deeper and more intractable than anyone expected. Before this ends, unimaginable amounts of capital will be written off. Too much to even contemplate. Bad investments contaminating good ones. Threatening world financial structures with paralysis. Severe economic damage to their economies as a result.

Eroding industrial capitalism as we know it. At best managing a short-term fix and delaying a final denouement for a later time. Under new management with the current and past ones claiming no responsibility. And unmindful of millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. One in ten currently behind in their payments. Others losing their jobs and way of life. They're the most vulnerable. Least able to cope, and for some their ability to survive.

According to The New York Times, here's how the Paulson scheme helps them: "it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make 'more aggressive' efforts to prevent home foreclosures." Weasel words. No specifics. No assurances, and nothing apparently for homeowners already in foreclosure.

On September 22, ahead of the announced agreement, American Research Group (ASG) published its latest public sentiment poll results, and they were stunning. At 19%, George Bush scored lowest ever for a US president, surpassing Harry Truman at the depth of the Korean War and Richard Nixon during Watergate. It came at a time ASG's results showed 82% of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, and only 17% approve of how Bush is handling it. Among registered voters, the number is 18% at a time no one surveyed (zero percent) said the economy is improving and 68% say it's in recession. True or false, it's how they feel. How the crisis affects them, and that's what counts most.

Yet on September 24, the president addressed the nation audaciously. Callously dismissing public pain and anger. Deceitfully stating outright lies. A typical performance. Demanded that Congress give the treasury secretary carte blanche authority over $700 billion to address "a serious financial crisis." Asked taxpayers to pay for corporate fraud. Reward criminals and ignore their crimes. Said nothing about the root cause. The effect on ordinary people, or how Paulson's scheme will help them. Ignored growing public opposition. Large numbers of credible observers believing the proposed solution is worse than the problem. The most honest of them saying it will enrich fraudsters and offer no help for homeowners.

Yet Bush concluded that "democratic capitalism (is the) best system the world has ever devised" in spite of clear evidence that it's broken and corrupted. Exploits people for profit. Enriches the few at the expense of the many. Rewards criminals for their crimes. Protects the rich from beneficial social change.

Ahead of the president's address on September 24, The New York Times showed a rare display of candor in a critical Timothy Egan opinion piece. About "nearly nationalizing the banking system and giving the treasury secretary more power than a king....whose decisions may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." He asked readers to remember "where the biggest heist took place, and how Wall Street dragged down the rest of the country once before," referring to the Great Depression but leaving out everything in between.

He stressed, however, "how Wall Street brought down main street," and things have now come full circle. Deregulation unleashed casino capitalism, and bankers made a killing. Now they're in trouble and Bush demands "the biggest bailout in American history....or the world will crumble. He said the a similar thing in the run-up to war" so who can believe him now. Egan quotes a dirt farmer asking why not the same "concerns (for) average Americans." Because "we the people" Bush speaks for are them, not us.

As for Paulson's plan, here's what the Financial Times writer Martin Wolf said on September 23. He called it "not a true solution to the crisis." It doesn't address the "fundamental problem." It's "neither a necessary nor an efficient solution. It is not necessary because the (Fed can) manage illiquidity through its many lender-of-last resort operations. It is not efficient because it can only deal with insolvency by buying bad assets (overpriced junk) at far above their true value, thereby guaranteeing big losses for taxpayers and providing an open-ended bail-out to the most irresponsible investors."

Wolf also objects to Paulson getting unchecked powers. Providing little or no help to the poor and "ill-informed" (read duped) borrowers, and lists other operational suggestions "essential for the long-run health of any financial system" without needing "a penny of public money." Among them, forcing creditors to take losses and not taxpayers.

Unmentioned in his article is the underlying fraud behind the crisis and a lack of regulatory oversight that made it easy. Also, omitted was what's covered in the section below.

The 1937 Housing Act's Empowering Section 8 Authority

One Section 8 sentence provided the basis for the treasury secretary's empowerment. It reads:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administration agency."

In other words, unchallengeable czarist powers. In contrast to the 1930s Reconstruction Finance Corporation's (RFC) closely supervised operations. That era's Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) that refinanced homes to prevent foreclosures. And the 1980s Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) mandate to liquidate assets from failed S & Ls. Not dispense free money for bad investments unchecked. The above authorities subject to judicial review. Not governed by a financial boss to run as he pleased.

The Announced "Bailout" Deal - The Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008 (ESA)

According to The New York Times, EESA calls for "strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program." Also "a change in the bankruptcy laws sought by some Democrats to give judges the authority to modify the terms of first mortgages."

Given the bipartisan blame for today's crisis. The post-9/11 willingness to give the administration near-carte blanche authority across the board. Eight years of indifference to social needs and public welfare. Who now believes that policy going forward will change and that the agreed-on scheme will protect people or curb the secretary's authority. On his own initiative, George Bush usurped supreme power post-9/11 while few in Congress blanched. None in leadership positions. Little today has changed.

Disclaimers notwithstanding from both sides of the aisle, Wall Street is pleased. Paulson got what he wanted. The plan's fine print will assure it. Public money. Far more, if needed, than $700 billion. The power to dispense it freely. With weak at best oversight and judicial review, and the ability to conceal fraud and malfeasance. In short, the between-the-lines meaning of Paulson saying: "We have made great progress toward a deal, which will work and be effective in the marketplace."

The same one that fleeced the nation and betrayed the public trust. Now empowered to take more with the full faith and blessing of the government from both sides of the aisle. Belying George Bush's insult that "The rescue effort....is not aimed at Wall Street; it is aimed at your street." And Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy that: "All of this was done in a way to insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street....I want to congratulate all of the negotiators for the great work they have done." Who in banker boardrooms would disagree.

Some Relevant Facts

Clearly the present crisis is unprecedented. As stated above, maybe it can be fixed and maybe not. No one is sure because no one understands it fully. Where all the problems lie. To what degree can they be contained. How great their fallout may be. Their full effect on world economies. How bad things may get before they stabilize and improve, and the way the world will look like when they do.

Whatever's coming, industrial capitalism is eroding. A kleptocracy replaced it. If the system is saved, it will be temporary, and an even greater one will emerge. Why this article is called Grand Theft America. A criminal class runs it, and they're rewarded for their crimes. Backed by the full faith and credit of the government with taxpayer money. A near-limitless amount created and borrowed. Who said crime doesn't pay!

For over 30 years, an unimaginable wealth transfer to the rich has been ongoing. To the top 1% and corporate America from most others. It proves the failure of a system that rewards the few at the expense of the many. Licenses greed and creates this kind of global financial crisis so far uncontained. It begs the questions: what caused it and what's the fallout:

• the ruinous effects of militarization; insane amounts of spending on it; "military Keynesianism;" believing capitalism thrives on foreign wars; "Global Wars on Terrorism" currently; their costs are unsustainable and are heading the nation toward bankruptcy;
• the drain on an already weakened economy;
• maxed out consumers now debt slaves;
• so is government from unrepayable obligations in the tens of trillions; not the fictitious "official" reported numbers;
• the possibility of future default; hyperinflation; national bankruptcy, and the demise of the republic;
• human default as well: mass bankruptcies; home foreclosures; rising unemployment; increased poverty; and growing numbers of families unable to survive;
• the subprime crisis is just part of it; seven million mortgages sold to the unwary; the idea was to criminally defraud them; offer two-year teaser rates; then reset them higher semi-annually based on an interest rate benchmark; payments soared as much as 30% and became unaffordable; the scheme was to cash in at the expense of mortgage holders, and five million risk losing their homes and life savings;
• an "economic Pearl Harbor" for Warren Buffett; for Senator Chris Dodd a "50-state Katrina;" a "house of cards (built on) reckless finance" for author Kevin Phillips; Frankenstein finance; casino capitalism; for most Americans, a human catastrophe;
• the demise of our manufacturing base; letting malls replace factories as the economy's engine;
• permitting the financialization of the economy; speculative finance writ large; replacing productive investment; totally deregulated; run by fraudsters; free from government oversight; letting investment banks game the system at up to 40 to 1 leverage; until 2004, 12 to 1 was the maximum;
• a government - business conspiracy for global dominance and the single-minded pursuit of profit; unfettered amounts of it through cleverly manipulated schemes; transferring multi-trillions of dollars from workers to the most wealthy; doing it without people even noticing;
• creative destruction to let giant businesses grow larger by removing and devouring smaller ones; even large ones;
• permitting and/or ignoring massive fraud; involving multi-trillions of dollars; the largest ever Ponzi scheme; a calculated crime with media complicity through silence; not reporting a growing problem as it emerged; waiting until it mushroomed and still not explaining it accurately and honestly; and
• wondering won if the best and brightest can fix things or if no amount of money or ingenuity can do it.

The Plan's Architect - Henry Paulson

From a Nixon administration staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense. To assistant to key Watergate official John Erlichman. To Goldman Sachs in 1974. To a partnership in the firm in 1982. Then Chief Operation Officer (COO) in 1994 and CEO in 1998 by a palace coup against co-chairman and now New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, according to New York Times columnist Floyd Norris.

Even before the current crisis, Goldman was the preeminent Wall Street firm. A survivor. The largest, and along with Morgan Stanley, the remaining two Street giants left standing. But no longer as investment banks after the Federal Reserve's September 21 announcement that both companies will become bank holding companies after a mandatory five-day waiting period, now over.

In theory, they'll be under stricter Fed oversight but will get Fed help to complete their transition and thereafter. As a well-connected financial powerhouse, whatever Goldman wants, Goldman gets. Always in the past by recycling top executives into Democrat and Republican administrations, and now more than ever given Henry Paulson's extraordinary financial czar powers.

Before his $700 billion giveaway plan, the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act gave him authority to fleece taxpayers by rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as raise the national debt by over $5 trillion dollars. He also orchestrated the demise of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. The forced sale of Merrill Lynch, and arranged the government takeover of AIG.

He has near-open checkbook authority to reward close allies with loans and free money and let them acquire troubled assets on the cheap. This from a man with much responsibility for today's crisis. A June 12, 2006 Business Week cover story titled "Mr. Risk Goes to Washington" called him "one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits." Such as assuming huge amounts of debt and "placing big bets (with their own money) on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities." Advising clients to do the same. Casino capitalism at up to 40 to one leverage. Hugely profitable in up markets. Disastrous in down ones.

Paulson earned millions and now has an estimated $700 million + net worth. For 2007 overall, according to Bloomberg.com, "Wall Street's five biggest firms (paid out) a record $39 billion in bonuses (and did it in) a year when three of the companies suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion."

Speculative finance pays well, even in down years, and it even raised Bloomberg's ire in a Michael Lewis September 24 commentary titled "America Must Rescue the Bonuses at Goldman Sachs." It reflected on a possible global financial collapse but sacrificing Goldman bonuses is another matter. If firm "employees (take) pay cut(s), it will be (tantamount to failure and) our country may never recover." How will the company induce new talent to come aboard. Goldman is well-positioned to get maximum gain from its former CEO's $700 billion handout.

Why else would Warren Buffett bet $5 billion on the firm! For preferred shares paying an annual 10% dividend. Warrants as well to buy $5 billion in common stock at a $115 a share strike price. Well off its $251 peak and below the latest September 26 $138 a share.

Joseph Stiglitz on the Economy

Stiglitz was formerly part of the system he now criticizes. Free market fundamentalism in its most extreme form. For many months, he warned about a worsening global economy and growing financial crisis that's as bad or worse than the Great Depression.

He sees similar problems now as then:

• outsized speculation through excessive leverage;
• pyramid schemes;
• multiple bubbles through so-called Wall Street innovations; and
• a lack of transparency and government oversight.

Combined they created a crisis "so great that no one knows exactly the magnitude of the risk they face. It is particularly bad because our financial institutions are based on trust. You put money in the bank and you trust that you can get (it) out, so trust is absolutely essential for the functioning of our financial markets and economy."

