Am I nuts? Are we nuts?

Or have they just been that good at hiding the fraud? Better yet, is William Black just another windbag?

Are we ready to dismiss Bill Moyers? Get real.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html 

 

Bill's Journal interview with Black yesterday is staggering. In the end, I will trust Bill (and in this case another Bill) will tudor me to a better understanding, at least.

 

Maybe it isn't all that complicated for us after all, and maybe Bernie Madoff is just a slumdog billionaire behind bars for being a little too careless or stupid, or both. Maybe he just pissed the wrong Hombre's off. And here we are convinced ol' Bern had graduated the slums in the 60's and will go down in history as Mr. Ponzi squared.  Sheesh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cmaukonen's Blog has a partial transcript and remarks)

This interview from the 4/3/09 Bill Moyers Journal is a must watch, and must share with others. William Black was the litigation director for the Savings & Loan scandal. He wrote the 2005 book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry." In this interview he discusses the intentional creation and continued coverup of the current financial meltdown. View the video in the extended entry.

Read more »

Laissez Faire Capitalism should placed right next to Communism in the 'failed ideologies' dust bin of history.

The last I checked a majority is still anything over 50%.

This is your brain.  This is your brain on drugs.  This is your brain on drugs with a side of toast and bacon.

Just say 'Yo'!!!

I have something more cosmic in mind.  It's a warpage of time and bliss for everyone. - Dave Wyndorf

Insanity (part 3): Michelle Bachmann

Read more »

"I have always thought of a dog lover as a dog that was in love with another dog." - James Thurber

After trading comments with Jade7243 about our four-legged companions, (she lives with Leo the Bichon and Sara the Lhasa-Poo), I thought it might be fun to share some stories about our companion, Murry, with the hope that you will share some stories about your furry (or feathered) friends.

Murry is an almost 15-year old purebred Bichon Frisé which in French literally means curly lap dog.   It is a relatively new breed to the U.S. originally brought here in 1955, and recognized by the AKC in 1973.

The breed is descended from the Water Spaniel, and the Poodle, and can be traced to the Mediterranean as far back as 600 B.C.  Because of their merry disposition (oh! how they can get to your heart) it is generally believed that they were used as barter by sailors (and pirates; the Bichon does have a darker side).  The Bichon is one of the few dogs that have eyes like a human showing the whites, as well as expressions of happiness in them.

The Bichon was a favorite of the French Royal Court as far back as the fourteenth century, where they would carry their Bichon in ribbon harness affixed to their chest.  With the coming of the French Revolution the Bichon was tossed out with the nobility becoming a "common dog", running the streets, accompanying organ grinders, doing tricks, and begging, of which they are very highly skilled (to a fault).

Murry is all of the above and more.  His linage traces back to the first Bichons' brought from France, and beyond.  His great, great, great grandfather was the winningest Bichon show dog of all time.  Murry has the attitude to prove it.

How we got Murry is a story unto itself...

As it became self-evident that our son was not going to make us grandparents anytime soon, (and, still), to quote Rita Rudner, "My husband and I are either going to buy a dog or have a child. We can't decide whether to ruin our carpets or ruin our lives."  Our carpet was replaced by tile many years ago.

I have always enjoyed watching dog shows on TV, and as my wife only knew what kind of dog she didn't want, going to a dog show seemed like a natural, one-stop shopping.  (It did have to be hypoallergenic.)  Little did we know how much it would change our lives. 

There in the parking lot next to where we parked, was a camper used by a professional handler.  In a portable pen looking like a prisoner at Guantánamo was the cutest, little white poofey dog, all brushed and ready for the ring.  On seeing us, his eyes didn't just shine, they sparkled.  And that smile.  We melted.  He was the National Champion Bichon, and Murry's father.

It took three, all day visits to the breeder's home to convince them that we would make good parents.  Not only did we need to agree to show Murry, there were other strict rules we had to agree to.  One was, while in the car, Murry had to always be kept in a crate (portable Guantánamo), and two, never, never feed Murry from the table.

So, on our fourth visit, with breeder-approved crate in hand we picked up Murry.  Into the crate he went.  As we drove down the dirt drive, the breeder's stern voice echoed in our ears, "Make sure he stays in that crate!"

The long, bumpy driveway wasn't kind to 12 week old, Murry; he threw up in the crate.  That was it, Earth Mother removed Murry from the crate, cleaned him up, put him in her lap, "Where he belongs," he's never been in a crate since (unless he wants to, there are a couple scattered around the condo for His Majesty's convenience.)

 Murry the Energizer Bunny

 The books tell you the Bichon is a low energy dog... my ass.  We figure, collectively we lost 10 pounds entertaining puppy, Murry.  His favorite game, "chase me," with his head held high, Murry would prance as he carried a toy in his mouth, as we uttered his favorite words, "we're gonna' get you, we're gonna' get you."  One time, I collapsed on the floor with exhaustion with Murry standing over me, toy in mouth, and my wife yelling, "Get up, you're going to break his spirit."

White Dogs Can't Jump

 Murry is a klutz.  Jumping up on the bed one time he did a Garfield and wouldn't try again.  He does jump off the bed, like in the middle of the night.  Exhausted from a full day of, "chase me" I hear a plaintive sound, "Who..."  I turn over.  "Who..."  Then it comes, the dreaded elbow to the kidneys, "Murry wants to get up."  At which point my wife reaches over and picks up Murry.  She just wanted me to know.

Bad Precedents

 We never leave Murry without one of us with him.  In the beginning, we both worked at home.  Whenever we leave home we only do things that we can do with Murry.  Movies, out.  (The last film we saw in a theater was Forest Gump.) Eating out, inside, out.  The breeder told us to take Murry to Malls to socialize.  Very bad idea.  The biggest problem is the Jewish High Holidays.  I know God will forgive us.

Murry and Toys

Every time we would order grooming supplies for Murry (it takes a lot of $tuff to groom a Bichon, especially for show) we would get Murry new toys.  The package would arrive.  Murry would get all excited as we opened the box, he knew what was inside.  We would dole out the toys one day, one toy at a time, and that is exactly for how long he played with them.

One day we were in Ross-For-Less.  There on the floor was a four-foot pile of stuffed toys.  Murry stared at the pile, then looked up at us, "Who..."  "go pick out a toy, Murry."  Murry literally disappeared into the pile.  Minutes later he emerged pulling a soft, brown stuffed dog.  To this day, it is the only toy he ever plays with, every day.

 We Lost Murry

One evening, in the sanctity of our bedroom, door closed, I sensed something was wrong, "Where's Murry?"  "I don't know."  So began the search, all the usual suspects, closet, under bed, dresser, chair.  Wife, concerned, okay, down-right panicked, "Maybe he got out!"  "The door's closed."   Don't you think you better look?!"  Me, 15 minutes later, perplexed, winded, "I checked the whole house."  "Did you look outside?"  "The alarm's on he's not that good?"  "He's not in the closet. I want you to call 911"  "You sure he's not, you lose things in there for years."  Into the closet I go armed with my trusty Maglite.  There, behind the, sorted by color, pants suits, on the second shelf of an overfilled shoe rack were these two, coal-black eyes and that big grinning smile, Murry was laughing at us. We have never figured out to this day how he got up there.

Murry's First Dog Show...

The length and breath of this chronicle has gotten out of hand and it's all Dick Day's fault.  He titled it a "chronicle" and my Neolithic epic brain took him at face value.

If there is any interest I'd love to do more.

What I hope you will do, is share your companion chronicles and stories.  Short or long.  We, "dog," (and, "cat") people live for them all.

Trust versus Mistrust.  That is the first of Erik Erikson's 8 stages of psychosocial development.  Most of us understand "trust" and how important it is to both personal development and interpersonal relationships in communities large and small.  And I have already contended in the first post that those who reach later stages develop the very qualities which foster (for others in their care) resolution of the early stages.  Plus, the stages are cumulative.  And thus, while we may resolve early issues, those issues remain as part of our psychosocial make-up.  If you have not read that prior post some of what I write here may be confusing.  But much of it stands on its own.  (Nevertheless, your reading here will be richer if you have read the prior post - and the comments as well - for this is a group endeavor and there is richness throughout that entire thread of comments.)

I have 3 points to make here.  And possibly more.  As I'm thinking partly on the fly.  But in brief I hope to discuss the Declaration of Independence, some important foundational concepts from the Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget, and creativity/inventiveness - as they pertain to "mistrust" and to this "vision" quest for how to decide what to keep and what to discard.

Using Erikson's theory, I'd like to suggest that the Declaration of Independence arose out of both trust and mistrust.  Trust within the group of people who discussed and signed the declaration.  But "mistrust" as the fertile ground out of which the "rebellion" of the colonists sprang.  (Other stages, of course, enter in as well - particularly Generativity and Wisdom/Ego Integrity.) 

Mistrust is like a Basic BullShit Detector.  Too much of the quality is not good and a huge amount of it = paranoia.  People who stay in an abusive relationship don't have enough of it:  They stick around when others would have bailed long ago.  But enough of it (to help us notice when something or someone is "off kilter") is hugely important as we navigate life.  I'm going to suggest that the leaders who signed on to the Declaration of Independence had "just enough" of that BBSD  (or, if you prefer BBD - take your pick!) to conclude it was time to bail on British rule.  They'd taken enough abuse.  And weren't going to take it anymore!

And the question today is - how much more are we going to take?  And how far have we strayed from our "Dreamtime ideals"?  And for "dreamtime ideals" you can consider the founding and continuing ideals of America or the founding and continuing ideals of any spiritual tradition or whatever ethical or social ideals you'd like to hang your hat on.  But the question remains.  At least for me and clearly for others as well.  Example:  By the end of bush&cheneyco, approximately 80% of the population felt the nation was seriously off the track.  And apparently that has already turned around a bit - so that many Americans are now viewing us as starting to head in the right direction.  Even so, after having so seriously betrayed our ideals (having tortured, for example) and having so seriously undermined not only our economy but the economic situation around the world (yes, I know it wasn't just us... but still), how can we truly get back on track as a nation?  Are we already headed for a "fall of empire"  or can we right the flaws which the previous administration exposed (or seeded) in what we thought was a pretty well functioning Constitution?  This is the reason I'm doing these blogs - it is a multi-layered task.  

Declaration of Independence. Let's take a look at the preamble:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Right away, the document suggests a need to refer to "the opinions of mankind".  I take that to mean the "wisdom" referred to in my last post and in the comments.  And right away, without really saying where they're getting them, the declaration refers to certain truths, certain rights, and asserts that the purpose of government is "to secure these rights".