The problem is exacerbated by those providing the news. The dominant media and frequent spokespeople. Industry representatives like Lehman Brothers CEO saying last April that "we turned the corner, and the economy is on the uptick." Also from the president, treasury secretary and others in government as things keep worsening.

Stiglitz calls this a "top down crisis." The "$3 trillion cost" of foreign wars a key. Creating huge deficits and consuming vital resources needed for growth. "This is the first war in American history that has been totally financed on the credit card. For the last five years....we have been a debt economy." Not since the Revolutionary War have "we have had to turn to foreigners," so now "40% of our national debt is financed by (them). Even as we went (to war) we had a big deficit, and yet the president called for tax cuts for upper middle class Americans." Insane but we did it.

Another factor is other countries trusting that our economy is working well, and when the president says it is he's believable. "This administration burned that trust....no wonder everybody around the world is losing confidence." Even worse is that the administration isn't dealing responsibly with these problems, mostly because they're of our own making.

Stiglitz worries about the "real economy:" home prices dropping; owners forced into foreclosure; more financial firms in crisis; and a good many won't survive. He sees a weakening financial system unable or unwilling "to provide credit (the lifeblood of the economy for) loans, mortgages," and that means lower home prices, contracting businesses, rising unemployment, and a "downward vicious cycle. You have to be in fantasy land to say that everything is fine (or even) that we have turned the corner." He sees at least another 18 months of pain. Maybe longer. Who can know or how much.

For sure, real economic stimulus is needed. Productive investment. Not the phony "bailout" kind proposed. Aiding state and local governments. Better unemployment insurance and more for infrastructure. Providing a basis for long-term growth. Not feeding markets and starving the hungry, as one writer put it. Not believing markets on their own will fix things.

Understanding that government must intervene. Responsibly. Facilitate job creation. End casino capitalism. Provide incentives for real economic growth. Let foreclosed and threatened homeowners stay in their homes. Work out an equitable way to do it. "We learned a painful lesson in the 1930s and today: The invisible hand often seems invisible because it's not there." It led to the kind of predicament now confronting the country. The solutions proposed will just compound it.

Ones that Can Fix It

Good ones not considered. From figures like Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Others as well with solid advice to:

• make fraudsters eat the bulk of their losses;
• use public funds only "to sustain the orderly operation of the financial system;"
• minimize speculative finance; the root of the current problem;
• "minimize moral hazard" - the Paulson (and Bernanke) "put" picking up where Greenspan left off;
• let delinquent homeowners stay in their homes and pay rent;
• curtail executive compensation for companies getting government aid;
• make a key Fed responsibility the prevention of asset bubbles; reinstitute regulations to do it; Glass-Steagall for starters that prohibited commercial and investment banks and insurance companies from combining;
• impose a modest financial transactions tax to curb excesses and raise revenue;
• trade assets, like credit default swaps, openly on exchanges to establish fair value for them;
• impose strict limits on leverage;
• keep Fannie and Freddie public institutions; their status before being privatized in 1968; and
• restructure the Fed democratically; a far better solution is abolish it and let government control its own money; use it responsibly for all Americans, not just the privileged few.

Other recommendations recognize no quick or easy solutions to problems this great. Economist James Galbraith says borrowers need collateral. A new Home Owners Loan Corporation to rewrite mortgages. Manage rental conversions, and decide what degraded properties should be demolished. Which ones to save and refurbish. Set it up in communities under federal guidelines and do it quickly. Help state and local governments strapped for cash. Reestablish federal revenue sharing. A National Infrastructure Bank making capital available for infrastructure. Put people to work building it. Protect seniors and near-retirees from wealth loss. Extra Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid revenue will help. Get money in the hands of people who'll spend it.

Address other crucial issues like energy conservation, reconstruction and renewable power. Infrastructure overall. Tuition help for students. Another GI bill. Credit card and mortgage interest rate caps. Rescind anti-consumist laws like the misnamed 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. A boon for credit card companies and other businesses. Unfairly burdensome to the public.

A whole range of other projects and ideas to redirect the economy away from speculative finance and militarism and toward high-return public investment. Do it before it's too late. Recognize that the present course is unsustainable. Imagine a government working for everyone and not just the privileged few. Imagine it not tolerating fraud and malfeasance.

Instead, Congress agreed to a "bailout" and passed a record $634 billion omnibus spending bill (to run the government through March 6, 2009) to include a record Pentagon budget; $25 billion in low-interest auto industry loans; maybe with no provision for repayment; lifting a quarter-century ban on Atlantic and Pacific off-shore drilling; billions more in earmarked pork; and likely more coming later for the airlines and other endangered companies. Taxpayers for Common Sense criticized the bill at the same time it noted that government "bailout" appropriations will reach about $1.2 trillion with the $700 billion Paulson scheme. Others put the total above $1.5 trillion, and many say it's only for starters.

Paying "hold-to-maturity" prices compounds the fraud. For securitized assets worth a fraction of full value. Much of it pennies on the dollar, if anything. Trillions of dollars of toxic ones. All sorts of them. Newly invented ones. Structured finance and insurance. Asset-backed securities. Repackaged into marketable pools. Sold to investors. It's been done for decades but only recently so out of hand. Greed and deregulation created an alphabet soup of levered-up, high-risk securitized assets. Financial alchemy. Largely outright fraud, including:

• collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), including auto loans, credit and corporate debt;
• collateralized (asset-backed home) mortgage obligations (CMOs);
• commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS);
• mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and levered loans;
• structured investment vehicles (SIVs);
• special purpose vehicles (SPVs);
• pass-through securities;
• credit and interest rate default swaps;
• commercial paper and more;
• repackaged arcane stuff most people don't understand; even investors who bought them; like eating a stew with no idea what's in it; a recipe with no list of ingredients; learning too late it's toxic and you're in trouble;

Credit card companies as well from growing amounts of unrepayable credit card debt. The auto industry already assured of a low-interest $25 billion loan (or maybe handout) for starters. Airlines coming next. Select homebuilders and troubled companies called too big to fail. If they're too big to fail, says one observer, they're too big to exist.

EESA will give the treasury secretary near-carte blanche powers to conceal fraud and help the fraudsters, including his former company, Goldman Sachs, now in trouble. Pick and choose among others. Which will survive, and what less favored ones will go on the block at fire sale prices or disappear. Today there are 9000 banks in the country. In a decade, half or more of them may be gone.

Economist Michael Hudson calls EESA "cash for trash" and a "giveaway," not a bailout. A "transfer of wealth to insiders." A financial coup d'etat. The "largest and most inequitable (kind) since the (19th century) land giveaways to the railroad barons."

In this case, socializing losses to let fraudsters "sell out all their bad bets." Junk of all sorts: a stew of securitized assets, bad mortgages, car loans, credit card loans, student loans, anything for insiders stuck with too much of them.

A doomed scheme that will raise the debt level instead of lowering it. Enrich fraudsters with taxpayer funds. Stick the public with toxic junk. Maybe buy time before more people and markets catch on, but, in the end, cripple the economy and erode industrial capitalism with it.

Hudson is justifiably angry given the amount of fraud and deceit. The government-concocted scheme to whitewash it. Reward criminals. Harm most others, and wreck the country at the same time. He says a "kleptocratic class has taken over the economy to replace industrial capitalism....'banksers' " for FDR and earlier condemned by Jefferson with this stinging comment:

"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

A half century later Lincoln said:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations (including bankers) have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Lincoln refused to pay bankers usurious rates to finance the Civil War and got Congress to pass the 1862 Legal Tender Act. It empowered the US Treasury to issue "greenbacks" that were interest-free because government printed its own money. When Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, the "Greenback Law" was rescinded. A new national banking act was passed, and the government once again had to pay interest to bankers.

On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy issued executive order (EO) 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency. He ordered the treasury to begin printing "United States (Treasury) Notes" to replace "Federal Reserve Notes." He began a process to let government control its own money and no longer private bankers under the guise of the Federal Reserve. Months later, Kennedy was assassinated. Once Lyndon Johnson took office, he rescinded EO 11110 and reestablished the current system. More on that below.

The Two Greatest Ever Financial Crimes - Today's Fraud and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act's Privatization of Money Creation

Most people think the Federal Reserve is a government agency, subject to its control. It's sometimes mistakenly called a quasi-governmental decentralized central bank to disguise its real identity and purpose. Its Eccles building headquarters compounds the subterfuge. Below it's stripped away.

The Federal Reserve is a private for-profit banking cartel. Owned and run by major banks and Wall Street in each of its 12 Districts. It was created and operates in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that states that Congress alone shall have the power to create money and regulate its value. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot constitutionally delegate this power to another authority, but, in fact it did.

On December 22, 1913, between 1:30 - 4:30 AM, the Federal Reserve Act was shepherded through a special Congressional Conference Committee. Then voted on and passed the next day. Two days before Christmas with many members gone and most others with no time to read or consider this momentous document.

By enacting this law, Congress and President Woodrow Wilson defrauded the public. Wilson later said (when it was too late to matter) he made a mistake and "unwittingly ruined my country." This from a man who was an intellect. Trained in the law. A PhD in political science and president of Princeton University in his earlier years.

The Federal Reserve Act gives private bankers the most important of all powers. The one most of all that governments should never relinquish. The authority to print money. Control its supply. Its price through the Fed Funds rate and how it influences the whole yield curve. Loan it out for profit, and charge government interest on its own money. It's later returned minus operating expenses and a guaranteed 6% profit. Taxpayers foot the bill. An early and continuing example of wealth transfer from the public to powerful bankers. Illegally sanctioned by Congress and the president.

The Fed literally creates money out of nothing. Expands or contracts its supply as it wishes - with no government oversight or control. Gold once backed it until Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971. Suspended dollar convertibility into the metal, and ended compliance with the Bretton Woods core provision. The US dollar became fiat currency. Mere paper. Backed by nothing except the faith of the issuing authority.

Given today's crisis, that faith is fast eroding and is to blame for dollar weakness. Mostly because of profligate policies by private bankers running the country's monetary policy for their own gain. The grandest of grand thefts along with today's all-consuming fraud. Backed by the full faith and credit of the government, and up to now at least, with most people none the wiser.

A Growing Public Response to the Crisis

For how long is the question given growing public anger and people expressing it publicly. It has administration officials worried enough to order what Michel Chossudovsky wrote in his September 26 article titled "Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland."

He cites an Army Times article saying that the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team is coming home (in October) from Iraq as (according to the Times) "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." Perhaps with a manufactured incident as pretext. To defend the homeland against ourselves. Be deployed against dissent. Erupting public anger. On city streets like in Denver and St. Paul. Displaying civil disobedience. Defiance against fraud, deceit, illegal foreign wars, and nearly eight intolerable years under George Bush and a complicit Congress. Capped by the current financial crisis touching everyone while government rewards crime and hangs its victims out to dry.

Chossudovsky is blunt about the possibilities. The 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade is for combat. It's not the National Guard or local police. It's trained for war. "Equipped to kill people" with potent weapons, and a last hurrah scheme may be planned to divert public attention from the financial crisis. A "terrorist" attack with "chemical, biological" or other dangerous weapons. A possible pretext for martial law at a time the administration and Congress are vulnerable. When people are angry about Washington protecting the privileged. Partnering with them in crime. Defrauding the public and stifling dissent. Moving one step closer to tyranny and away from silly notions about democracy. Proving crime indeed does pay and awfully well on Wall Street. "It's the economy, stupid." Theirs, not ours.

###

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10360

"...the point is lost in the blizzard of BS coming out of Dobbs' immigrant-hating, ignorance-spewing mouth"

ACORN Is Right, Lou Dobbs Is Wrong | AfterDowningStreet.org

In this video clip, Lou Dobbs of CNN tries to blame the community group ACORN, for which I used to work, for the crimes of Wall Street and of predatory lenders, not to mention Congress:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36465

Dobbs seems to oppose the proposed bailout, and ACORN favors modifying it to include relief for homeowners (which could include business for ACORN Housing Corporation helping renegotiate loans). So, I agree with Dobbs, not ACORN. I want the bill voted down in anything remotely resembling the form it was in on Monday.

But the bulk of Dobbs' reporting is absolutely crazy. He tries to depict ACORN as a criminal operation because the Republican Justice Department has leveled accusations of "voter fraud" against it. Dobbs doesn't mention that it was David Iglesias' refusal to play along with this scam that got him fired, something for which the former Attorney General of the United States and honored guest of CNN Alberto Gonzales is under investigation: http://bradblog.com/?p=4372

And Dobbs focuses on the claim that by promoting the Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN has promoted predatory lending. Dobbs gives a few seconds to a spokesperson from ACORN who points out that three-quarters of subprime loans have had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act, but the point is lost in the blizzard of BS coming out of Dobbs' immigrant-hating, ignorance-spewing mouth.

When I worked for ACORN we spent more time and money and energy on blocking predatory lending than on anything else. Here's something I wrote about that work:

Flame-Broiled Shark: How Predatory Lending Victims Fought Back and Won

Published in "The Wealth Inequality Reader" by Dollars and Sense and United for a Fair Economy

If someone told you that a bunch of low-income people, most of them African-American or Latino, most of them women, most of them elderly, had been victimized by a predatory mortgage lender that stripped them of much of their equity or of their entire homes, you might not be surprised. But if I told you that these women and men had gotten together and after three years of work brought the nation's largest high-cost lender to its knees, forced it to sell out to a foreign company, and won back a half a billion dollars of what had been taken from them -- one of the largest consumer settlements ever -- you'd probably ask me what country this had happened in. Surely it couldn't have been in the United States of the Second Gilded Age, the land of unbridled corporate power and radical government activism on behalf of the rich and the greedy.

And yet it was. These victims of predatory lending identified the problem and named it "predatory lending" in the late 1990s, and their campaign to reform Household International (also known as Household Finance and as Beneficial) played out from 2001 to 2003, concluding with a settlement that includes a ban on badmouthing the company. That's part of why more people haven't heard about this. The families who fought back and defeated Household are barred from bragging about it or teaching the lessons they learned, because that would require recounting the damage that Household did to homes and neighborhoods. These families are members of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. I was ACORN's communications coordinator during much of the Household campaign but left before it ended. No one has asked me not to tell this story.

In low-income minority neighborhoods in the United States, what little wealth there is, is in home equity. Home equity makes up 74.9 percent of the net wealth for Hispanics in the bottom two income quintiles (0-40 percent), and 78.7 percent of the net wealth for African-Americans in the second income quintile (20-40 percent). There have been gains in minority home ownership over the past few decades, in part as a result of the work by community groups like ACORN and National People's Action to force banks to make loans in these communities. But the home ownership is fragile and not protected by additional savings. Lenders in the past decade have focused on stripping away equity, and community groups have been forced to focus on keeping out loans that are worse than no loans at all.

Most high-cost loans are refinance loans. Too often they are marketed aggressively and deceptively, including through live-checks in the mail that result in very high-cost loans that the lender will be only too happy to refinance into a new mortgage. Often these loans are made with excessive, sometimes variable, interest rates, outrageously high fees, and fees financed into the loans so that the borrower pays interest on them and often is not told about them. They are made with bogus products built in, on which the borrower also pays interest. Hidden balloon payments force repeated refinancings for additional fees each time. Mandatory arbitration clauses attempt to prevent borrowers from taking lenders to court. The practice of loaning more than the value of a home traps borrowers in loans they cannot refinance with a responsible lender. Consolidation of additional debts further decreases equity, placing the home at greater risk. Quiet omission of taxes and insurance from a mortgage that previously included those charges results in a crisis when the yearly bills arrive.

Predatory lenders turn the usual logic of lending upside down. They make their money by intentionally making loans that the borrowers will be unable to repay. They charge fees for each refinancing until finally seizing the house. Fannie Mae has estimated that as many as half of all borrowers in subprime (high-cost) loans could have qualified for a lower cost mortgage. High-cost loans are not just made to people with poor credit. They're often made, rather, to people who have poor banking services in their neighborhoods. After HSBC bought Household, it announced that 46 percent of Household's real estate-backed loans had been made to borrowers with 'A' credit. Household made no 'A' loans.

ACORN members don't take abuse of their neighborhoods lying down, and Household was a leading cause of the rows of vacant houses appearing in ACORN neighborhoods in the 1990s. ACORN launched a campaign to reform Household that included numerous strategies. One, an old ACORN stand-by, was direct action. Repeatedly, ACORN members in numerous cities around the country simultaneously protested in Household offices to demand reform. At the same time, ACORN was working to pass anti-predatory lending legislation in local and state governments and Congress. ACORN members made sure that in each case the victims testifying were victims of Household and that Household's abuses were highlighted. When ACORN released major reports on predatory lending, the examples included were always from Household.

ACORN also worked with the Coalition for Responsible Wealth to advance a shareholder resolution that would have tied Household's executives' compensation to ending its predatory lending. In 2001 Household held its shareholders meeting in an out-of-the-way suburb of Tampa, Florida. A crowd of ACORN members was there with shark suits and shark balloons to protest. The resolution won 5 percent. Over the next year, ACORN pressured state pension funds and other shareholders. Household held its 2002 meeting an hour and a half from the nearest airport in rural Kentucky. ACORN members made the trip by car from all over the country. The protest may have been the biggest thing the town of London, Ken., had seen in years. The resolution won 30 percent.

As a result of ACORN agitation, various local and state governments threatened to divest from Household. ACORN also put pressure on stores like Best Buy that used Household credit cards. At the same time, ACORN Housing Corporation was assisting many Household victims in either refinancing out of their Household loans or at least canceling some of the rip-off services built into their loans, such as credit insurance. And ACORN was getting the word out through local ethnic media to stay away from Household.

ACORN wrote up numerous accounts of Household predatory loans and took them to the attorney generals in state after state urging investigations. ACORN similarly pressured federal regulators to act. And ACORN assisted borrowers in filing a number of class-action suits against Household targeting those of its practices that were clearly illegal even under existing law. ACORN let Wall Street analysts know what Household stood to lose from these law suits, as well as from various reforms that Household periodically announced in its attempt to hold off the pressure from ACORN.

But ACORN members never let up. They protested again and again at Household offices and held press conferences in front of homes about to be lost to Household. They protested the secondary market that was putting up capital for these predatory loans. And they held a major protest at the trade group that lobbied in Washington for Household and its fellow sharks. Then, in the summer of 2002, ACORN members took the step that Household executives would bring up again and again in later negotiations. On a beautiful summer day in the unbelievably wealthy suburbs north of Chicago, victims of Household from around the country simultaneously poured out of busses by the hundreds and thousands onto the lawns of the board members and CEO of Household. They knocked on the doors and spoke to those who had hurt them from a distance. When the police made them leave, ACORN members plastered "Wanted" posters all over the neighborhood telling the board members' neighbors what crimes the Household executives were guilty of.

Through all of this, we worked the media. I kept a database of victims' stories and contact info and put them in touch with reporters whenever the reporters were willing to tell not just the victimization story but also the story of fighting back. We generated several hundred print articles and several hundred TV and radio stories about Household's predatory lending practices. We worked the small neighborhood papers, flyers in churches, posters on walls. We produced lengthy articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Forbes Magazine. We kept up an endless barrage in the trade press: the American Banker, National Mortgage News, etc. We maintained an enormous website about Household that no longer exists.

A handful of ACORN staff people with great expertise and unrelenting effort organized thousands of members to drive this campaign until Household agreed to pay victims $489 million through the 50 states attorneys general, and later agreed to pay millions more through ACORN, as well as to reform its practices.

This campaign was an example of what can be done if enough different angles are pursued at once and the company ripping you off is put on the defensive and constantly hit with the unexpected. And this campaign was a success by the one and only measure ACORN judges campaigns by: it increased the size and power of ACORN to effect future progressive change. This is good news for low-income neighborhoods, but bad news for Wells Fargo, the predatory lender who is next on ACORN's list.

David Swanson is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America and formerly Communications Coordinator at ACORN. The views expressed are his alone.

****

If Congress passes any bill this week it ought to include a comprehensive ban on predatory lending and a ban on state or federal preemption of local or state restrictions on predatory lending. Tell Congress at 202-224-3121.

Lou Dobbs is an idiot

Dobbs Tries To Blame Financial Crisis on ACORN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMFaYUwQEYc

MoveOn Calls Out Tom Brokaw For His False Fact Campaigning For McCain

MoveOn Calls Out Tom Brokaw For His False Fact Campaigning For McCain

from Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle

It feels good sometimes to be a muckraker against the corporate media.  The good people at MoveOn saw my post on Sunday on Tom Brokaw citing non-existent poll numbers as proof "in the interest of fairness" that more Americans thought McCain would be a better Commander in Chief and decided to ask their members to call out Brokaw for his de facto campaigning for McCain:

Sunday on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw moderated a debate between McCain strategist Steve Schmidt and Obama strategist David Axelrod on topics ranging from Iraq to the Wall Street bailout. At the end, Tom Brokaw did something strange. He opted to give himself the last word and told the audience:

In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

We checked, and the latest NBC poll actually has no question about Commander in Chief. We contacted NBC about this, and it turns out Brokaw was referring to a poll taken weeks ago–right after the Republican convention and well before Friday's big national security debate. And in each of NBC's last two polls, Americans chose Obama over McCain.

Can you email Tom Brokaw today? Let him know that this election is very close, and we need journalists to be responsible. Giving himself the last word in the debate, and citing an outdated poll number as if it was current, was a mistake. As a responsible journalist, he should apologize for both.

Here's where to contact him:
Tom Brokaw, Meet The Press feedback form: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/

Then, help us track our progress by reporting your comment here:
http://pol.moveon.org/call/?cp_id=821&tg=558

On a related note, a journalist from a well-reputed publication also saw my post and asked NBC to explain where Brokaw got his facts.  At this time, they've yet to respond.  Interesting that they responded to MoveOn so much more quickly than one of their own, isn't it?

UPDATE:  I love the hypocrisy of this statement by Brokaw on why he advocated pulling Olbermann off debate coverage: 

Brokaw tells Steinberg he "advocated" for a modification to the anchor duties of MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews during election nights. His reasoning came with praise for the Countdown host. "Keith is an articulate guy who writes well and doesn't make his arguments in a 'So's your old mother' kind of way," he said. "The mistake was to think he could fill both roles. The other mistake was to think he wouldn't be tempted to use the anchor position to engage in commentary. That's who he is." 

Et tu, Brute?

"The failure of a proposed Wall Street bailout Monday underscored that America is suffering not just from a financial crisis, but also from a crisis of political leadership"

t r u t h o u t | Bailout Vote Underscores US Leadership Crisis

Columbus, Ohio - The failure of a proposed Wall Street bailout Monday underscored that America is suffering not just from a financial crisis, but also from a crisis of political leadership.

    "This has been a bad day for Washington and a bad day for American politics," said Harold Ford, a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee. "What happened today was an embarrassment for the country."

    None of the country's political leaders, Republican or Democrat, has proved able to navigate the treacherous politics of the moment and secure an agreement to bail out the country's financial system and restore confidence in the marketplace.

    President Bush is a largely discredited lame duck. He's not trusted by his own party and was unable to bend the Congress to his will even as he warned of a catastrophe if lawmakers rebelled.

    Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his party's congressional leaders control the Congress and agreed with Bush's urgency, but they couldn't deliver a majority, either.