Next, the document goes on to a very important premise:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now, since some (here) have questioned the very process of considering what to "hold" and what to "discard" and the search for what are the truths upon which we make such decisions, I refer back to the Declaration of Independence, the idea that there are certain "rights" or ideals that people can agree on and that the purpose of government is to secure them.   And I must admit, that along with many others (here and elsewhere) I have come to seriously question a society, a government, which instead of ensuring rights of persons has come to uphold (instead!) the rights of corporations,  as well as those of the rich and the powerful, in such a way that too many persons are suffering - not just economically, but under our judicial system, in detention centers outside the US, in terms of health care and the environment and education, etc.  I may have started out in the last blog by indicting the financial mess, but anyone who's read my posts for a long time knows that I have wider concerns than just an economic melt-down.  And also that I'm coming from a larger perspective than just what's good for America.

Back to the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [i.e.,the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Mistrust underlies the declaration:  Due to "a long train of abuses and usurpations"-  "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations" - and then comes a list of them.  (It's worth following the link and reading the abuses, paying special mind to their similary with recent events.)  A long train of abuses.  Followed by an appeal to "the Supreme Judge of the world" ... "in the Name, and by Authority" of the people (it actually says "good People") and it ends with "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".  Now you may or may not have any belief or trust in a supreme judge of the world or the protection of divine providence.  (It matters not to me.)   But for me to consider the task of looking for "truths" - in terms of a "spiritual quest" -  is certainly in line with our forebears and is not a task to be mocked or taken lightly.  Seek these "truths" in whatever manner you choose.  I call that a spiritual undertaking.  (One which Erikson would term related to his 7th and 8th stages for sure - in addition to the 6th, which relates to our common endeavor in doing so).

So, a bunch of men got together - in an atmosphere of trust in each other - but with a common "mistrust" - after  "patient sufferance" of many abuses.  And they embarked on a rebellion, of which we are the heirs.

Now, how do people get to a point where the "political bands" have been so stretched that they are seen to be intolerable or impossible to hold any longer and that a revolution ensues?  This is an important question.  And for the answer I will go to Jean Piaget, whose studies of the development of cognition have been so valuable - to psychology, to education, to me personally during 8 years as a teacher of young children long ago.  Piaget posited two central processes for how children learn, how they adapt.  They learn by assimilating information, taking it in.  (They learn words, colors, letters, numbers.  They learn by looking and playing, manipulating objects.  They take in information.)  But they also behave like little scientists - testing the conclusions, the interpretations, the very information they are "fed" or take in on their own.  So do we.  And when concepts or understanding are stretched to the breaking point - beyond where a theory or framework makes sense any longer, children (and WE) either have to go along in a kind of alternate universe believing the unbelievable or they/we spontaneously find ourselves thinking differently.  Piaget called that process accommodation - a process where our minds "accomodate" to factual reality, to new ideas, to a new paradigm.  This process is very similar to how Kuhn described what happens in science, where there is a "revolution" in thought. 

Ah.... now you're following me.  Revolution in thought.  And that, my friends, is what I think happened around the time of the Declaration of Independence.  And it's happening now.  

You put up with or assimilate till you (or your categories) can't take it any longer.  And then, you accommodate to the new reality - as you now see it.  Your mind changes.

And that, I'd like to suggest is what happens in creativity, in inventiveness as well.  And  it happens in human development too, thus the stages.  People, looking at a situation, see it has problems or possibilities.  And they come up with novel solutions, new inventions, new ways of thinking and feeling, including music, art, dance, poetry and so on.  Dickens' story of Little Dorrit is currently being presented on PBS Masterpiece Theater.   A story of a family in a debter's prison.  A story of the wealthy preying upon the poor.  A story which came out of Dickens' own history but which, sadly, is mirrored to some extent in our own society.  Art anticipating life.

We must face it all.

There is so much more to say.... to be continued...


Update:

There seems to be some confusion in the first comment below about "rights" as discussed in the Declaration of Independence.  The document never says there are only 3 rights.  It merely "enumerates" three, after declaring "that all men are created equal" and "endowed" with  "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are" - followed by the familiar three we all know so well.  That "among these' indicates that there are many rights they never bothered to enumerate.  Apparently for the document it was far more important to enumerate all of the abuses suffered and to indicate that the government's duty is to secure our "rights" - without naming all of them.  Thus these blogs - in an effort to understand what are the important truths and rights, which WE the People expect our government to protect.  We have a right, and perhaps in these dark days, even a duty,  to enumerate them for ourselves.

Also, apparently some would read into the Declaration of Independence a desire to be freed of government altogether or to limit the size of government.  Please help us with a quote from the document itself... if that is your reading.  For I cannot find it there.  Indeed, the document seems to say that laws and government should be designed for the public good, whatever that might be.  That we have many rights - not enumerated there.  And laws can be made to ensure those rights.  (Think health care.)

  

I saw this topic on a local DC tv station's website, and it kind of made me think -- does the deliberate paranoia the rightwing creates for political purposes lead to real violence? In the Pittsburgh shooting where three police were killed, apparently the killer thought that Obama wanted to take his gun. Now where would he get an idea like that?

http://cfc.wjla.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=47&Topic=58174

3/21:  Michele Bachmann says in a radio broadcast that she wants people "armed and dangerous"

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/bachmann-armed-and-dangerous/

Gunman Kills 4 in Oakland, Calif.

http://californiabeat.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/lone-gunman-kills-3-oakland-policemen-leaves-one-in-grave-condition-in-brazen-daylight-shooting-spree/

3/29:  8 shot and killed at a nursing home

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/29/nursing.home.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

4/3:  14 Shot and Killed in Binghamton, NY

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/04/binghamton.shooting/index.html?iref=topnews

4/4:  5 Shot Dead in Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/

Now, some of these shootings are unrelated of course, but what if one of them is not? We regard Bachmann as a clown-like figure of fun, but there might actually be some unstable people who take her nonsense seriously. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened either. The 1990s anti-government bile that the rightwing was spewing came back to haunt them in the form of Timothy McVeigh terrorism.

What's remarkable today is how no one, least of all the media, has the courage to denounce Bachmann's incendiary, and terroristic, remarks. You can't make a joke about a bomb in an airport, but Bachmann encourages paranoid violence against the government in an era when we have deadly shootings one after another -- and gets away with it. To quote another rightwing blowhard, "Where's the outrage?"

 

Essentially what the bankers have done, is illegal...fraud.

BILL MOYERS: You're describing what Bernie
Madoff did to a limited number of people. But
you're saying it's systemic, a systemic Ponzi
scheme.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, Bernie was a piker. He
doesn't even get into the front ranks of a
Ponzi scheme...

BILL MOYERS: But you're saying our system
became a Ponzi scheme.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Our system...

BILL MOYERS: Our financial system...

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Became a Ponzi scheme.
Everybody was buying a pig in the poke. But
they were buying a pig in the poke with a
pretty pink ribbon, and the pink ribbon said,
"Triple-A."

BILL MOYERS: Is there a law against liars'
loans?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not directly, but there, of
course, many laws against fraud, and liars'
loans are fraudulent.

BILL MOYERS: Because...

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they're not going to
be repaid and because they had false
representations. They involve deceit, which is
the essence of fraud.

And apparently what Geithner is doing and Obama is supporting,
is also breaking the law.

BILL MOYERS: To hear you say this is unusual
because you supported Barack Obama, during the
campaign. But you're seeming disillusioned now.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the
financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the
policies are substantively bad. Second, I think
they completely lack integrity. Third, they
violate the rule of law. This is being done
just like Secretary Paulson did it. In
violation of the law. We adopted a law after
the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt
Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to
close these institutions. And they're refusing
to obey the law.

BILL MOYERS: In other words, they could have
closed these banks without nationalizing them?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, you do a receivership.
No one -- Ronald Reagan did receiverships.
Nobody called it nationalization.

BILL MOYERS: And that's a law?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's the law.

BILL MOYERS: So, Paulson could have done this?
Geithner could do this?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not could. Was mandated--

BILL MOYERS: By the law.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: By the law.

BILL MOYERS: This law, you're talking about.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: What the reason they give for not
doing it?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They ignore it. And nobody
calls them on it.

BILL MOYERS: Well, where's Congress? Where's
the press? Where--

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, where's the Pecora
investigation?

BILL MOYERS: The what?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: The Pecora investigation. The
Great Depression, we said, "Hey, we have to
learn the facts. What caused this disaster, so
that we can take steps, like pass the
Glass-Steagall law, that will prevent future
disasters?" Where's our investigation?

What would happen if after a plane crashes, we
said, "Oh, we don't want to look in the past.
We want to be forward looking. Many people
might have been, you know, we don't want to
pass blame. No. We have a nonpartisan, skilled
inquiry. We spend lots of money on, get really
bright people. And we find out, to the best of
our ability, what caused every single major
plane crash in America. And because of that,
aviation has an extraordinarily good safety
record. We ought to follow the same policies in
the financial sphere. We have to find out what
caused the disasters, or we will keep reliving
them. And here, we've got a double tragedy. It
isn't just that we are failing to learn from
the mistakes of the past. We're failing to
learn from the successes of the past.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: In the Savings and Loan
debacle, we developed excellent ways for
dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with
the failed institutions. And for 15 years after
the Savings and Loan crisis, didn't matter
which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury
Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the
Japanese, "You ought to do things the way we
did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it
worked really well. Instead you're covering up
the bank losses, because you know, you say you
need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the
people to create confidence. And it doesn't
work. You will cause your recession to continue
and continue." And the Japanese call it the
lost decade. That was the result. So, now we
get in trouble, and what do we do? We adopt the
Japanese approach of lying about the assets.
And you know what? It's working just as well as
it did in Japan.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy
Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and
others in the administration, with the banks,
are engaged in a cover up to keep us from
knowing what went wrong?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You are.

You can read the transcript or watch the video. And if you want to
read the Prompt Corrective Action Law, here is a link to the FDIC version.


C

Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com blog has an interesting graph by Andrew Gelman.  I note that a regression line would clearly have a slope greater than one (draw the best fit straight line through the data points, it will be steeper than the slope of the 1:1 line shown).  This means that high and low predictions were over-conservative - high predictions should have been higher, and low predictions should have been lower.  Was this a feature of only this election, or is it a common factor in polling?  Do pollsters need to adjust their parameters if greater accuracy is desired at the high and low ends, or was there something intrinsically uneven about this election?
 






Silver also has an interesting review of the time course of "gay marriage" issues in which he finds a national trend of about 2% vote shift per year in favor of no marriage bans.