    Still, they came closer than did Republican John McCain and his party's leaders in the House of Representatives, who delivered only 30 percent of the GOP votes for the compromise, while Democrats delivered some 60 percent of their members.

    Leaders of both parties vowed to seek bipartisan cooperation toward drafting a compromise that could pass, but with their own elections five weeks away, they couldn't stop themselves from partisan attacks, which make the goal of bipartisan agreement even more difficult to reach.

    Nowhere is the crisis more evident than it is in the White House.

    Bush limps toward the end of his second term with among the lowest job-approval ratings in history - a recent Gallup poll found just 27 percent approving and 69 percent disapproving.

    Worse, he's lost credibility in Congress, notably for leading the country into war in Iraq on false claims that Iraq had ties to al Qaida and weapons of mass destruction. When he dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to lobby House Republicans to support the Wall Street bailout, the closed-door session grew heated, and some members reportedly reminded Cheney that they'd trusted him on Iraq.

    Bush also is paying a price for years of strong-arming Congress, particularly when he counted on then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to "hammer" proposals such as a costly expansion of Medicare past skeptical conservatives.

    "There's no question the rank-and-file are carrying some grudges from the past," said Dan Schnur, the director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

    Democrats, who won control of both the House and Senate in 2006, also couldn't deliver. Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's, at around 18 percent.

    When Obama, the party's new leader, learned of the plan's rejection, he spoke about Washington almost as if he weren't a member of Congress.

    "Democrats and Republicans in Washington have a responsibility to make sure that an emergency rescue package is put forward that can at least stop the immediate problems we have so we can begin to plan for the future," he said.

    He didn't say how he might lead or what role he'd play. "Step up to the plate," he told Congress. "Get it done."

    His party's leaders in Congress also threw up their hands, as House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and others bragged that they'd delivered a majority of the Democratic votes, even though that wasn't enough.

    "The Democratic side more than lived up to its side of the bargain," Pelosi said, lauding fellow Democratic leaders for "getting 60 percent of the House Democrats to support a bill which isn't our bill."

    Republican leaders in Congress were powerless as well to deliver the votes they'd promised, saying that they lost about 12 committed votes when some of their members got mad at Pelosi.

    "We could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," said House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

    McCain appeared as impotent as everyone else. He'd suspended his campaign briefly last week to rally support for the plan, and spent part of Saturday lobbying House Republicans by phone, but he couldn't deliver, either.

This is truly sad: Violations Reported at 94 Percent of Nursing Homes

t r u t h o u t | Violations Reported at 94 Percent of Nursing Homes

 Washington - More than 90 percent of nursing homes were cited for violations of federal health and safety standards last year, and for-profit homes were more likely to have problems than other types of nursing homes, federal investigators say in a report issued on Monday.

    About 17 percent of nursing homes had deficiencies that caused "actual harm or immediate jeopardy" to patients, said the report, by Daniel R. Levinson, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Problems included infected bedsores, medication mix-ups, poor nutrition, and abuse and neglect of patients.

    Inspectors received 37,150 complaints about conditions in nursing homes last year, and they substantiated 39 percent of them, the report said. About one-fifth of the complaints verified by federal and state authorities involved the abuse or neglect of patients.

    About two-thirds of nursing homes are owned by for-profit companies, while 27 percent are owned by nonprofit organizations and 6 percent by government entities, the report said.

    The inspector general said 94 percent of for-profit nursing homes were cited for deficiencies last year, compared with 88 percent of nonprofit homes and 91 percent of government homes.

    "For-profit nursing homes had a higher average number of deficiencies than the other types of nursing homes," Mr. Levinson said. "In 2007, for-profit nursing homes averaged 7.6 deficiencies per home, while not-for-profit and government homes averaged 5.7 and 6.3, respectively."

    On Monday, Mr. Levinson issued a compliance guide for nursing homes that says some homes "have systematically failed to provide staff in sufficient numbers and with appropriate clinical expertise to serve their residents."

    Researchers have found that people receive better care at homes with a higher ratio of nursing staff members to patients.

    The inspector general said he had found some cases in which nursing homes billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that "were not provided, or were so wholly deficient that they amounted to no care at all."

    Bruce A. Yarwood, president of the American Health Care Association, a trade group, said: "We know we have to do a better job. We have been doing a better job, in treating pressure sores, managing pain and reducing the use of physical restraints."

    Mr. Yarwood said that the inspection system was broken. "It does not reliably measure quality," he said. "It does not create any positive incentives."

    More than 1.5 million people live in the nation's 15,000 nursing homes. The homes are typically inspected once a year and must meet federal standards as a condition of participating in Medicaid and Medicare, which cover more than two-thirds of their residents, at a cost of more than $75 billion a year.

    Deficiency rates varied widely among states. The proportion of nursing homes cited for deficiencies ranged from 76 percent in Rhode Island to 100 percent in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

    The average number of deficiencies also varied, from 2.5 deficiencies per nursing home in Rhode Island to 13.3 per home in Delaware.

    Mr. Yarwood said: "Inspectors are subjective and inconsistent. They interpret federal standards in different ways."

    In December, the Bush administration plans to begin using a five-star system to describe the overall quality of care. The best homes will get five stars. The rankings will be published on a federal Web site.

    Medicare pays a fixed daily amount for each nursing home resident, with higher payments for patients who are more severely ill. Mr. Levinson said some nursing homes had improperly classified patients or overstated the severity of their illnesses so the homes could claim larger Medicare payments.

"What a great idea! Let’s convince lenders to lend money based on underlying value that isn’t there."

Scholars and Rogues » The latest GOP idea for the economy? LIE some more!

Republican Representative Candice Miller of Michigan has a truly marvelous idea for getting the economy back on track:  lie through your teeth.  I suppose this shouldn't be surprising, since it seems to be the first option for Republican politicians everywhere.

So, let me explain what she wants to do.  Currently, accounting rules require banks to value assets (like mortgage-backed loans) at their current market value.  Miller wants to allow banks to … well … value them differently … somehow.  I mean, it's not what you can actually sell those assets for, it's what you can … ahm … pretend you can sell them for!  If you can pretend those assets are worth more than they are,  you can make the bank look as though it's more solvent than it is.  Then, if the other lenders are butt stupid, they'll lend money to you based on what you say about your bank's solvency instead of what the situation really is.

What a great idea!  Let's convince lenders to lend money based on underlying value that isn't there.

Oh, hey, haven't we done that already????

So basically she is saying to lie...and she is a Republican

Michigan Rep. Miller demands that certain accounting practices be curtailed | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Candice Miller is calling for the elimination or suspension of some current accounting practices as a way to improve the situation on Wall Street.

One of nine Michigan members of Congress who voted against a $700-billion rescue plan for financial institutions on Monday, Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, said she did so because the White House needs to "stop pushing" lawmakers to act quickly out of fear and that her constituents want Congress "to take deliberate action that will actually solve the challenges we face in our economy."

"There are common sense solutions to this problem that will have far less impact on the American taxpayer," she said.

One of those, she said, is the elimination or suspension of so-called mark-to-market accounting practices in relation to mortgage-backed securities. Mark-to-market accounting rules require assets to be valued at their current market value on a company's books – and many believe mortgage-backed securities' values have actually fallen below their inherent worth.

That is pressuring financial institutions which have to keep certain level of assets on hand and are having a hard time finding lenders as those securities continue to lose value. Suspending mark-to-market could allow those institutions to re-value those assets, improving their books and potentially giving other lenders confidence to loan those institutions more money.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for one, has been advocating changing the mark-to-market rules as a way to improve the market. But some critics argue the mortgage-backed securities are being appropriately valued and lifting mark-to-market would just hide their true worth from investors.

Meanwhile, it also appeared that the tide of constituent calls and emails into some legislators' offices was turning.

For instance, most of the people calling Rep. Thad McCotter's office were overwhelmingly opposed to the bailout leading up to Monday's vote. In the wake of that vote, the Livonia Republican is getting calls about three-to-one against.

On the other side of the state, calls and emails to Rep. Pete Hoekstra were about 95% opposed prior to the vote. Today, contacts to the Holland Republican's office are running about half and half.

"There are signs of a slow down in the rate of decline across the metro areas, but no evidence of a bottom"

The Mess That Greenspan Made: Case-Shiller home prices

Case-Shiller home prices

The July report(.pdf) on the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows the 10-City and 20-City Composite Home Price Indices at new record annual declines of 17.5 percent and 16.3 percent respectively. Price indices for all 20 cities are shown in the chart below.
David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's, noted:

There are signs of a slow down in the rate of decline across the metro areas, but no evidence of a bottom. Little positive news can be found when cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix report annual declines as large as -29.9% and -29.3%, respectively, and all 20 cities are still in negative territory on a year-over-year basis. The Sunbelt continues to be the story, with the seven cities that basically represent that area reporting annual declines roughly between 20 and 30%. While some cities did show some marginal improvement over last month's data, there is still very little evidence of any particular region experiencing an absolute turnaround.

It looks like Las Vegas will be the first to crack the "minus 30 percent" mark, but Phoenix may give it a run for its money. Miami and Los Angeles both have an outside shot, currently with annual price declines of 28.2 percent and 26.2 percent, respectively.

Here's something to get you White Sox fans ready....bring on the Twinks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkMJLJxE_E

There's a pretty nasty e. coli outbreak going on in Michigan and Illinois

There's a pretty nasty e. coli outbreak going ... [Contamination]

from Consumerist by Meg Marco

There's a pretty nasty e. coli outbreak going on in Michigan and Illinois — apparently "industrial" sized bags of lettuce from a Michigan company called "Aunt Mids" have been contaminated. Among those affected were students at Michigan State and the University of Michigan and some inmates at Lenawee County Jail. [Michigan Department Of Community Health & Progressive Grocer] (Thanks, Alex!)

"Flowing Data has a map that shows the gradual spread of Wal-Mart stores across the country"

The Inexorable Spread of Wal-Mart Across America

from Pensito Review by Buck

Take your mind off the election for a minute and consider something truly depressing. A site called Flowing Data has a map that shows the gradual spread of Wal-Mart stores across the country. The animation begins slowly in 1964, but by the time it reaches the late '80s and early '90s … well, let's just say that after you watch this, you'll understand why John Zogby includes a "Do you shop at Wal-Mart" question in each of his surveys.

"In times of unrest, it’s amazing how quickly some people will go to finding some way to scapegoat the least powerful among us" and Lou Dobbs is a bloated asshole fat cat who should eat shit.

Lou Dobbs Blames Financial Crisis On Left Wing Groups Like ACORN and the CRA

from Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle

 

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heather)

In times of unrest, it's amazing how quickly some people will go to finding some way to scapegoat the least powerful among us.   One of the themes reverberating around right wing world is that ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act are to blame for the sub-prime mess, as this segment on Lou Dobbs echoes here.

It goes back to something known as the Community Reinvestment Act that passed in 1977. The law ordered banks to make loans to low and moderate income people. The Consumer Rights League says ACORN stepped in and used that law to pressure banks to lend to sub prime borrowers, even those who couldn't demonstrate the capability to pay back the loan.

Catch all the barely hidden subtext?  It's all these "community organizers" (hmmm….remind me, whose resume has been scoffed at for being a community organizer?) FORCING these poor, hapless banks to lend money to these shiftless low and medium income people, and worse, illegal aliens  (Dobbs' personal scapegoat for all things wrong with America).  How dare these leftist grassroots groups (tied to the Democratic Party, naturally) cause the ruin of the American financial system with their demands?

It's easy to see how this would appeal to right wingers like Dobbs, Malkin and Savage .  Too bad it's not true: 

The Community Reinvestment Act caused financial institutions to lend to people who weren't credit worthy. This is crap. The CRA was signed into law in 1977 — over 20 years before the current crisis. The second problem with this theory is the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts. Most of the mortgage lending during the last boom came from — mortgage lenders who aren't regulated by CRA. I explained this all in more detail here.