Well my blog yesterday got me started.It was pointed out to me that it wasn't the goverments fault for the changes I had mentioned. So today I'm going to go a little bit farther and talk about societies changes.

  1} Do you remember when helping people didn't make them think you wanted something and it was the right thing to do? Today I was at the store while I waited in line a young woman was holding up the line next to me becouse she was a little bit short on money. Well the people behind her and the cashier were getting a little bit mean I thought so I handed the young woman the change she needed. They all gave me a funny look like I did something wrong. I don't get it!

 2}Do you remember when a good time on friday night was getting a carload of friends and going to the drive end? We always seem to run in to more friends there and it would be a big party watching the movie was OK to I guess.haha

3}Do you remember when hitchhiking wasn't as dangerous as it is today? I remember when I got out of the marine corp I hitchhiked from cherry point,NC to Springfield, ILL. The truckers that picked me up all had a good story or two to tell and a few of them had me stop with them and we talked over a few drinks(Jack Danials in those days) It took me longer to get home than if I would have walked the whole way but it was something I will never foget. the good times, Now Insurance companies won't allow truck drivers to pick up hitchhikers.

  Well thats all for now. I hope people enjoy these blogs becouse I enjoy writing them they bring back good memories. If the responses are good I might continue to write these old memories down.

 

Hope everybody is having a great day. Don't forget to tell somebody you love them even if you have to tell it to yourself.

 

Twenty million, four hundred ninety-eight thousand, four hundred minutes.

Thirty-nine years to you and me.

He has been dead now longer than he lived. But his words are timeless:

 

Letter From Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

Read more »

I caught Maher's rather weak "interview" with Joe the Plumber this past Friday. I was disappointed that Maher didn't roast him for throwing up the usual outworn conservative meme that Obama (or liberals in general) want to raise taxes so he (we) can give money to the undeserving, free-loading poor. Maher should have reframed that. First of all, the tax increase is minuscule, and it comes after Bush cut taxes several times for the wealthy. Second, the best reason for raising taxes on the rich is to invest that money in America. Build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals . . . improve quality of life for everyone through education, health care, the environment, transportation, etc. It's not about "punishing success". It's about the smart allocation of public funds. For the public, for once. What a concept! Actually take public funds and spend it for the public, not for private gain.

Conservative ideology wants us to believe that if we just cut taxes, everything will be great. Even though it has never worked before, in the entire history of America, they want us to believe that suddenly, for the first time, rich folks will take their tax cuts and create jobs. He talked again about how cutting taxes will bring American jobs back. I wish Maher had schooled him in history and math. Basically, if you give a corporation a choice between X and Y, and they can only choose one, corporations will choose X. X being the ability to ship jobs overseas and pay workers 10 cents on the dollar. Y being tax reduction. Even if you cut corporate rates to zero (2/3rds of American corporations paid just that in the last decade anyway), corporations would still ship jobs overseas, because paying 10 cents on the dollar is better than paying zero in taxes. Not to mention the fact that they don't have to pay health care costs overseas, and the regulatory structure is even more lax there than it is here.

It's not taxes, Joe. Taxes aren't the issue. Cutting them won't save jobs, create jobs, or bring jobs back. Taking tax dollars from rich folks will, if that money is spent wisely. Building roads, bridges, hospitals creates jobs here. You can't outsource them. Building up our green infrastructure creates jobs here. You can't outsource infrastructure work. Creating a smart electrical, energy and transportation grid creates jobs here. You can't outsource infrastructure work.

FDR did the right thing. But we actually need to go beyond what he did. Invest virtually all of our budget into creating a 21st century nation. Build it here. This won't happen if the private sector alone is involved. There isn't enough immediate profit in the deal for them. The government has to do it, cuz it doesn't have to make a profit. It can invest without worrying about that. For our future. We all benefit, including the rich.

Finally, when the Joe the Plumbers of this world talk about how they love this country, they need to be held accountable for that empty rhetoric. Nothing they propose would benefit this country. It just benefits roughly 1% of it. Time to counter that nonsense passionately, with confidence and intensity. Our Media should do it, but they won't, cuz they're a part of that 1%.

Joe the Plumber doesn't realize he's being used. The proverbial useful idiot. I just wish more in the Media would counter that and expose it and expose the puppet masters once and for all.

This weekend should prove to us that here in 2009, the MSM and our leaders do not care at all about gun violence. Seems like we have all given up and believe the NRA won the battle and we should all carry guns, without background checks, everywhere including national parks, churches, stores, airplanes, etc etc.

This is, of course, the NRA's dream come true. A national of wild west gun toters. Screw the liberal police. It's every man for themselves!

The shooter in Pittsburgh this weekend said he was desperate because he believed Obama was going to take his guns away. Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY the marketing campaign literature from the NRA and GOP to incite this sort of violence and gin-up hatred so as to garner a few more votes for the Repubs.

And the press? The press doesn't care. It is more important to find out what Michelle Obama is wearing or waht new gaffe they can drum-up during an Obama speech.

So who is going to hold the NRA, Fox News (Beck, in particular) and the GOP accountable? No one, I AM SURE. Everyone is affraid of the NRA.

Certainly not TPM. I see NO mention of gun violence or these false misleading ads and literature that come from the NRA and Repubs. Instead, we get Josh Marshall's obsession with Geithner and Summers.

I've been wanting to visit Cuba ever since I read Alejo Carpentier, and seeing Before Night Falls and some early Cuban films renewed it. But we've got a wall to maintain. I can visit Russia, play cards in Chechnya, lunch with Gaddhafi, observe Chinese prison workers make electronics, buy Chinese knick-knacks from Tibetans in rags inside Lhasa's Potala Palace, dine with some of Pol Pot's finest henchmen, chew ghat with Taliban terrorists in Kandahar, lash immoral women in the Swat valley, buy leftover AIG stock from Hank Greenberg in Manhattan, talk education with William Ayers, meet up for drinks with Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales at The Palm, and waterboard inmates in Guantanamo, but I can't visit Havana. At least not legally. But I did get to see signs in Yucatan and Jamaica denoting cheap air and boat trips. The next best thing to being there, outside of Miami.

Cubans who reach our shores get automatic US citizenship, and now they can send back as much money as they have and visit as often as they want. But not me. I'm subject to the US embargo against Cuba. Of course this embargo is brutally effective. Cuba is barred from trading with anyone except Canadians, Brits, the French, Somalians, Russians, Chinese, Iraqis, Polish, Spanish, Japanese, Thailand, and a few other select 150 countries. It's so effective that the US is only the 7th largest exporter to Cuba with 4.3% of its imports.

And I'm glad to see Obama reaching across the aisle to embrace the enduring legacy of our great patriots and modern political philosophers, Jesse Helms and Dan Burton (whose bigger fame of shooting pumpkins labelled "Vince Foster" has started to fade). Because it would be a shame to prop up the Castro regime with my money when I could be supporting Chinese gulags or helping Burmese drug lords or promoting female circumcision and macheteing arms off kids in Africa . Democracy is very fragile, and we have to put a line down somewhere. Which just happened to be Cuba, don't ask why.

And speaking of arms control, while Cuba may seem a bit retro, retro's in, so much so that in the middle of this time of terror and crashing financial systems, any day now I expect to hear a big policy speech on nuclear arms control and SALT WARS VI, Return of the Jaded. Perhaps we can look in Putin's eyes and find he does have a soul while he turns off the gas spigots to Europe. And that soul spells the most American of sentiments, $$$$ Ka-Ching. Next stop, Mars?

Geographer David Harvey in an interview (link to transcript and video) with Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: If you were Timothy Geithner, if you were the Treasury Secretary--

DAVID HARVEY: Yes, if I was Treasury Secretary.

AMY GOODMAN: --what exactly would you be doing?

DAVID HARVEY: Oh, I would take a lot of that [stimulus] money, and I would put it into some kind of a national reconstruction corporation. And I would say, "Look, your first duty is to take care of the foreclosure crisis and the people who have been foreclosed upon. So go into cities like Cleveland and so on that have been devastated, and go into sort of areas in California and so on and take care of the foreclosure crisis."

AMY GOODMAN: How would you do that?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I think one of the ways you could do that is to start to buy out all of those houses that are about to be foreclosed on and put them into some kind of, I don't know, municipal housing association or some collective form of that kind, and then allow people to remain in those houses, even though they're no longer necessarily owners. So the ownership rights would shift.

I mean, we have a myth in this country that homeownership is the gospel, as it were. But for a lot of people, homeownership is not a good idea. And I think, actually, it's not a good idea in general.

Trade Unionist Bill Fletcher on Obama's Afghanistan strategy:

Sometimes I feel like I am reliving the era of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The era of "guns and butter," as they called it. At the same time that Johnson was launching his "War on Poverty" he was escalating the US war against the people of Vietnam and Laos, as well as carrying out the criminal invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965). Not only did these interventions (and others) isolate the USA and set back the efforts of these various countries at self-determination, but they wrecked the US economy, siphoning off badly needed resources.

So, the Government is now in control of GM.

 

Obama forced out its CEO and replaced him with Fritz Henderson, who has a better relationship with the UAW Chief Ron Gettelfinger. It's obvious that the way Henderson has been installed into GM will make it much easier for the UAW to have more influence on how the company is run.

 

Media made some noise about the GM bankruptcy, but of course it's never going to happen. UAW is a critical voting block with multiple alliances and the Government will do everything to keep their votes. So instead of just sending the auto workers packing with a pink slip like every other bankrupt industry would do, they are given good buyouts and early retirement. And younger workers who remain will be guaranteed jobs.

 

The new and improved GM will become a perfect platform to for Obama's green energy vision.

 

The new management will create a business plan that will shift manufacturing to green or electric cars, away from SUVs and gas guzzlers. The government already promised to honor GM warranties. And it already controls enough banks through TARP to ensure there is plentiful financing to GM dealerships. Of course, "Organizing America" will work tirelessly to show that owning an Obamacar is the best way to help America. They will sell like iPods.

 

And everyone is happy.

We’re approaching the tenth anniversary of the Columbine massacre on April 20, and numerous articles about it have already appeared in the mainstream media. Almost all of them avoid discussing the role of the police.

SFGate, April 30, 1999…

“Police involved in the investigation are most sensitive to criticism that they did not do enough in the first half hour of the shooting rampage to stem the carnage and confront the gunmen.

Critics have included a fellow police officer, Westminster officer Randy Patrick, who three days after the shootings described the SWAT response as “pathetic.”