The CRA tried to force banks to keep from redlining neighborhoods to keep minorities out…something I'm sure gets right wingers up in arms. And the charge that ACORN was to personally benefit from the bailout?  Lies.  It was stricken from the bill the Republicans sabotaged yesterday, as this side-by-side comparison of the various bills shows. Admittedly, ACORN has its problems (though related to voter registration and not home mortgages), but as Rep. Keith Ellison says:

The president told the nation that the crisis is due to "the irresponsible actions of some jeopardizing the financial security of all." There are even lies circulating that blame minorities for the crisis through the Community Reinvestment Act. This is factually wrong — and repugnantly bigoted. In fact, the root cause of the failures today is the ideological rigidity of the Bush administration, and its conservative friends in Congress and on Wall Street who oppose regulation, oversight and corporate accountability. For eight long years their mantra has been "regulation and oversight is bad" and "the free market is good."

But now, when their policies have failed and the chickens have come home to roost, taxpayers are asked to help them out. We have little choice. We cannot let Wall Street fail, because if we do, Main Street fails as well.

Transcripts below the fold

Well one of the groups at the center of this financial crisis is a so-called community activist group known as ACORN. In point of fact, ACORN is a left wing special interest group now under investigation for embezzlement, voter fraud and providing mortgages to illegal aliens among other things.

The group ACORN lobbied Congress for years to allow more of those risky mortgages that in part led to this crisis. And now, ACORN stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars from a government bailout of Wall Street. Lisa Sylvester has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: (INAUDIBLE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now rallied in front of the Miami Federal Reserve Bank. The group is pointing fingers at Wall Street for causing the financial meltdown. But critics say this community activist group shares the blame.

TOM DILORENZO, ECONOMICS PROF., LOYOLA COLLEGE: They've always lobbied Congress to do everything they could to make more and more or force banks to make more and more loans to low and moderate income people, which is a very noble-sounding goal. But unfortunately they have contributed to the financial ruination of thousands of low income families.

SYLVESTER: It goes back to something known as the Community Reinvestment Act that passed in 1977. The law ordered banks to make loans to low and moderate income people. The Consumer Rights League says ACORN stepped in and used that law to pressure banks to lend to sub prime borrowers, even those who couldn't demonstrate the capability to pay back the loan.

JAMES TERRY, CONSUMER RIGHTS LEAGUE: Back in the early '90s they would stage protests at banks that, you know, they sued them for red lining. They (INAUDIBLE) engaged them in legal action.

SYLVESTER: Enter deregulation in the '90's then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began purchasing these mortgages and selling them to private investors. And the sub prime market took off. Former Clinton administration official Franklin Raines, who ran Fannie Mae amassed $90 million in six year he ran Fannie. Homeownership was up which pleased groups like ACORN and Wall Street made a ton of money until home prices started falling. But ACORN says it's not to blame. It's all about greed.

AUSTIN KING, ACORN: When you look at all the bad sub prime loans that were made in the last five years, three out of four of them were made by institutions that are not governed by the CRA, so there's no way you can blame the CRA on 75 percent of the sub prime loans that were made in the last five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: And ACORN which calls itself the nation's largest grassroots organization of low and moderate income families, has come under fire for other issues. At least five states have opened investigations into its voter registration drive. And ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud. Still, this group, as you mentioned, stood to benefit from the bailout deal and part of any profit realized from the sale of troubled assets were to go into a fund and that money would be distributed to low income housing advocacy groups including ACORN, Lou.

DOBBS: Now think about this, in the midst of this — you know everyone talking about a clean bill and the Democratic leadership, let's be clear. This is a straightforward deal for ACORN and other groups, left wing groups, set up by the Democratic leadership of Congress. They're not interested in the bailout per se. They want to spread this out and many people believe that this bailout in part is dear to the Democratic leadership because they want to advance a social agenda here as much as much as an economic bailout of Wall Street.

SYLVESTER: Yeah, Lou, in fact what they did is in prior legislation they actually created these two funds. And now essentially what thy were going to do is try to use this bailout to fund and put money in those funds in order to benefit groups like ACORN and in order to advance some other causes as you mentioned including their voter registration drive, Lou.

DOBBS: It's — this is pitiful in the fact that, of course, this Congress is fully supportive of this nonsense is all the more disgusting, so voters right now, all of us as citizens have a lot to be disgusted with on Capitol Hill. Thank you very much, Lisa — Lisa Sylvester reporting.

Beanie baby chief buys what will be the highest residential unit in the world

Beanie Baby Chief A-Spires To The Top

from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

Ty Warner, the man in charge of the Beanie Baby empire, has bought the two-story, 10,000 square foot penthouse that will sit atop the Chicago Spire, giving him a 360-degree view of the city; it will be the highest residential unit IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. While the asking was price was $40 million, it's not immediately known what Warner shelled out for his new digs. That's a hell of a lot of storage space for those damn toys. We wonder if he'll spend his time sitting on his deck, tossing random beanie babies off the side at unsuspecting pedestrians below. As for the Spire itself, more than 30 percent of the units have been sold and is still on schedule to be completed in 2012.

Artist's rendering of Spire taken from the Spire website

It started over beer...

Fans Accused Of Beating Security Guard At Jags Game - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Three Jaguars fans were arrested at Sunday's home game after police said the men attacked a security guard.The altercation began just an hour and a half after kickoff in the Sky Terrance section of the stadium just above the Bud Zone after a security guard told one man he could not buy any more beer.Antonio Martinez, James Cotton and Shaun Perkins were arrested and taken to jail.

fantasy football player arrested for threatening to kill roommate

Upset Punta Gorda fantasy football player arrested for threatening to kill roommate : Nfl : Naples Daily News

PUNTA GORDA — A 35-year-old man was arrested Monday morning after he allegedly became upset over points in his Fantasy Football league and threatened to kill his roommate.

According to a report from the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, Chester Marcial "Chet" Ward, of the 4500 block of Duncan Road in Punta Gorda, allegedly sliced pages in the book his roommate was reading before holding a knife to his roommate's neck and threatening to kill him.

The report stated the roommate, who "was in fear of his life," went to a neighbor's home and called 911.

When deputies arrived, Ward admitted to being upset over points from his fantasy football league and that he asked his roommate to move out of the residence. Because the roommate was ignoring him, Ward told the deputies that he pulled out his knife and cut the book as a joke.

While Ward said he never threatened to kill his roommate, authorities arrested him on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The report stated Ward resisted arrest and even struck an officer's hands before running across Duncan Road to escape arrest. As he ran away from the residence, Ward was Tasered by another deputy, and was then handcuffed.

Additional charges of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence were added to Ward's arrest. He is being held without bond at the Charlotte County Jail.

State employee: Gov. Palin urged state employee to deny benefits claim to Palin's ex brother in law despite claim being legitimate

Palin Implicated By Witness in 'Troopergate' Probe

An Alaska woman who owns a company that processes workers' compensation claims in the state has told an independent investigator that she was urged by the office of Gov. Sarah Palin to deny a benefits claim for Palin's ex brother-in-law, a state trooper who was involved in an ugly divorce and child custody dispute with Palin's sister, despite evidence that the claim appeared to be legitimate, according to state officials who were briefed about the conversation.

Murlene Wilkes, the proprietor of Harbor Adjusting Services in Anchorage, had originally denied that she was pressured by Gov. Palin's office to deny state trooper Mike Wooten's claim for workers compensation benefits.

But Wilkes changed her story two weeks ago when she was subpoenaed by Steven Branchflower, the former federal prosecutor who was appointed in July to probe allegations Gov. Palin, Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, abused her office by abruptly ousting Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, state officials knowledgeable about her conversation with Branchflower said.

Monegan has said he felt pressured by Gov. Palin, her husband, Todd, and several of her aides to fire Wooten. Branchflower's investigation centers on whether Palin fired Monegan because he refused to fire Wooten.

Palin initially welcomed the investigation, which was approved unanimously in July by the state's Legislative Council, which has a Republican majority. However, after McCain picked Palin in late August to be his vice presidential running mate, national and state Republicans began suggesting that the investigation was a partisan witch-hunt against Palin.

Despite pressure from the McCain-Palin campaign – and the refusal of Todd Palin and some Palin aides to honor subpoenas seeking their depositions – senior Alaskan legislators said Branchflower still intended to finish his report on the controversy by Oct. 10.

The workers' compensation issue is likely to be a major focus of Branchflower's report, according to state officials knowledgeable about the course of the investigation.

"So much for the myth of the ravening liberal media elite bent of the destruction of plucky Sarah Palin."

Kurtz: Journalists Privately Admit to Censoring Palin Coverage | PEEK | AlterNet

WaPo media critic Howie Kurtz says some journalists admit they're self-censoring their coverage of Republican vice presidential nominee's flailing incompetence, lest they be perceived as "piling on":

While some journalists say privately they are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they're piling on, pundits on the right are jumping ship. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says Palin "just seems out of her league." National Review Editor Rich Lowry called her performance "dreadful." Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher described the interview as a "train wreck." Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker urged Palin to quit the race, saying: "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

The interview is drawing extraordinary attention because of the McCain campaign's calculated decision to shield Palin from reporters. No vice-presidential nominee in modern history has been this inaccessible to the media, reinforcing the perception that she can't hit major-league pitching. When the networks balked at recording Palin's photo ops with foreign leaders at the U.N. last week unless journalists were allowed in -- and a CNN producer was granted access for all of 29 seconds -- the no-press dictum degenerated into farce. [WaPo]

So much for the myth of the ravening liberal media elite bent of the destruction of plucky Sarah Palin.

Happily, your faithful correspondent has no compunctions about covering Sarah Palin's faults and foibles. Check out my new piece in AlterNet on the Wasilla rape kit saga.

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.

© 2008 Firedoglake All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.firedoglake.com//100810/

bombshell: "Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several . . . U.S. attorneys."

Eugene Robinson - Politics Over Prosecutors - washingtonpost.com

With Wall Street's fate hanging in the balance, and with Sarah Palin's incoherence sparking interest in Thursday's vice presidential debate, it was easy to overlook a major story that got less attention than it deserved yesterday. The Justice Department released a nearly 400-page report with this jaw-dropping bottom line:

"Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several . . . U.S. attorneys."

Ad's were bought by the Republicans in anticipation of the bailout passing that condemned the bill BEFORE the package failed

They planned on running ads condemning Obama's sending plan and any Democrats that voted for the bill. They just did not anticipate the bill's failure by their own party. McCain wants the plan to go through.

Ben Smith's Blog: RNC ad, was cut, sent out before package failed - Politico.com

The Republican National Committee's new advertisement critical of the the Wall Street "bailout" was produced and sent to television stations in key states before the package failed, officials at two stations said.

"Wall Street Squanders our money. And Washington is forced to bail them out with -- you guessed it -- our money. Can it get any worse?" asks the ad's narrator, as the words "BAILOUT WITH OUR MONEY" cross the screen. (The answer: Obama's plans would make it worse.)

The ad, however, seems to assume that it can safely attack a successful plan. And the reason may be the timing: Though it started airing this morning, the spot was released to stations yesterday morning, ad executives at stations in Michigan and Pennsylvania said.

Kae Buck of WLNS in Lansing said her station received the at at 7:55 a.m. Monday.  Luanne Russell of Pittsburgh's WTAE said her station received it at 10:49 Monday morning.

The ad taps into deep resentment of the plan, but it comes at a time when the candidate it supports, John McCain, is urging its package, and asking that it not be referred to as a "bailout," but a "rescue."

Asked about the ad's relationship to the congressional legislation, the consultant heading up the RNC's expenditure, Brad Todd, responded in an email that Obama is its focus.