Westminster police officials placed Patrick on nondisciplinary leave and ordered him to undergo a “fitness for duty” evaluation, a decision that was later rescinded.”

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner was already on duty at Columbine High School when the massacre began.

“As Gardner stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. “Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me.” Gardner could also hear gunshots coming from inside the building but he did not know who else was shooting, how many were in the school or where.”

This was 11:24 AM, only five minutes after shooting was first reported at the school. At 11:30 Gardner was still outside the school. None of Harris’ shots had hit Gardner, or even his patrol car.

Following the CNN timeline…

“By 11:30, within four minutes of Gardner’s reports of shots being fired in the building and the need for additional units, six Jefferson County deputies, including Gardner, were on scene.”

The deputies set up a “perimeter” outside the school, while shooting and explosions continued inside.

“By day’s end, nearly 1000 law enforcement officers and emergency medical personnel were on scene.”

Here, “on the scene” means “outside the school.”

1000 policemen outside the school. 1000 students inside the school, with the killers.

Between 11:29 and 11:37, 10 people were killed in the library.

“Two library employees remain hidden in the television studio. One teacher hides in the periodicals room. Patti Nielson, originally hiding under the front counter, drops the phone. She ultimately crawls into the library’s break room to hide in a cupboard. All four women remain in the library until they are evacuated by SWAT around 3:30 p.m.”

The Swat team arrived in the library at 3:30 PM, more than four hours after the shooting began.

And Officer Randy Patrick was suspended for calling the SWAT response “pathetic!”

At 12:02 PM… “SWAT commands use of a Littleton fire truck to provide cover as the first Jefferson County, Littleton and Denver SWAT officers approach the school. Deputy Del Kleinschmidt, a Jefferson County K-9 team member assigned to SWAT, volunteers to drive the truck.”

By this time there are hundreds of police officers outside the school, and some of them are trying to figure out who will drive a fire-truck.

12:06… “The first SWAT team, on foot behind a Littleton fire truck, arrives at the east main entrance to the school.”

12:08… Harris and Klebold kill themselves. There are still no police inside the school.

12:31… “Lt. Manwaring reports that his SWAT team is on the north side of the school with the fire truck, working its way toward the west side.”

Outside the school! With the firetruck!

12:34… “The first objective of Manwaring’s team is to rescue two students lying in front of the west doors. Using the fire truck as a shield, the team of Jefferson County and Denver SWAT officers inch the truck as close to the west doors as possible.”

The shooters are dead. 13 other people are dead with them.

The SWAT team is inching toward the door, behind a fire-truck.

About 90 minutes after the shooting began at Columbine High School, a sign appeared in a second-floor window…

“1 bleeding to death.”

This was Dave Sanders, a longtime coach and teacher at Columbine High School, who had put himself in the line of fire while shepherding at least 100 students to safety.

“A Lakewood SWAT team sergeant (had) organized a patrol to enter the school about 90 minutes after the shooting began, but was instead ordered by Jefferson County sheriff’s officials to search for Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s cars in the parking lot.

During that search, one of Sgt. George Hinkle’s SWAT members spotted the sign in the school’s second-floor window that read…

“1 bleeding to death”

…written by another teacher trying to get help for Sanders.

That SWAT officer, Donn Kraemer, asked if he could answer that call for help.

Hinkle said no.”

Dave Sanders died at Columbine High School, April 20, 1999.

Jacob Freeze

What worries me about Avigdor Lieberman being Israel's foreign minister is, when he previously called for trying Arabs in the Knesset who met with Hamas for treason-

World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in [the Knesset].

-a Labor minister resigned over his appointment as a result.
So- besides his (& Netanyahu's, for that matter) fundamental opposition to their beliefs- why are they joining the coalition now?

Figures the only thing Republicans are capable of saying about state court decisions allowing gay marriage is that these are activist judges legislating from the bench who should step down and run for office. I don't know what this portends and am not very much inclined to believe that this will produce some sort of chain effect on other states facing the same decision, but nevertheless, a wonderful day for marriage equality.

For those optimistic souls who are buying into the Dow this week, I would urge extreme caution. The 'elephant in the room' is already pondering whether to strike at Iran next week or next month and whether to use its secret nuclear warheads or conventional weapons to endeavour to achieve its aim of continued military dominance in the region.

When we awake that terrible morning, I would advise you to sell all your stocks and retire into your fallout shelter, with your '45 at the ready. The world will never ever be the same again. 'Why did we allow it happen?' will be the cry, and the silent answer will be deafening in its intensity.

[Please read this together with the previous post.]

 

(In the previous post I discussed specific statements of Mark Kleiman's.  In this one I want to try and deal with the expressed fears behind Mark's refusal to back legalization.)

Read more »

I knew when I started arguing for marijuana legalization that I would have to argue publicly with Mark Kleiman, who is easily the sanest critic of legalization.  This isn't easy for me.  I have corresponded with Mark over a couple of years, like what I know of the man, and he's even given me a forum to guest-post a couple of articles on other topics.  I like him personally from the contact we've had - and if he occasionally considers my long-windedness tiresome, so has almost anyone who has known me and been a friend.  (Hell, even I can consider my long-windedness tiresome - one reason I tend to take breaks from blogging and abandoned my previous blog.)

          And on most things political I am reasonably close to Mark.  We may disagree on minor matters but - to disappear into fantasy - were we to be Senators, Mark from CA and me from NY, our voting records would probably wind up being pretty close to identical.  Even on drugs other than cannabis we probably are close.  Mark is hardly a 'drug warrior' and has as much contempt for the breed as I do.  I too do not favor legalization of other drugs but prefer, in most cases 'steps short of legalization.'  (In fact, while I don't recall Mark speaking of these in particular, I may be to the right of him on some drugs.  I don't see any way of dealing with methamphetamine or 'date-rape' drugs except the 'drug warrior' position - one reason why I tend to criticize the 'what right has the government to tell us what we can do with our bodies' argument.)

          But, on cannabis, Mark is, simply, wrong.  His overall position, his 'legalization without commercialization' is not a bad policy, but it is impractical and unnecessary, mostly because Mark's basic fears - which seem to come from a mistaken belief that a business model that works well for cocaine is transferrable to the marijuana business - are 'chimeras.' 

I had started a long post in reply to one of Mark's a couple of weeks ago, but medical problems and domestic necessities kept me from finishing it.  I will probably cannibalize some parts of this if Mark is willing to turn this into a dialogue.  (Btw, for those who are curious, my medical problems are mostly orthopedic, a torn rotator cuff, a misplaced disc, arthritis in my ankles and a problem with the hinge of a knee.  None seem to be the result of my marijuana smoking, unless you blame it for making me work harder and longer than I might otherwise do and thus having worn out various parts.)

          However, yesterday Mark <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/archives/drug_policy_/2009/03/cannabis_legalization_as_economic_stimulus_a_pipe_dream.php> posted </a> an article on 'legalization as an economic stimulus,' calling it a pipe dream and treating it as almost beneath contempt.  Since this is my own favored argument I feel almost required to respond.  (Afaik, I was the first person to use it -- as contrasted to the 'tax it for revenue' argument.  I did a cursory google search and didn't find an earlier cite If someone used it earlier, I would appreciate seeing knowing of it.  I'm very curious to find out if anyone used similar reasoning.)

Read more »

The conservative media strikes again, with Time's new article, "Barack Obama's New World Order"
The article is basic stuff, about how different Obama's approach to foreign policy is from that of GWB. Ya think?
But the use of "New World Order" is bound to make the wingers apoplectic. It is one of their favorite catchphrases, and goes right along with Bachmann's campaign against a non-existent plan for an international currency. You know, Democrats want to end American sovereignty and participate in a One-World government. Don't underestimate how many people believe this idea in some form or other.
I refuse to believe TIME is unaware of how loaded the phrase "New World Order" is for a lot of Americans. Just google "New World Order" and "NWO" to see the far-flung advance of this particularly virulent strain of right-wing lunacy.
After Bachmann's call for "Revolution" and for people (i.e., Republicans) to be "Armed and Dangerous" it's a little disheartening to see Time shoveling some raw meat into wolf den.

Let's start calling this the Bush Depression. Every reference. Every time.

[4/3/09]

Image via Wikipedia. NSA Headquarters, Ft. Meade MD.

Keeping our nation's computer networks safe from attack, either from hackers or from actual terrorists, has become an even higher priority in recent months. More and more Congress is hearing from witnesses in various settings that we are too vulnerable to let things stay the way they are. This story is about the power struggle over who should be in charge of cybersecurity.

Who should run cybersecurity -- Last year the function was placed within the Department of Homeland Security where it still resides. The Bush administration cybersecurity initiative was started with a National Presidential Directive in January of 2008. A year later President Obama ordered a 60-day review of cybersecurity policy on February 9, 2009

Background -- Steven Aftergood, writing for Secrecy News (3/12/09) headlined: "CRS Views Cybersecurity Initiative." The story explained cybersecurity's background. In the end, the Congressional Research service concluded that the Bush Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) is too opaque and too unknown to the general public. To quote:

. . . the CRS report summarizes what has been disclosed, and illuminates many of the ensuing questions raised by the Initiative. These include the extent of its underlying legal authority; the respective roles of the executive and legislative branches on cybersecurity; the involvement of the private sector; the impact of privacy considerations; and even the possibility that offensive or defensive cybersecurity activities would fall into the category of "covert action."

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is appointing Philip Reitinger to the position of deputy undersecretary of the department's National Protections Program Directorate. Critics worry that Reitinger's record for maintaining good security within Microsoft is not a good sign. The story, "DHS Appoints Microsoft Exec to Secure Government Computers," is from Wired-Threat Level (3/11/09). To quote further:

The job requires Reitinger to oversee the protection of the government's computer networks and work with the private sector to help secure critical infrastructures. Reitinger comes to DHS from his job as chief trustworthy infrastructure strategist for Microsoft, a job that required him in part to help develop and implement strategies for enhancing the security of critical infrastructures.

. . . Reitinger at least has a background and an understanding of computer security issues. . . Prior to joining Microsoft in 2003, he was executive director of the Department of Defense's Cyber Crime Center, which includes a computer forensic lab and computer investigations training program. . . for the Department of Justice where he served as deputy chief of its Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. One of Reitinger's first tasks in his new job will be deciding what to do with the job that Rod Beckstrom will vacate . . .

Beckstrom resigned . . . his position as director of DHS's National Cyber Security Center, where he was, essentially, the government's cybersecurity czar. Beckstrom expressed frustration in his resignation letter that DHS wasn't taking cybersecurity seriously, and he wasn't being given the resources to do his job. He also complained that the National Security Agency was moving to take over DHS's cybersecurity role.

There is a move underway to transfer the cybersecurity function from DHS to the NSA --In a story from Wired-Threat Level (3/10/09), the former head of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Division, Amit Yoran told a Congressional Committee that National Security Agency/"NSA dominance of Cybersecurity would lead to to 'grave peril.'" The problem, according to officials who worked in te DHS position, is that having an intelligence agency in charge would mean that classification of information and counterintelligence operations would lead to a lack of transparency in cybersecurity. Because so many of the organizations, that need to be protected against cyber attack are in the private sector, they would not have as much trust as needed to work well with the government against a common threat. To quote from the article:

Two weeks ago, Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair told the House intelligence committee that the NSA should take over government cybersecurity duties, because the agency has the smarts and the skills for the job.

. . .Yoran, who currently is CEO of cybersecurity firm NetWitness, resigned from his DHS job after just a year in the position amid speculation that the DHS was not making cybersecurity a priority. Beckstrom expressed similar frustrations in a recent interview about the DHS's commitment to its cyber mission, following his resignation.

Yoran said DHS had demonstrated "inefficiency and leadership failure" in its cyber efforts and that "administrative incompetence and political infighting" had squandered its efforts to secure the nation's infrastructure for years.

Finally,proposed cybersecurity legislation in the Senate hopes to bring high-level government attention to the serious problem of cybersecurity. It would mean giving a single White House official, a national cybersecurity adviser, oversight of critical network infrastructure, with the ability to disconnect federal or "critical" networks under some sort of threat of cyberattack. The idea could create more uncertainties than solutions, at least initially, cybersecurity experts warn in this story. "White House cyber adviser--more questions than answers," from CNet News (3/26/09). To quote:

. . . "The irony is people keep on asking for somebody in charge who has this God's-eye view of what's going on in a purposefully decentralized system," said Bob Giesler, vice president for cyber programs at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). "This permeates the whole (cybersecurity) debate, which is what can the government do for us. I think you'll find at the end of Melissa Hathaway's 60-day (cybersecurity) review that industry will come back and say the best thing they can do is is share the data so we can be better risk managers," rather than manage risk themselves.

In conclusion -- A chorus of critics of the way the Cybersecurity Initiative has been handled at DHS is going to try to wrest control away from that agency. It looks as if the administration's intelligence apparatus wants to take over control of the initiative. But that possibility does not sit well with civil libertarians and worried IT specialists in the private sector. Those who see a philosophical difference between protecting computer network security in general and casting the vulnerability as coming mainly from terrorists are in a battle for the hearts and minds of Congress. Legislation is proposed to put the office in the White House reporting to the President. It must be a juicy prize to have so many fighting over it. And it is a vitally important issue to all of us sitting here in front of our keyboards. Who should be responsible? And why?

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national intelligence cybersecurity DHS

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does 'Cyber-Security' Mean More NSA Dragnet Surveillance? (techdirt.com)
• Lawmaker: New cybersecurity regulations needed (infoworld.com)
• Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity? (schneier.com)
• al Qaeda's Legacy (warintel.blogspot.com)

Come and listen to my story

'Bout a man named Todd,

He raced snowmobiles

But not Iditarod.

He married Sarah 'Cuda

She took his last name,

That opened up the door to

The Palin Hall of Shame!

 

Trash, that is - trailer parks, felonies.

 

The next thing you know,

Young Sarah runs the town.

Don't cross the lady mayor,

'Cause she don't mess around.

Bein' mayor is fine,

But Sarah wasn't done,

She ran for governor

And she easily won.

 

Alaska, that is - up north, real cold.

 

That was A-OK

Until 2008,

When Senator McCain

Had to find a runnin' mate.

Sarah brought some buzz,

'Till a man from Illinois

Tossed 'em both aside

Like a couple o' toys.

 

Landslide, that is - vote for change, not McSame.

 

Sarah blamed old John

For a campaign that flopped,

Decided that the White House

Would be her next stop.

Little did she know

Of the problems on the way,

This Northern Star dimmed

A little every day.

 

Issues, that is - scandal plagued, crazy in-laws.

 

Daughter Bristol Palin

Was in "the family way."

She sent the daddy Levi

Off packin' one day.

This all by itself

Would give any mother stress,

But then Levi's mom was

Nabbed for sellin' meth!

 

Controlled substance, that is - sounded like meth, anyway.

 

Diana Palin's edge

Was bein' Todd's half-sis,

But Diana had a plan

That she knew just couldn't miss.

She'd burglarize a house

In the land of snow and ice,

If she missed something good,

She'd break into it twice!

 

Scene of the crime - they all come back now, y'hear?

 

There's a whole lot more

But that's all we're sayin' now,

Alaska's GOP

Is about to have a cow.

Knowin' Todd and Sarah

It's bound to get worse,

Check in next week

And we'll add another verse!

 

THE ANCHORAGE HILLBILLIES!

This evening, as we all started gathering, slowly, into the chatroom, we had an unexpected visitor.  Mildred.  Quinn's Mildred.

Mildred just wanted to let everyone know that Quinn and his clan are together after the funeral service for his brother.  She spent a few moments with us and it was clear that she's just as wonderful as our Mighty Quinn is.  It's my hope that she'll come back to chat anytime.

Anyone who would like to join us tonight, the link is above.  Hugs to all, and to all a good night.

 I just got done reading dickdays post about cigs. I thought it was kind of sad and that got me thinking. Who does the goverment really serve? They've taken so much away from people that have so little to begin with and keep giving it to the people that don't need it(I bet everybody on wall street can afford cigs). I came up with this little list of things they've taken from so many people.

    1} Cigs they've taxed them so much only the rich can afford them ( or like me I give up two meals a day so I can afford them)

    2} 3 meals a day. With tax and the ever increasing prices who can afford to eat three meals a day anymore.

   3} going to the local bar for a beer after work. With DUI laws as strict as they are you can't do anything but drink at home. ( Not saying DUI laws are bad just either relax a little or at least make them the same for everybody)

 4} Driving down the road with your woman(or man) by your side. With seatbelt laws you have to sit apart(for married couples thats probably a good thing hahaha)

5} Just about anything that cost money. Nobody has any except the rich and their not sharing.

This is just a short list I could probably go a lot farther. It makes me sad that there is people out there that have worked there whole life and can't even enjoy a cig or a beer with freinds.Just what kind of society do we live in these days?

 I'm sorry dickday I wish I lived close enough to you to take you out for a beer and buy you a carton or hell even two cartons of marlboros.I'd most likely be the one to walk away the happiest becouse I'm sure you would have a lot of stories to tell over that beer. HAHA

 

   Hope everyone is having a nice day!!!!!

Thera P wrote an excellent piece yesterday entitled "Vision Quest".  I wrote an extended comment on that piece today, but by the time I posted it, Thera's original post had disappeared from the recent posts list.   So I would like to post my comment again here.

As I said in my comment, I appreciate the thought and earnest moral searching that went into Thera's piece. But I would like to play a few dissonant notes.

Thera says we are experiencing "a meltdown precipitated by the deceit and selfishness and greed of unscrupulous financiers, whose only allegiance was to the almighty dollar and their cronies in crime." This puts far too much emphasis, I believe, on the individual moral failures of certain capitalists, and not enough on the structural problems, legal inadequacies and institutional deformities of the American capitalist order. So long as we stay focused on the trees of the alleged moral depravity of individuals, and respond on that individual plane, whether with outrage or compassion, to the moral or spiritual failure of other individuals, we will miss the social forest. The chief problem is not immoral or amoral individuals. Rather, we have a legal-economic system in the United States that is bound to produce the kinds of outcomes we are seeing now.

Thera's analysis suggests that our chief response to the challenge should be to work on the moral and spiritual improvement of individuals. This is the "bad apples" theory of social problems. It suggests we have a system of laws and institutions that are capable of working fine, and will advance humane values, so long as we have humane individuals manning the positions of this system. I don't believe that is the right diagnosis of the central problem we are facing. We have a bad system. That system hones and fashions the mores of the people who are constrained to work within it. It establishes the basic framework of rules and constraints, of incentives and norms, of what is required and what is permitted, and the outcomes we get are pretty much those that we should expect when ordinary human nature is combined with these flawed structural design features of the social and legal order. If we want better outcomes, we need to act politically to change that order.

I worry that the kind of psychological and spiritual discourse that Thera is engaging in, in response to a social problem like the one we face now, is another expression of Americans' extreme individualism, and consequent apolitical politics. In its own way, the discourse suggests "it's about me". It asks, what can I do to make myself a better person? But it's not about me. It's about us, collectively. The chief question is what can we do, working collectively, to improve the social order.

I don't believe the focus on individual spiritual improvement is either practical, or would achieve the desired results. That's because you can stuff self-actualized Ericksonian saints in the mouths at one end at the corporate system, in their personnel offices, and after passing through the goose of the corporate-based system, those saints are going to wind up in a few years time at the other end, hustling and scamming and running pyramid schemes. The system we have created is a bundle of inherently competitive and anti-social incentive structures, and it produces people who are driven by those incentives.

We can't wait for a religious revolution, or a new Great Awakening. We can't wait for everyone to become self-actualized or to achieve enlightenment, or to experience their truest inward vision. We need politics and wide-ranging social reform.

The other day, somebody posted Obama's comment from 2008 about a reporter's question about "going green." Obama said that we're not going to solve climate change because "I changed a f-ing lightbulb." He said it was about something larger that we do collectively. Repairing American society, which is broken and defective, is not about changing your personal spiritual lightbulb. It's a different kind of project.

My last post was about evidence of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's history of bad advice (there's also a story in the Washington Post today how he lost site of the target while head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

Now its the turn of his colleague, Lawrence Summers, director of President Barack Obama's National Econonic Council, who already has a long back history of bad decisions, first as a senior official of the World Bank and later as President of Harvard University :

As the Boston Globe reports today:

Back in 2002, a new employee of Harvard University's endowment manager named Iris Mack wrote a letter to the school's president, Lawrence Summers, that would ultimately get her fired.

In the letter, dated May 12 of that year, Mack told Summers that she was "deeply troubled and surprised" by things she had seen in her new job as a quantitative analyst at Harvard Management Co.

She would go on to say, in later e-mails and conversations, that she felt the endowment was taking on too much risk in derivatives investments, and that she suspected some of her colleagues were engaging in insider trading, according to a separate letter written by her lawyer that summarized the correspondence.