"This ad is about Barack Obama's spending plan," he said. "Last Friday in the debate he struggled to name even one spending proposal he would responsibly trim in light of the economic crisis and any potential bailout plan. Senator Obama clings to his big spending approach even today and our ad campaign will focus attention on that irresponsible position."

UPDATE: Asked if he has any regrets about an ad that seems to cut against McCain's message, Todd reiterated his criticism of the fact that Obama hasn't altered spending plans in light of the crisis, and added: "In all seriousness....what planet are you on?"

Why is Tom Brokaw covering the news and hosting the Presidential debate if he's in bed with the McCain campaign?!

Tom Brokaw Acting As NBC Liaison With McCain Campaign

Tuesday's New York Times features a profile of Tom Brokaw ahead of the October 7 presidential debate being hosted by the veteran NBC newsman. The Times reveals that Brokaw has "played a pivotal role out of public view, both within NBC and in its dealings with the campaign of John McCain in particular."

Mr. Brokaw said that over the summer he had "advocated" within the executive suite of NBC News to modify the anchor duties of the MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election night and on nights when there were presidential debates. Their expressions of strong political opinions from the MSNBC anchor desk has run counter to the more traditional role Mr. Brokaw played on "NBC Nightly News" for more than two decades. NBC said earlier this month that the two hosts would mostly relinquish their anchor duties to Mr. Gregory, while being present as analysts.

"Keith is an articulate guy who writes well and doesn't make his arguments in a 'So's your old mother' kind of way," Mr. Brokaw said. "The mistake was to think he could fill both roles. The other mistake was to think he wouldn't be tempted to use the anchor position to engage in commentary. That's who he is."

Brokaw said he has also conducted some "shuttle diplomacy in recent weeks" between NBC and the McCain campaign.

His mission, he said, was to assure the candidate's aides that -- despite some negative on-air commentary by Mr. Olbermann in particular -- Mr. McCain could still get a fair shake from NBC News. Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates -- until his name was invoked.

"One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, 'If it's an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won't go,' " Mr. Brokaw said. "My name came up, and they said, 'Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it's going to be Brokaw.' "

The article led off with the news that NBC is considering an ensemble of hosts for "Meet the Press," led by Chuck Todd:

[The network] is leaning toward an ensemble of hosts that would be led by Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, and include David Gregory, a correspondent and MSNBC anchor, according to a person who had been briefed on the proposal but was not authorized to comment, partly because the plans were not set. Like the turnover of anchors at all three network newscasts, the process of choosing a successor for Mr. Russert has been closely watched in media and political circles.

Read the full story here.

GOP Plans and Denials to Challenge Foreclosed Voters Examined

GOP Plans and Denials to Challenge Foreclosed Voters Examined | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet: "The ex-head of the Justice Department's Voting Section parses the GOP's recent threats to target voters who have lost homes to foreclosure."

The "lose your house, lose your vote" stories out of two battleground states, Michigan and Ohio continue to occupy space in the media and various blogs. The story just won't go away.

A federal lawsuit over the plan is pending in Michigan and the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the matter. As I reviewed the stories about this issue and have started to gather additional information about some questionable mailings to voters in other states, I was reminded of my days at the Justice Department when we would investigate claims of voter intimidation and voter suppression. Investigations of vote caging and vote suppression schemes usually started out with an admission of some specific practice, followed by a denial of any such plan, followed by a decision to retain legal counsel.

In both Michigan and Ohio, where the issue of challenging the right to vote of those who have received foreclosure notices has arisen, GOP officials did not initially deny there might be such a strategy. They either admitted it, or acknowledged that it might be part of a larger strategy aimed at preventing people from voting who may be ineligible. In other words, they didn't rule it out. Once the story came out, and public uproar ensued, the GOP officials issued vehement denials.

Let's look at some of how this story has developed -- it's easy to see why the story is now in its third week. It's also easy to see why those who mount legal challenges to plans to challenge voters must be prepared to engage in aggressive discovery if they are going to obtain the true facts.

To begin with, let's examine the context in which these two stories arose. As I detailed earlier in my primer on the history of vote caging, the GOP has a long history of engaging in voter suppression efforts. The Party has persisted with the practice because it has proven effective. The GOP schemes have also led to injunctions being imposed by the courts barring specific voter suppression efforts. If the claims of possible vote challenges to those who have received foreclosure notices were against a clean historical slate, then such claims might be a little hard to believe. But they aren't. They arise against a stain of GOP vote suppression extending over a number of decades. To be sure, claims have been made against Democratic Party operatives as well: allegations of paying voters ("walking around money"), voter impersonation, and non-citizen voting. The point of this piece is not to go through the accuracies or inaccuracies of these claims. Instead, this piece is about alleged efforts to suppress the rights of voters who have lost or are losing their homes in Michigan and Ohio, and the history of vote suppression by the GOP which is relevant to this story.

Michigan:

In Michigan, the original story by Eartha Melzer of the Michigan Messenger contained this passage:

"The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses,' party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week."

Following the release of the story, Mr. Carabelli "denied making the comment and called the report 'a non-story.'"

Note that he didn't deny talking with Ms. Melzer about the issue and instead tried to downplay the issue: "We were just having a conversation," said Carabelli. Mr. Carabelli then went even further, making the dubious claim that "[w]e have no plans to do anything[.]"

Carabelli's claim that the Michigan GOP had "no plans" to challenge voters at the polls was contradicted by a subsequent story in the Michigan Messenger: "Eric Doster, former counsel for the Michigan Republican Party and a lawyer who plans to represent GOP election challengers on Election Day" said that while he is "unfamiliar with plans to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters, he does expect party volunteers to challenge voters in other ways."

"When asked whether Michigan Republicans plan to create a challenge list based on returned direct mail, a practice known as "vote caging," Doster replied, 'I think so. I know this has been done in years past … both parties may be doing this.'"

One has to wonder why the Michigan GOP would retain its former counsel for the State Party to "represent GOP election challengers" if truly there were "no plans to do anything," as Mr. Carabelli had claimed.

The Michigan Messenger stood by Ms. Melzer's account that the Michigan GOP did indeed talk with her about using a foreclosure list to challenge voters, although the online publication did issue a clarification to a different part of the original story (re: Ohio). [1]

I was interviewed by Ms. Melzer for the initial story and I found her to be better informed than most reporters who call me seeking comment. She was very well versed in the subject of vote caging and when she asked me about the comments made by the Michigan GOP official, she seemed to be reading me her interview notes from her conversation with him. She asked for my reaction to the statements she read to me.

I readily admit that I was not a party to her original conversation with the Michigan GOP official. But given my interview with her and what appears to be some inconsistent statements from GOP officials (along with the history of vote caging and vote suppression by the GOP), I would be surprised, to say the least, if the plan of GOP officials in Michigan to challenge foreclosed voters was entirely fictitious. This is especially true as I investigate questionable mailings and tactics by the GOP in several other states (e.g., lifelong Democratic voters, Democratic precinct chairs, and newly registered voters are being sent "Do Not Forward" letters from the RNC in which it is incorrectly claimed the voter is either a Republican or has no party affiliation). Such letters suggest that a massive, possibly nationwide vote caging effort is underway.

Ohio:

As for Ohio, the initial story there suggested that an Ohio GOP official would not rule out the possibility that the party would challenge voters at the polls stating. Quoting the Franklin County GOP chairman, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Priesse "didn't rule out challenges before Nov. 4."

The latest story this week on possible efforts to challenge foreclosed voters came from the NY Times, and contained this passage: "Asked whether his party planned to use foreclosure information to compile challenge lists, Robert Bennett, a spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party, said the party did not discuss its election strategies in public." While this is not an admission that a plan exists to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters, it sure isn't a denial either.

Then, after the NY Times story was published, Mr. Bennett, like Mr. Carabelli in Michigan, issued a flat denial of any plan to challenge foreclosed voters: "Mr. Bennett sent an e-mail message adding that the Ohio Republican Party condemns 'any effort to challenge the eligibility of voters based on home foreclosures.'" Of course he did. The RNC, which as I noted above has used similar efforts to suppress voting rights in the past, wants to try and distance itself from any such despicable plan to challenge voters who either have lost their homes or may be on the verge of doing so.

If Mr. Bennett, during his initial contact with the NY Times, felt that any plan to compile a list of people whose homes had been foreclosed and then to challenge their right to vote was a practice to be condemned, why wouldn't he say so then? One explanation, of course, is that at that time he gave his interview, he didn't condemn the practice.

I've been wondering this: why would any political campaign or political party gather a list of names of those who have received a foreclosure notice. I can see gathering statistics on home foreclosure so that a candidate or political party can talk about the current housing and economic woes. But gathering the names and addresses of those who received a foreclosure notice? That can have but one purpose when done in the heat of a campaign: to challenge their right to vote.

One final thought on all this. Note Mr. Bennett's denial says that he condemns "any effort to challenge the eligibility of voters based on home foreclosures" (emphasis added). So if the Ohio GOP gathers the names of those who have received foreclosure notices and then sends each person on that list a 'Do Not Forward' piece of mail, and then challenges the right to vote of each person whose mail is returned as undeliverable, will Mr. Bennett still claim that he is not challenging the right to vote "based on home foreclosures"? Or will he claim that they are being challenged based on some other reason, such as an address change (rather than based on their name on a foreclosure list)?

The reason this story won't go away is that it is downright heartless and un-American for any political party to target people's right to vote because they have lost or are about to lose their home. I hope that the GOP had no such plans. I am not about to accept denials at face value, especially given the long and extensive history of the RNC's vote suppression efforts. I think we need to wait and see before we reach any final conclusions just yet.

[1] The Messenger put the clarification this way: Citing an article in the Columbus Dispatch, Melzer had reported in her story "Lose your house, lose your vote" that [Douglas] Priesse [chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party in Columbus, Ohio] had said he had not ruled out voter challenges due to "foreclosure related address issues." In his letter, Priesse said that he had not stated or implied any such thing.

While the ongoing dispute in Franklin County does concern voter challenges that are based, in part, on the eligibility of foreclosed homeowners, Priesse's comments to the Dispatch did not specifically address the issue of foreclosed homeowners.

We have revised the article accordingly.

© 2008 Campaign Legal Center Blog All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100864/

WTF: "Partisan contractors to count votes in Illinois, Colorado and Kentucky"

Partisan contractors to count votes in Illinois, Colorado and Kentucky | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet: "In Illinois, Colorado and Kentucky, contractors with partisan ties to the GOP will be counting the 2008vote."

A recent article details information about the pending subpeona of (GOP computer technician) Mike Connell in connection with a transfer of the Ohio election results server to a partisan server in 2004.

Black Box Voting has learned that similar results middlemen are already set up in 2008 for Illinois, Colorado and Kentucky. At this point citizens need to get on a search mission for every state to learn the routing of election results production and publication.

CORROBORATION OF THE INAPPROPRIATE OHIO CONNECTION

To learn more about the new discovery of results middlemen in Colorado, Illinois and Kentucky, scroll down.

First: more on the Ohio subpeona that is the subject of the article linked above. That article deals with allegations of an inappropriate middleman presence in the routing of 2004 Ohio election results. It does not provide evidence of tampering. The critical kernel in these stories is that Ohio election results in 2004 appear to have been routed to a partisan middleman operation before publication.

A screen shot on ePluribusMedia shows that the Ohio election site was -- oddly -- transferred to Smartech hosting shortly before the Nov. 2004 election, then transferred back to the state of Ohio. Even more damning, the election results were again temporarily transferred to the Smartech server shortly before the 2006 primary, then transferred back again afterwards. I have not been able to corroborate the source data for the screen grab at ePluribusMedia. The screen grab looks authentic. If authentic, grab your britches for the wild ride, because that subpoena will be fascinating.