On July 2 Mack was fired. But six years later, the kinds of investments she allegedly warned about did blow up on Harvard. The endowment plunged 22 percent last summer, in part due to the collapse of the credit markets. As a result, the school is cutting costs and under criticism that it took on too much risk in its investment portfolio.

Mack, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from Harvard, had been with Harvard Management for just four months when she approached Summers. She asked him to keep her communications confidential, or risk making her life "a living hell."

But on July 1, Mack was called into a meeting by her boss, Jack Meyer, then the chief of Harvard Management.

The next day Meyer fired her, according to the letter from her attorney, Jonathan Margolis, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe. Meyer told Mack that she was fired for making "baseless allegations against HMC to individuals outside of HMC," according to the Margolis letter.

Mack's saga surfaced yesterday in a report by the Harvard Crimson in which Mack reportedly said she warned of swaps and other complex instruments that the endowment had recently begun working with. The Crimson reported that Mack said the staff had "no background whatsoever" in some of the investments they were wading into.

Mack, who had been a trader for Enron the year before joining Harvard, worked in the group run by Jeffrey Larson. Larson left Harvard in 2004 to start a hedge fund, Sowood Capital Management, which shut down in 2007 after losing $1.6 billion, more than half of its assets, on highly leveraged investment bets. The firm returned about $1.4 billion to its clients. The Harvard endowment, among Larson's clients, lost $350 million with him.

More here.

 

We begin with animism. In order to even get to this concept of anthropomorphism. Besides, it is easier to spell.  Animism is: The belief that plants and inanimate objects have souls.

Anima meant soul in Latin. I do not think the concept of animism  should be applied to plants if we are getting into silliness. I mean plants think.

I have already discussed the idea of consciousness from a number of perspectives. Joseph Campbell the famous anthropologist and the popular anthropologist for decades really had me thinking.

Bill Moyers (my hero in life, really) had a series of interviews with Dr. Campbell that really rocked. I mean you really understood why we needed a member and government funded channel on television. Why we must have some source on our cable that has no commercials.

Speaking of commercials. If I hear one more ad telling me to go to my doctor and beg him for some prescription for my fat belly or my heartburn or my penis, I will ...well what can I do? The best part of the commercial, as you all know is the CAVEAT.  After 5 years of Latin I remember two things:

Caveat Emptor-Buyer Beware

Cave Canum-Beware of Dog

I was told that Cave Canum on a sign was the first example of writing. That is ridiculous of course. The first writing was something of a hieroglyphic that indicated if the container enclosed wine or salt or some spice that would make your penis bigger. With a warning of course that the spice should not be used in cold environs.

The Caveat in these commercials usually goes:

Do not use if you have ever experienced shortness of breath, sharp pains in your chest, cramps in your legs, a heart transplant, a kidney transplant, sex with someone not of your own species or if you just wish to live a long and pleasant life.

PBS only has commercials in the first two or three minutes now. And these commercials inform you about the inroads that oil companies have made in green technology or how AIG is making our world better.  Like shorts from a republican convention.

Dr. Campbell was asked by Bill what consciousness is. I get into Jaynes a lot. You can bore yourself with Aquinas also if you wish, but Campbell actually brought me to Johnny Miller.

Like I demonstrated before, Miller will do a play by play of a golf tournament, something of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. And he will always, and I mean ALWAYS, point out that the shadow on the green will  indicate a tendency of your putt to go against the shadow.
Campbell is pointing out that the blade of grass IS CONSCIOUS of where the sun is.

Oh it is just a biochemical reaction some say. But the same cells that tell the grass where the light is are in your eyes as you read my drivel.  And we are all aware when we see time lapse photography and witness a flower opening up with the rising sun.

I always like the Discovery Channel or History Channel when they show these strange flowers that wait to open until the middle of the night. They shun light. And moths come and suck their sweet sap when the mouse lemurs are not disturbing the ecosystem.

But I understand how these 'tree huggers' become enthralled with plants. The complexity involved. And sometimes the centuries involved in the structure of some trees.

And when you are taking a walk and the sky is 'covered' and you notice that the leaves on some of the trees and bushes are 'turned'. When you see that omen, get home. Because 'IT' is coming.

Some weather phenomena is going to change your life forever if you do not seek shelter.    

At any rate, animism is attributed to objects as far as I am concerned, objects with no souls. Animism is that pagan belief in the  facility of stones to speak to you. Geologists will disagree with me on this statement of course. But, if you wish to sponsor a party that rocks, stay the hell away from geologists. I mean THAT'S NOT RIGHT. TALKING TO ROCKS. I MEAN THAT JUST IS NOT RIGHT.

But that does not mean that I am capable of a belief in animism.

I will arise and turn on my coffee maker and then go to the bathroom to urinate. I will then turn on my PC and the TV. I am, of course, thinking of that first taste of coffee in the morning. I mean I am soon to discover my favorite taste-next to nicotine of course-and hear the new news. Then I wander into the kitchen, because it is now time to grab my coffee.

Now, there is a brown liquid accumulating on the floor. No coffee pot has been put 'into' the contraption. Of course there was. Otherwise WHY WOULD I TURN THE FRICKING THING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Now there is no coffee. I have to turn off the machine and attempt to catch any liquid still falling from the machine that will not melt. I pull the cord out of the wall. You throw some towels on the floor to gather up the liquid. You pick up the 'machine' and attempt to clean under it because the counter is now all f....ed up and you are screaming at an inanimate object.

I mean, this machine is not any brighter than a Foreman Grill. But it has conspired to destroy your day. There is no doubt about it. That coffee machine was not without a glass pot to catch its magic when you started out that morning. EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE RINSING OUT THAT POT AND CLEANING IT THE NIGHT BEFORE BY LETTING IT SOAK IN SOME BLEACH AND DISH SOAP......

Ok, ok. But then you redo your day. You just do a quick drip with hot water in your little drip unchipped coffee maker that has no plug in, no intelligence.  And, meanwhile, your computer screen is blank. When you hit the start button, it just kind of automatically shut off because you hit it wrong and the tv has jughead on talking about how he and Newt saved the world economy in the 90's by taking away cadillacs from welfare women and.....

So you put on your coats-up here one coat is not enough in the winter-hell in the spring-and you decided it was time to take a walk and so you go outside and get on the sidewalk and do not realize that there is a patch of ice and you go down on your arse.

And, well, you know 'they' were out to get you. The computer, the coffee maker, the tv and the sidewalk. You know that there was a conspiracy of some sort.  I mean you woke up without cramps in your thighs, and you felt so relieved after the bathroom visit and your back does not hurt-that much-and the sun is out and this is going to be a fine day. But THEY were not going to let this continue. I mean, THEY ARE GOING TO DESTROY YOUR DAY.

This brings me to the issue of nuclear arms. I mean if a coffee maker can conspire against you and destroy your day and your kitchen what about a missile silo?  Or a nuclear reactor? I mean it is no small thing that Homer Simpson can work at a nuclear plant. We have all seen when he screws up making coffee at work.

Anthropomorphism is another belief. It occurs when you attribute human motives or thought to an animal. We await Steve Katz and his Chronicles of Murray to really get into this issue tomorrow, but I thought I could do an introduction.

I think of me and Scout, in the old days in the lake home. Scout, my Golden Labrador, only scroungier, was my friend. She would tell me when it was time to exercise, when it was time to eat and when it was time to sleep. Once a month, I would have a visitor and we would sneak out to a bar and eat pizza and play pool. When we returned, Scout would be in a corner on the floor. She would not greet me. She might lift her head and then look away.

Who is this, she would say with her eyes. F...you anyway.

Or, sometimes she would just hide under the piano and just stay away from me. LIKE I WOULD NOT NOTICE THIS.  She knew it got to me. Even more than the coffee maker.

Now I am guilty of attributing human emotions and thoughts to a mammal. Emotions and thoughts that really were not there. I imagined them.

It is like those who would see dicky cheney giving some speech before a group of veterans, sometimes even uttering a prayer. I mean, they would tell a reporter, our Vice President cares about our soldiers and this nation. And he only wishes the best for all of us.

This is precisely an example of people attributing human qualities to an evil spirit. This is worse than anthropomorphism. I mean any scientific method would conclude after thorough investigation that spirits like cheney cannot exhibit any human emotions or thoughts. I mean it is an impossibility. This 'man' and men like him, have no souls, no anima. Only animus and enema.

THE END

 
 

DIARIST'S WARNING: THE FOLLOWING DIARY CONTAINS GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS.

Turn up your radio dials, TPM readers, and fire up the Bachmann-Freeper-Overdrive.  'Cause America's favorite batshit wingnut is (still) going off the rails on a crazy train!

Alright, enough with the classic rock metaphors.  But seriously, you'll love this:

"And so we need to once again decide, do we want to be free, or do we want to be slaves? We have to make that decision. And I know I've made my choice, you've made your choice. And we have to act in concert if we want to make sure that we can hold on to what we have." -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, during an interview on April 1 with the right-wing blog Atlas Shrugs (as reported by Eric Kleefeld)

Wow, did Bachmann really just say that?  Yes, she did.  She tried to drum up fear about how our nation's first black president is returning America to the days of SLAVERY.  On April Fools' Day, no less.  How long until she starts comparing Obama to cancer, or Pol Pot, or Hitler?

I'm so glad Bachmann has made her choice about not wanting to be a slave.  Not wanting to be a slave is the first step in organizing an army for an orderly revolution against our democratically elected government.  As Steve Benen at Political Animal points out, Bachmann didn't say why the American people would want to be slaves -- does ANYBODY actually want to be a slave? -- nor did she say to whom the people would be enslaved.  

I'll get back to the slavery bullshit in a minute.

Earlier in the interview, Bachmann railed against the White House dropping the term "War on Terror" as a dangerous boost of confidence to terrorist organizations.  She also said that Obama's secret plan to replace the dollar with global currency -- the plan that doesn't exist and that Obama himself doesn't support -- is "stealing" from the American people's freedom.

"By scuttling adherence to the Constitution, we are scuttling political freedom as well, because economic freedom is inextricably entwined in political freedom. We can't have one without the other."

.....

"We are gambling with some very risky dice right now by not continuing to operate under a Constitutional form of government.  And that is....that is stealing from the American people.  It's reaching into the American people's freedom bank account and stealing from them the asset that is more precious than anything: Our freedom."

Whoa, did Obama secretly break into the National Archives last night, rip up the Constitution, and all of a sudden turn our democratically elected government into a fascist dictatorship?  I didn't get the memo.  I would have thought Obama -- a Constitutional law professor -- wasn't so big on his ninja robbery skills, but rather, um, obeying the Constitution and GOVERNING AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Also, what in the hell is a freedom bank account?  More importantly, do I have one of those?  Are there Freedom ATMs where I can make withdrawals on my freedom?  Like, can I decide that I only want to withdraw 60 freedoms today, but then pay an extra 2.50 freedoms as a service fee?  Can I invest in a freedom stock and get freedom tips from Jim "Freedom" Cramer?  Can I get a freedom portfolio to buy a freedom house?

Alright, enough joking.

See, we here in Non-Crazyland remember that America once had a not-so-pleasant history with slavery.  Bachmann might recall that poor, black people were involved.  I have a hunch that our nation's first black president isn't going to be returning America to slavery.  Call me crazy.

For Bachmann's reference, here's what slaves in real American history looked like:

And the people that Bachmann wants to protect from her batshit concept of slavery?  Those would be the rich, privileged, fundamentalist crazies who will do anything to fight higher taxes on the wealthiest people in America -- people who never once had to worry about the poverty and abuse such as the real slaves in American history once faced.  People like this:

For all her ranting and raving about how Obama is stealing people's freedom from their "freedom bank accounts," Bachmann and anybody who supports that dingbat would do better to remember that those real slaves in 1860 didn't actually have any freedom at all.  They were bound, chained, and forced to perform cruel labor for their white masters under threat of whipping, beating, and torture.  So when she makes some dumb remark about how the American people will be slaves under Obama and how their "freedom bank accounts" are being compromised, she might want to open a book and find out what real slavery was.

So no, Bachmann.  Imposing higher taxes on extremely wealthy people, or pushing for tighter regulation of banks that caused the economic collapse, or calling for a more sensible and diplomatic foreign policy, is not slavery.  It's called being progressive, rational, and patriotic.

Oh, but there I go again.....assuming that wingnuts have any logic or reason at all.....

*****************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

A number of people are more than a little confused on what has happened in this financial meltdown and AIG's part in it. Therefore I've taken it upon myself to steal a page from Wambooli and create a little "Meltdown for Dummies" tome:

Forget the stock market and consider yourself a home buyer. You want to purchase a house but your credit score is in the mid 500's. You know this rich guy down the road and his score is in the mid 800's, in other words, practically perfect. The fact is, you can get a home loan but the terms are pretty onerous, because of your score you have to pay 3 points higher than a guy with the high FICO score. So you cut a deal with the rich guy, but being rich, he doesn't do this for free. However he doesn't charge too much either. He calculates what you're going to save over the lifetime of the loan and charges you a small percentage of it. Then he sets things up so you get to use HIS credit score to "score" your mortgage. Now you get to borrow money at the best possible rate. BECAUSE you're getting such a good rate, you can buy a more expensive house. Maybe more house than you can legitimately afford, now that your overall house payment is lower (thanks to the better interest rate you didn't deserve).

Other people start getting into the action and then other rich guys with their own high FICO scores start to sell the same deals, so your rich guy has to lower his fees even more to keep up. Meanwhile so many people seem to have perfect scores that only an idiot would actually go to a bank with their crappy FICO and pay the higher rate.  In fact your own mortgage broker tells you who you can go to get a better score and rate! So many folks are getting into the game that ALL the houses start jumping in value, since everyone else can now afford bigger houses thanks to their new found lower interest expenses.

Things are going swimmingly as they say, until too many rich guys are whoring out their perfect credit scores too much and banks start getting PO'd that they can't charge more interest, because they'd like to make more profit. The rich guys don't want your crummy little expensive houses if you default, so they take a bunch of them added together and start to sell these packages back and forth with each other and the banks. Pretty soon even THIS game gets a FICO score component because the rich guys start borrowing directly to buy bigger and bigger packages and more of them.

Along the way one of the rich guys declares bankruptcy. So the banks do what banks do naturally and tell the rich guys they have to put up more collateral to "prove" they've got a legitimate high score. This is where things get fun. Because the banks THEMSELVES get to have an input on the FICO score, they start LOWERING the rich guys' scores. This causes the rich guys to have to deposit more money in the same banks that are killing their scores! A whole new business crops up of making bets on who will or won't cover their scores.

Now things are REALLY tricky. The contracts the rich guys signed said things like, "My friend Joe will pay the mortgage and fire insurance and taxes and I'll guarantee that if he gets behind I'll stand behind him 100%, by putting my own good credit (score) on the hook". What they didn't say, but what is happening at AIG and elsewhere is that once Joe gets behind they have to PAY OFF THE WHOLE CONTRACT'S VALUE! And to make matters worse, because of the way these things have traded around, the guy who collects the full amount isn't even the guy who loaned the mortgage NOR is he the homeowner. In fact the homeowner might still be making payments, he might only be a month behind, or he MIGHT NOT EVEN BE BEHIND AT ALL! Because the contract includes language about the rich guy's own good credit, the instant he falls below his mid 800's FICO score, perhaps down to mid 700's, he is automatically LIABLE. The rich guy never figured this would happen. After all he was worth billions and these houses are only worth hundreds of thousands.

This situation is now like your neighbor collecting fire insurance for your house even though he A) doesn't OWN your house and b) your house hasn't burned down!

To summarize. This whole fiasco came down to three little letters. AAA

Everyone has been asking themselves how AAA rated CDO's could possibly fail. The press has done a horrible job of explaining things properly and the financial types can't be bothered to clarify things because obfuscation is one of the many ways they have bamboozled the public for years. After all, if these things were simple to understand, why would so much of the public pay up to 3% PER YEAR to "financial managers" (financial manglers) to manage their money?

The most valuable thing AGI had was a pristine, pure AAA credit rating. They whored out their rating to governments, municipalities, businesses and ultimately a ton of mortgage bond holders for fees. We'll never have the chance to know how things would have turned out if
Greenberg had stayed in command. Lots of folks who have no clue of the underlying mechanisms are claiming laws were broken and Greenberg should go to jail, but in this case no laws were broken, except perhaps the law of common sense.




 

Cross-posted from The End of the American Century

Last week, a Spanish court took the first steps in opening a criminal investigation against Bush administration officials for violating international law in providing the legal framework for the U.S. government's use of torture. Among those the court is expected to indict are former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who is now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

John Yoo was the author of the so-called "torture memos" which justified the use of torture and argued that the U.S. should ignore the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly prohibit torture. 

The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and also to the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which is binding on 145 countries, including the U.S. Torture is explicitly prohibited in numerous other international treaties, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights; and the American Convention on Human Rights. Most scholars also believe torture violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

So there is plenty of legal precedent to assert that Gonzales, Yoo and other Bush administration officials--probably even the president himself-- were in violation of international law.

The Spanish initiative comes on the heels of two damaging new reports on the Bush administration's use of torture. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating whether the legal advice of Yoo and others "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys," according to Newsweek. If Attorney General Holder accepts the report, it could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action.

An even more damning report by the International Red Cross on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo has been brought to light by Mark Danner, in a short article in the New York Times and a longer one in The New York Review of Books. The Red Cross reports--basically verbatim accounts of interviews with Guantanamo prisoners--makes absolutely clear, according to Danner, "that the United States tortured prisoners and that the Bush administration, including the president himself, explicitly and aggressively denied that fact."

Danner concludes, as I have done in The End of the American Century, that the U.S. use of torture not only eroded our own values, but further poisoned the global reputation of the U.S. and stimulated the recruitment of terrorists around the globe. The decision to torture, writes Danner,

"harmed American interests by destroying the democratic and Constitutional reputation of the United States, undermining its liberal sympathizers in the Muslim world, and helping materially in the recruitment of young Muslims to the extremist cause. By deciding to torture, we freely chose to embrace the caricature they had made of us."

Of course it was not just at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that prisoners were tortured. Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, convincingly shows that the use of torture was a central tool in the battle against terrorism. Even though President Bush denounced the use of torture, the tactics he denounced were exactly the same as those he had authorized and encouraged in the extensive worldwide network of secret prisons set up to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists. As the distinguished historian Alan Brinkley wrote in a review of The Dark Side:

"it would be difficult to find any precedent in American history for the scale, brutality and illegality of the torture and degradation inflicted on detainees over the last six years; and it would be even harder to image a set of policies more likely to increase the dangers facing the United States and the world."

By almost any measure, the decisions of Yoo and Gonzales were legally incompetent, morally repugnant, and ethically questionable.  At the very least, their recommendations, and the decisions taken by President Bush, were violations of international law. They come close to crimes against humanity. They should be brought to account in this country, under American law. But Yoo, far from facing indictments in the U.S., continues to teach at one of the most prestigious law schools in the U.S., and continues to find a hearing for his views in the pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. 

Perhaps it will take a European court, in the end, to have him, and other Bush officials, account for their decisions. For a Spanish court to indict them will be largely symbolic, of course, since the U.S. is unlikely to extradite them to Spain. But symbols are important. And one of the most important symbols of all was President Obama's categorical assertion, in the first weeks of his presidency, that

"under my administration, the U.S. does not torture."

Towards the beginning of the week I wrote a little number under the title The More Things Change the More They Remain the Same.  In it, I promised something more extensive on the theme of the piece, which was that the struggle between the finance party and the rest of the nation was as American as Apple Pie.  This is it-or maybe a part of it, depending on whether people yawn audibly and commence to snore.

The United States is not a particularly historically conscious nation.  This explains, I think, the constant references to situations without precedent, or uncharted waters.  My view is that there is a confusion between similarity and identity.  No two historical situations are identical, but one can almost always find something similar enough to keep one from the brink of panic over every thing which seems "new".  We claim to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but because our sense of historical analogy is so terribly undeveloped we get timid and hesitant in situations we can't immediately link to past experiences.  Of course we can go too far the other way: but that's also a confusion of identity and similarity.  But right now I think we're not hearing "just the same" as often as we're hearing "totally different."

From the preamble to my topic.  Large numbers of Americans don't like the Captains of Finance very much-and haven't for a very long time.  Thomas Jefferson's views might be a good place to start-remembering his "Republican" party is the party of yeomen farmers and laborers-an ancestor of today's Democratic party.

 Jefferson, writing to William Branch Giles in 1795, said:

The Anti-republicans consist of

     1. The old refugees & tories.       
     2. British merchants residing among us, & composing the main body of our merchants.
     3. American merchants trading on British capital. Another great portion.
     4. Speculators & Holders in the banks & public funds.
     5. Officers of the federal government with some exceptions.
     6. Office-hunters, willing to give up principles for places. A numerous & noisy tribe.
     7. Nervous persons, whose languid fibres have more analogy with a passive than active state of things.