The extreme partisanship and inappropriatness of Smartech as a server for anything to do with government elections is easy to corroborate. By paying a couple hundred bucks at WhoIs, you'll see that the Smartech site hosts dozens of sites that could not be more partisan: numerous sites for the Republican National Committee, many anti-Obama propaganda sites (but no anti-McCain sites and no Democratic sites); Republican candidate domains; over a dozen sites from various domains owned by "Prosperity for America", a partisan think tank that traces back to principals from an enormous privately held oil company Koch Industries.

Perhaps most concerning, Smartech also hosts the Voter Vault sites. Voter Vault is the powerful data mining Republican database which can tell you what kind of syrup you like on your french toast, who you vote for, every address you've ever lived, and which magazines are your favorite. Black Box Voting has obtained corporate documents showing that Voter Vault was set up by Bruce Boram, a political operative who got into hot water in Washington State for deceptive political activities.

MAN IN THE MIDDLE RESULTS CONTAMINATION

The Spoonamore affidavit referenced in the Ohio lawsuit deals only with theoretical issues. It should not be characterized as evidence that anything in particular occurred. It describes one man's concept of what could potentially occur, based on a set of assumptions that are not necessarily accurate.

This could steer away from what the results middleman may actually have been doing, which could be as simple as waylaying results for "first look". Private, secret "first looks" are exceptionally dangerous because it is common for subsets of results to be delayed for various reasons. Gaining "first look" enables operatives to contact those with custody of the delayed returns to relay details for precisely how much is needed to alter the outcome.

As Spoon postulates, electronic man in the middle attacks are possible under certain scenarios. He describes an attack which travels backwards down the pipeline to alter contents inside the voting system; a simpler method may be to just change the published report, letting locals with inside access make the necessary adjustments on their end.

RESULTS MIDDLEMEN IN COLORADO, KENTUCKY AND ILLINOIS

The Illinois middleman is connected with a partisan evangelical Baptist named David Davoust, who owns Robis, Inc. -- a firm that sells an electronic handheld device for pollworkers called "Ask Ed". Davoust controls the Internet domain names for a variety of churches, for DuPage County Elections chief Robert Saar's personal Web site, for the DuPage County Results site, and for the DuPage County Elections Board. But it doesn't stop there:

Davoust also controls a number of domain names for GBS, which stands for Governmental Business Services. This entity sells and programs Diebold/Premier voting systems and also produces and publishes results for 17 counties in Illinois. GBS purchased Fidlar Election Services, which in turn controls results for a total of 27 Illinois counties and one in Indiana. In 2006, it also listed four Iowa counties.

According to the GBS Web site, GBS was at one point acquired by Business Records Corp (BRC). What GBS doesn't mention: BRC was acquired by voting machine manufacturer Election Systems & Software in 1997. It's hard to understand why an apparent subsidiary of ES&S is producing Diebold election results and has a domain name owned by a guy named David Davoust, but we're trying.

According to the Illinois Secretary of State Web site, Fidlar's registered agent is Ernest Riggens, who joins the odd-name parade in which Diebold spokesperson Chris Riggall is marching, along with Riggins, Idaho which is the current residence of embezzler/voting machine programmer Jeffrey Dean.

KENTUCKY

In May 2007, Kentucky voting machine programmer Harp Enterprises, owned by Roger Baird, was involved in secret negotiations to purchase the firm that does many Kentucky county Web sites. Roger Baird, owner of Harp Enterprises, is found in corporate documents also controlling the LLC for this firm, indicating that the deal was consummated. Harp programs the voting machines, prints the ballots, and provides election day technicians; Baird's other firm provides web sites and election results for Kentucky counties.

COLORADO

The Colorado middleman is the most troubling situation. LEDS, LLC has obtained a contract giving access into every voting system in Colorado, and this firm, run by a Castle Rock man named John Paulsen, is now tasked with preparing the results for the Colorado secretary of state.

Problem is, Paulsen is involved in an ethics scandal right now which has just led to the resignation of the Colorado Elections Director. According to an article in the Rocky Mountain News, there's a little matter of a

half-million-dollar condo owned by Paulsen that state Elections Director Holly Lowder was living in, with no one being properly apprised of the residential arrangement as they did the deals.

Here is the contract on the LEDS LLC results middleman in Colorado:

I don't get the shivers much anymore, having looked at a lot of election situations that no American should have to see, but that contract made me feel like a bully was stealing all our lunch money.

NEXT STEPS

I will be sending out an alert about these middlemen, with links to more documents, as soon as we have the new training video for Protect the Count completed, which is scheduled to go live on YouTube on Wednesday.

"PROTECT THE COUNT" ACTIONS WILL HELP PROTECT RESULTS FROM CONTAMINATION BY MIDDLEMEN

If citizens DO the Poll Tape Posse action on the upcoming Protect the Count video (capturing video of the results on the voting machine results tapes BEFORE they leave the polling place, posting on YouTube) this will kick the legs out from under man in the middle attacks.

Black Box Voting has developed training and infrastructure to upload snapshots and contribute links to video of poll tapes, but we are NOT going to attempt to organize this.

I have been involved in many conference calls to collaborate with other organizations on this, but we should not assume that it's getting done -- EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO TAKE INTIATIVE ON PROTECT THE COUNT ACTIONS, which vary according to the counting system used in your location. Please get ready for action. Plan to be out in the field for 90 minutes on Election Night.

Stay tuned.

Bev Harris is the founder of BlackBoxVoting.org, one of the country's first public interest groups focused on the electronic vote count fraud and reform of the voting process.

© 2008 BlackBoxVoting.org All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100914/

Nation's Largest Election Protection Coalition Launches Hotline, Website

Nation's Largest Election Protection Coalition Launches Hotline, Website | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

With record voter turnout expected at the polls this November, the Election Protection coalition, which includes the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Rock the Vote say they have prepared the largest and most comprehensive election watch effort ever undertaken.

"We're confident that we can help millions of Americans overcome obstacles to make sure their votes count," said Jonah Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections, part of the Lawyers' Committee.

The primary tool will be a toll-free phone number, 1-866-OUR-VOTE (and its Spanish counterpart 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA), a nonpartisan confidential voter services hotline.

"All voters, this is your lifeline when it comes to information around voting. If you have any questions, any problems, any rumors … this is where you should turn," Barbara Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee executive director said. "You can't dial it enough."

The hotline's web component, 866ourvote.org (veyvota.org in Spanish) allows voters to share their polling place problems.

Organizers say legal experts are already answering calls and chronicling the problems that voters experience. In the past, reported issues have included problematic voting machines, intimidation, inadequate voter education and poor poll worker training.

Tyler Perry, a film director and actor, will also star in public service announcements that will air in parts of the country where voters have experienced challenges in recent elections, encouraging voters to call the hotline.

"We are [already] seeing some issues of just incompetence and very poor election administration" said Arrnwine.

Those include possible challenges of Michigan voters that are registered at foreclosed properties and notices that have been sent to New Jersey voters warning that they may not be properly registered.

Efrain Escobedo, National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) education fund voter engagement director, said he's concerned about the high number of legal residents who have applied for citizenship but have been caught in applications backlogs. He said NALEO is working with the Spanish network Univision to promote the hotline.

"We've heard it many times before that this is the election for young people and it has never been truer," said Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote. Some estimate that voter participation among those under 30 in this year's hotly contested primary doubled nationally compared with the 2000 primaries.

Rock the Vote is reaching out to young voters with a bus tour stopping in areas where young voters may be confused about the process. Recent stops included Virginia Tech University, where students were told that registering to vote where they attend school may cause them to lose scholarship money, and a stop at the Veterans' Affairs (VA) medical center in Washington, D.C. to register voters following the lifting of a ban on voter registration activities at VA hospitals.

"We want to make sure no one is confused so we're going out today to make sure young people can vote," Smith said. "We want to make sure that each of the voters we bring into the process … not just register but have their votes counted."

Jackie Johnson, National Congress of American Indians executive president said she expects the native vote to be the crucial in battleground states including Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico.

"Unfortunately with the increased attention comes the increased targeting of native voters," she said, noting that the validity of tribal ID cards has been challenged at polling places.

Native Vote, part of the Election Protection coalition is working in 20 states with high populations of American Indians with legal teams familiar with Indian country and native law to offer assistance. "We believe that this collective effort can make a real difference to empower traditionally disenfranchised native communities," she said.

Kat Zambon is a researcher at ElectionLine.org.

© 2008 electionline.org All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100859/

"If the shutdown goes as planned, it will seriously impair the ability of states to process new voter registrations before the November 4 election"

October Surprise: Goverment Computers To Go Offline During Voter Registration Peak | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet: "The Social Security Administration, whose databases verify new voter registrations, will be shut down in mid-October for three days for maintenance."

A recent alert by the Social Security Administration announces that the agency plans to shut down its databases for maintenance from October 11 through October 13. While this might not sound like an election issue, it turns out that this could significantly impede registration of first-time voters as well as the re-registration of eligible citizens.

Here's why. A 2002 federal law, the Help America Vote Act, requires all states to "coordinate" their voter registration databases with the Social Security database (and state motor vehicle databases) for the purpose of processing new voter registration forms. For the millions of voters who do not have current driver's licenses and register using the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, state election officials are required to try to match their voter registration information against Social Security records. But if the Social Security database is down—as it will be for four days—they won't be able to do that. Across the country, the processing of these voter registration forms will grind to a halt for four days.

Normally, a delay of three days would not have a major impact. But this delay is scheduled to take place three weeks before the November 4 election—a time when election officials in every state will be scampering to try to process the millions of new voter registrations they receive. With only 25 days to process millions of new voter registrations, while doing dozens of other things to prepare for what is shaping up to be the highest turnout election in decades, a loss of three days can spell disaster.

Even without this delay, there are already significant concerns that our overworked and under-resourced election officials will not be able to process all the new voter registrations this year in time for the election. Voter registration numbers are skyrocketing. Election officials are already feeling the strain, and it will only get worse. In every election, there is a huge spike in voter registrations in the period right before the voter registration deadline. Florida, for example, typically receives between 13 and 20% of its new voter registrations in the week before the deadline. In short, this shutdown is planned for the worst possible time, a time when every minute counts.

If the shutdown goes as planned, it will seriously impair the ability of states to process new voter registrations before the November 4 election. Who would this impact? New voters, as well as people who re-register because they have moved, who do not have state-issued driver's licenses or non-driver's IDs. Those citizens are disproportionately older, African-American, and low-income, studies show.

Fortunately, the solution to this potential disaster is easy: postpone the shutdown until after the election. And next time, look at the calendar before deciding when to turn off a database relied on by millions.

(Editor's note: On Tuesday, September 23rd, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and chairwoman of the Senate committee overseeing elections, wrote to the Social Security Administration, asking the agency to defer its database maintenance until after the November election.)

Wendy Weiser directs the Brennan Center's work on voting rights and elections. During the run-up to the 2004 and 2006 elections, she masterminded litigation and advocacy efforts that kept hundreds of thousands of voters from being disenfranchised.

© 2008 Brennan Center for Justice All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100392/

GOP Issues Absurd Attack on Voter Registration Group

GOP Issues Absurd Attack on Voter Registration Group | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

The Republican Party is increasingly attacking voter registration groups that are perceived by the GOP as enfranchising likely Democratic voters, calling one of those groups "a quasi-criminal" organization because two voter registration applications in a rural Florida county were discovered to be problematic.

The two questionable voter registration applications found in Seminole County, Florida, were submitted by ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has registered more than 1.15 million voters in two dozens states in 2008. ACORN is the nation's largest non-profit voter registration organization.

In a Wednesday conference call, Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross called ACORN a "quasi-criminal" organization that was trying to create chaos with voting. He said it was "disturbing" that the group has links to the Obama campaign, saying the Democratic nominee worked with ACORN more than a decade ago.

The RNC teleconference came two days after the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign held a similar press conference call with former Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) and former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) that discussed "issues of voter fraud, state specific voter fraud accusations, and the McCain-Palin 2008 Honest and Open Election Committee."

"The big picture is this is a Republican and McCain strategy to go after voter groups," said Brian Kettenring, head organizer of Florida ACORN, who said he has spent the past several days dealing with members of the media who are reacting to the GOP charges. He noted that the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections, Mike Ertel, has said that only two voter applications out of thousands submitted in 2008 are questionable and that the county's process to review these forms is working.

In Florida, where ACORN has gathered 135,000 new voter registrations this year, Kettenring said one of the registrations in question appeared to be filled out by a young woman for a friend. In the second case, a man's voter registration form appeared to be incomplete. Typically, these errors would prompt local officials to reject the forms.

"What's going on here is a right-wing radio station called the supervisor trying to drum up a story," Kettenring said.

The increased Republican attacks on voter registration groups comes as many states across the country are approaching to the close of voter registration for the November election. In Florida, for example, registration closes on Monday, October 6th.

ACORN has been a perennial target for the GOP, especially as Election Day approaches. In past elections, the organization, which hires people to register voters and works in low-income communities, has had problems with a handful of erroneous registration forms in some states. In the past, ACORN alerted federal authorities if it discovered problems such as fabricated voter identities. The reaction to those isolated instances by the Bush Administration has been to pressure U.S. Attorneys to find and prosecute these cases.

In December 2006, the administration fired a number of U.S. attorneys who failed to bring these political prosecutions. While charges of Democratic voter fraud were seen as overblown and dismissed -- because the Justice Department could not bring more than two dozen cases -- the same partisan accusations and rhetoric is now appearing as the 2008 presidential campaign builds to a close.

Kettenring said the attack on ACORN is covering up the a broader effort by the GOP to disenfranchise Florida voters. Most notably, the Republican Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, recently has said he will be enforcing a law where voter applications will be rejected if the spelling of names does not match other state databases.

Voting advocates like Hettenring have said that data-entry errors by county employees -- not voters -- has led to thousands of Haitian-Americans and members of other minority groups losing their right to vote in the past two years. Under Florida law, the burden to correct these kinds of errors lies with voters, not election officials.

ACORN officials said it was ironic, but predictable, that the GOP would accuse ACORN of voter fraud over isolated incidents, such as two questionable voter applications, while promoting state laws and bureaucratic policies that have disenfranchised 1000s of voters over the same issue: improperly filled-out forms.

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at AlterNet.org and author of Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting (AlterNet Books, 2008).

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100214/

Fighting for the Rights of Voters Behind Bars

Fighting for the Rights of Voters Behind Bars | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

A coalition of concerned citizens in Alabama is shaking up the GOP with their goal of registering voters in the most unlikely of places -- state prisons. A voter registration drive led last week by Rev. Kenny Glasgow, began registering prisoners to vote, a right guaranteed under Alabama's State Constitution, so they could cast absentee ballots.

The drive was originally embraced by Richard Allen, the commissioner of corrections in Alabama, but it was stopped when he received a letter on Thursday from the Alabama Republican Party opposing the drive. Its chairman, Mike Hubbard, told Mr. Allen that the party supports voter registration but not for prisoners, citing a need for safeguards against possible voter fraud.

Rev. Glasgow challenged this statement and said, "Voter registration drives are an essential part of our democracy. This action by the GOP and the Department of Corrections smacks of voter intimidation. Our focus isn't politics, its restoration. We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people in prison and ministering to them. The chairman of the Republican Party and the chairman of the Democratic Party can go into prisons with us and monitor the registration process to make sure it's nonpartisan, if that's a concern."

In Alabama, nearly 250,000 people have been stripped of their right to vote due to a felony conviction. But, in a 2006 court ruling which was the result of a lawsuit by Ryan Haygood of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, a judge found that only those persons convicted of felonies of "moral turpitude" lose their right to vote. The judge found that certain felonies -- such as drug possession -- do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude and, therefore, individuals convicted of those crimes do not lose their voting rights, even during incarceration.

Rev. Glasgow's organization, Alabama-based The Ordinary People's Society (TOPS) and their national partner, the Drug Policy Alliance, estimate that more than 50,000 people convicted in Alabama of felonies falling outside the "moral turpitude" definition have been wrongly denied their right to vote, or anyway believe they lost that right due to a felony conviction.

While drug use is proportionally equal across all racial lines, African Americans are incarcerated for drug crimes at much higher rates than whites. Blacks make up only 26 percent of Alabama's population but are nearly 60 percent of the prison population. And, for every white person in an Alabama jail, there are about four black people.

"We've got to start restoring people's lives by providing treatment, by restoring the right to vote," said Reverend Kenneth Glasgow, TOPS executive director and state coordinator of their New Bottom Line campaign. "When a person gets a felony conviction, they can lose more than their voting rights; they can lose public assistance, public housing and financial aid for school. The drug war has become a war on people and we now spend more on incarceration than on treatment. Why do we spend more on producing criminals than producing citizens? We need a new bottom line."

The right to vote is an important part of the rehabilitation process and should be given to those who have paid their debt to society. An estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions. A few years ago, I was one of those Americans. I was on parole and could not vote after serving 12 years of a 15-to-life sentence for a nonviolent drug crime under New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. After my release, I felt the pain of felony disenfranchisement since it seemed I was being further punished for my crime. I was elated when, after waiting for five years, I got off parole and was able to cast my first vote. I felt I was fully welcomed back by society as a citizen.

"Alabama state law makes it clear that people incarcerated for simple drug possession never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated," said Glasgow. "The GOP and the Alabama Department of Corrections cannot decide on their own which constituencies are going to have access to the vote, and which will be barred from it. We live in a democracy, after all."

Anthony Papa, author of 15 To Life: How I Painted My Way To Freedom, is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance.

© 2008 Drug Policy Alliance All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/99779/

"...what makes the bailout of the fat tomcats so galling is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder have lost ground during the last 30 years, with very few seeming to notice or care"

Wall Street Takes Welfare It Begrudges to Ordinary Americans | Reproductive Justice and Gender | AlterNet

Today we sit and watch as the high-rolling gamblers and critics of "big government" take welfare. These are many of the same people who thought it was just fine to deprive millions of women of critical resources and let them fend for themselves.

Even before the catastrophic news out of Wall Street in recent days, women have been worried about their economic security.

Last March a Gallup poll found that in the past two years more women than men said that they worry about the economy (64 percent versus 57 percent). The same holds for health care, crime, the environment, drug use, unemployment, hunger and homelessness.

More men are employed by Wall Street and more men have money invested there. That means the male anxiety meter is probably much higher now that they risk losing their jobs, pensions, portfolios and homes. But women's worries have probably shot up even more.

Women are likely to lead in the economic-anxiety gap because distressing economic events fall harder on people with less. "I don't play the stock market, but it does affect us. It affects me personally. It affects the little guy," a female dispatch supervisor of a limo company that serves investment bank employees recently told the New York Times.

The same holds for all the secretaries and housekeepers who keep investment houses clean and running.

Decades of Lost Ground

But what makes the bailout of the fat tomcats so galling is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder have lost ground during the last 30 years, with very few seeming to notice or care.

From F.D.R.'s New Deal in the 1930s to L.B.J.'s Great Society in the 1970s, the expansion of government programs for the middle class and the poor -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, as well as health and social services -- provided a modest economic backup for women who predominate among recipients.

Great Depression leaders who saw government as the solution to that economic crisis bailed out banks in exchange for tighter regulations to curb speculation. But they also created cash-assistance programs that increased women's purchasing power and protected them against economic hardship.

Those programs redistributed income downward and expanded the capacity of the federal government to kick-start the economy while cushioning consumers and workers from the vagaries of the market.

Beginning with President Carter in the mid 1970s, our leaders changed their tune, blaming economic woes on "big government." Successive administrations relaxed the rules on financial markets and cut funding for the safety net.

Benefits Didn't Trickle Down

Advocates of "less government" promised that benefits would "trickle down" to the rest of us. Instead their laissez-faire strategy weakened government benefits, one of the three interlocking pillars of economic support counted on by thousands of women from all walks of life.

The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that government spending for domestic discretionary programs fell from a high of 4.8 percent of national output, or gross domestic product, in 1978 to 3.4 percent in 2007. That equals billions of dollars in cuts. Except for rising health care costs, spending on entitlement programs -- such as Social Security, unemployment insurance and public assistance -- also fell from 8.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 1983 to 7 percent in 2007.

During the past eight years, war spending zoomed ahead, bringing us to the present spectacle, where we see U.S. military spending exceeding that of the rest of the world combined.

Meanwhile, Bush tax policies diverted dollars from public services and boosted corporate profits to a record high of almost 14 percent of national income while the share going to wages dropped to its lowest level since 1929. Combined with relaxed government oversight and rampant speculation the way was paved for abusive mortgage practices that turned Wall Street into one big profit bubble waiting to pop.

With these excesses as a backdrop, women saw their other two pillars of economic security weaken as well: marriage to a wage-earner and paid employment.

Falling marriage rates combined with three decades of sagging male breadwinner wages have undercut the capacity of matrimony to provide women with the financial security it once offered.

Wobbling Wages and Work

From 1979 to 2006, the real value of the median weekly wage of men 25 years and older fell steadily to $797 from $807.

The massive entry of women into the work force since World War II -- one of the most significant social trends in modern U.S. history -- gave them a third pillar of support. But this too is now wobbling.

As male wages stagnated many women went to work -- not as a matter of choice, as headlines about women opting in and out might suggest -- but just to make ends meet. Between 1970 and 2005 the proportion of married couples with two earners jumped to 62 percent from about 46 percent, Labor Department data show. The U.S Women's Bureau finds wives' contribution to family income rose to 35 percent from 26 percent.

But many of today's 68 million wage-earning women have recently suffered more job losses than men and a larger drop in wages than the general population, according to the Women's Bureau. In 2006 full-time female workers earned an average of $627 week or about $32,000 a year.

While we watch the spectacle of the government channeling untold billions of taxpayer dollars into failing Wall Street giants the three pillars of economic support for women -- the safety net, marriage and wages -- continue to crumble.

The public bailout of corporate America may be necessary given the risks of a collapse to the global economy. But why is it that the rich and reckless accept "welfare" for themselves while steadfastly rejecting the same for women in need? It's time to take a billion here and there to assist the women raising families on too little income to keep a roof over their heads.

Copyright 2008 Women's eNews. All Rights Reserved.

© 2008 Women's eNews All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100234/

Marvel Studios reached an agreement with Paramount to distribute their next 5 films, and they’ve announced release dates for all of them

Marvel Sets Release Dates For "Thor", "The Avengers"

from TunaFlix by Rick

Iron Man hit DVD today, and now we know when he'll be back in theaters. Variety reports that Marvel Studios reached an agreement with Paramount to distribute their next 5 films, and they've announced release dates for all of them:

Iron Man 2 - May 7, 2010 (moved from April 30)
Thor - July 16, 2010
The First Avenger: Captain America - May 6, 2011
The Avengers - July 15, 2011

Considering Iron Man 2 is a license to print money for the studio, it's a smart move letting Iron Man go first again in 2010. After that, anything other than a disastrous loss from Thor is gravy - and we all saw how well low expectations worked for The Incredible Hulk's public perception. But wait, where's that 5 come in? Is it referring to Iron Man 3, just a typo on Variety's half, Hulk 2, or an indication that Edgar Wright's Ant Man isn't quite dead yet? No matter what, better mark your calendars now, because summer movie season seems to just keep getting better every year.

Let's hear it: which of these Marvel movies are you most excited for?