The Republican [i.e. Democratic] part of our Union comprehends
     1. The entire body of landholders throughout the United States.
     2. The body of labourers, not being landholders, whether in husbanding or the arts.

    The latter is to the aggregate of the former party probably as 500 to one; but their wealth is not as disproportionate, tho' it is also greatly superior, and is in truth the foundation of that of their antagonists. Trifling as are the numbers of the Anti-republican party, there are circumstances which give them an appearance of strength & numbers. They all live in cities, together, & can act in a body readily & at all times; they give chief employment to the newspapers, & therefore have most of them under their command.

We might have to strike one or two from the list of anti-s and perhaps modify one or two others, but Speculators and Holders in the banks could certainly remain.  I confess my favorite is the last: I can't wait to have an opportunity to accuse the Minority Leader of having Languid Fibres.

Jefferson is anything but inconsistent in his mistrust of the banking establishment.  Writing to Albert Gallatin in 1803, he says:

    because the Legislature having deemed rotation useful in the principal bank constituted by them, there would be the same reason for it in the subordinate banks to be established by the principal. It breaks in upon the esprit de corps so apt to prevail in permanent bodies; it gives a chance for the public eye penetrating into the sanctuary of those proceedings & practices, which the avarice of the directors may introduce for their personal emolument, & which the resentments of excluded directors, or the honesty of those duly admitted, might betray to the public; and it gives an opportunity at the end of the year, or at other periods, of correcting a choice, which, on trial, proves to have been unfortunate; an evil of which themselves complain in their distant institutions

Shades of bogus "compensation committees" and salary reviews rewarding bad performance as if it were stellar performance.  Far too much esprit de corps among the Lehman Bros. alumni, if you ask me.

In the same letter he vents his wrath on the Bank of the United States:  

    This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles & form of our Constitution....That it is so hostile we know, 1, from a knowledge of the principles of the persons composing the body of directors in every bank, principal or branch; and those of most of the stockholders: 2, from their opposition to the measures & principles of the government, & to the election of those friendly to them: and 3, from the sentiments of the newspapers they support.....But, in order to be able to meet a general combination of the banks against us, in a critical emergency, could we not make a beginning towards an independent use of our own money, towards holding our own bank in all the deposits where it is received, and letting the treasurer give his draft or note, for payment at any particular place, which, in a well-conducted government, ought to have as much credit as any private draft, or bank note, or bill, and would give us the same facilities which we derive from the banks?

Nationalizing the banks? Sorta, kinda.  Foreshadowing the Federal Reserve System, not really, but with some similar object in mind.

Perhaps one of the Mediums to which I referred in my last could conjure up the Shade of Jefferson while he or she was at it.  Not to tell us what to do, but to give us lessons in elegant invective.  He ranted with the best:

    That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.

While all of this was going on, banks were using democratic symbolism in the form of Greek Revival architecture to project an image of probity and respectability.  Three orders of columns and capitals marked the American Greek Temple Style.   Of the three, the Doric was the most austere-suitable for government buildings and military installations.   The Ionic was an intermediary order, suitable for institutions of justice and learning-courts, universities, and the like.  The most elaborate order, the Corinthian, was appropriate for institutions of culture: libraries, museums, concert halls, and the like.  But when we take a look at one "Temple of Mammon,"   The First Bank of the United States (1795)(I had to get my title in someplace) we see the full-blown Roman corruption of the Corinthian. 

Banks a little more reticent to make extravagant displays of their wealth on the exterior, were less modest once one entered the banking halls themselves. 

Consider the Bank of Louisville (1837).  A prim and proper Doric exterior, and on the interior an exercise in the Corinthian suitable for a bordello catering to exiled French aristocrats.  (I exaggerate a wee bit, perhaps).

So we see very early in the history of the country the establishment of a contest between the forces of high finance and the rest of us.  Jefferson is just the first to vent his spleen.  Politicians and editorial cartoonists weighed in with every financial crisis from 1837 on.  If this is amusing anyone, I may explore some of them later.

In his meeting with bank presidents, he said, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

True, and perhaps you would get better results if these people felt fear, rather than smugness.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

First posted at RACblog.

There has been a disturbing amount of press lately (including a full page ad in Monday's Washington Post) by 'climate change skeptics' like the Heartland Institute- those who don't believe the earth is warming, don't think human activity is the cause, or don't think we should worry about it. Scientific evidence to the contrary, these 'skeptics' continue to argue that taking action against climate change is unnecessary and will cripple our economy, send American jobs overseas, and generally destroy our way of life. None of this is true.

Read more »

Michael Winship of "Bill Moyers Journal" quotes from William Greider's new book "Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of our Country":  "That's No Angry Mob, It's a Movement"

As for President Obama, "I understand his political dilemma. And I sympathize with it. But he's trying to govern by convincing people that we will be able to get the old good times back. And my view is that the good times ain't comin' back.

Greider has been a great investigative reporter for over 40 years at publications like The Washington Post and Rolling Stone.  He wrote the definite book on the Federal Reserve "The Secrets of the Temple".   In other word, he knows what he's talking about.

The good times aren't coming back and that may be a good thing if "good times" mean being almost run over by a Hummer on my way across the parking lot of Mall of Murica to buy another fashion handbag.

Read more »

His article,The Real Cost of the Geithner Plan, appears to be available to non-subscribers.  He correctly challenges the Geithner plan.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's toxic asset plan is a brilliant, highly complex and very expensive answer to the wrong question: How we can raise the value of bank portfolios without improving the quality of the underlying loans? 

It is truly remarkable that an administration that preaches progressive economics intends to deploy $1 trillion - including hard-to-value but nevertheless very pricey subsidies - to help banks in a way that avoids helping their existing borrowers.

While I think this criticism is correct, I also think it's limited - Geithner has other problems too.  Graham then goes on to propose an iffy alternative:

In the second scenario, lenders reduce mortgage principal by $200 billion to qualify for matching reductions pledged by the government to spur a proactive restructuring of mortgage debt.

The second approach reduces outstanding mortgage debt by $400 billion and substantially stems the tide of foreclosures for the same price as the first that does nothing to reduce principal or limit foreclosures.

This basically gives 50% rebates on the losses of imaginary investors and a big gift to some homeowners.  Remember that most mortgages were repackaged then "sliced and diced" and even "insured" so it's rather unclear just how this gift package would work in practice.  Yes, investors as a class need to take some losses.  Yes, homeowners as a class have seen at least paper losses compared to bubble-peak prices and some have taken or will take real losses (selling or defaulting and losing any equity paid in). But that's hardly the half of it.

Geithner has a plan to give relief to bankers, bank stock holders, and bank bondholders.  Graham's plan tries to give relief to some mortgage holders and some investors.  Neither one is right.  But I think it is good to have alternatives on the table, other than Krugman's "nationalization" as the only apparent alternative to Geithner's PPIP.

If you read Graham's article, be sure to read the last part and the comments.  The "last part" outlines his idea and starts after:

There may be various ways of accomplishing this goal, but below is my suggestion for ending the foreclosure crisis that I first wrote about for RGE Monitor in November.

I include the first comment from his article here as yet another "solution":

Here's a third approach:
1) Everybody pays their own mortgage
2) Those who can't pay, or don't feel like paying their own mortgage can rent.
3) Banks and speculators who lent money to people who can't pay, or don't feel like paying their mortgages, can foreclose, eat their losses, and lick their wounds. They will be replaced by wiser speculators, and better-run banks.

This approach has the advantage of not placing the burden of losers' losses on the honest, prudent majority of Americans.

... By Anonymous on 2009-03-30 20:44:10

Is this simply blind ignorance of macro-economic factors, or sound wisdom?

The more even half-way reasonable ideas considered, the better.

Unemployment in U.S. Increases to 8.5%, 25-Year High

April 3 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. unemployment rate jumped in March to the highest level since 1983 and service industries shrank at a faster pace, indicating the economy remains trapped in what's likely to be the longest recession since the 1930s.

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said both the Obama administration and central bank must remain "flexible and open" to further measures because the economy and financial markets aren't "out of the woods yet." The labor-market rout will make it tougher for President Barack Obama to follow through on his pledge to save or create 3.5 million jobs.

The economy lost 663,000 jobs in March, bringing losses since the slump began to about 5.1 million, the worst in the postwar era, Labor Department figures showed in Washington. The 8.5 percent jobless rate was consistent with the forecasts of 79 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The Institute of Supply Management's non-manufacturing index unexpectedly dropped.

"We could continue to see a few more months of really bad employment numbers before it starts to ease," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. Behravesh projected the jobless rate will peak between 10 percent and 10.5 percent in early 2010. "We aren't there yet, but we are getting closer to a bottom," he said.

Treasuries, Stocks

Treasuries slumped after the jobs report was no worse than what economists had forecast, with benchmark 10-year note yields rising as 2.84 percent at 11:42 a.m. in New York, up from 2.77 percent late yesterday. The Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index fell 0.3 percent to 831.82.

Job cuts have been spreading from manufacturers such as Johnson Controls Inc. and Dana Holding Corp. to service providers like International Business Machines Corp. and even the U.S. Postal Service.

In addition to cutting jobs, companies also reduced hours for those still on payrolls. The average number of hours worked fell to 33.2 per week, down six minutes from February and the fewest since records began in 1964.

Revisions subtracted 86,000 workers from January payrolls while February's drop of 651,000 was not revised.

The last time the unemployment rate was at 8.5 percent was in November 1983, when the economy was recovering from the 1981- 82 recession that pushed the rate to almost 11 percent. Then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker boosted interest rates to quell soaring inflation following the 1970s fuel crisis.

Sponsored Ads: Naples Dry Cleaner | Naples Florida Real Estate | Email Archiving | Direct Mail Naples

Payroll Forecast

Payrolls were forecast to drop by 660,000, according to the median of 80 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Estimates ranged from losses of 525,000 to 750,000. Forecasts for the jobless rate ranged from 8.2 percent to 8.7 percent.

"The hope and expectation is that things will get a little less dire in the second quarter as various stimulus efforts kick in," said Ethan Harris, co-head of U.S. economic research at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York, who used to work at the Fed.

Today's report showed factory payrolls fell by 161,000 after declining 169,000 in the prior month. Economists forecast a drop of 160,000. The decrease included a loss of 17,500 jobs in auto manufacturing and parts industries.

The manufacturing slump that began more than a year ago may intensify should General Motors Corp. be forced into bankruptcy, economists said. As many as 1 million additional auto-industry jobs may be lost and unemployment would climb to 11 percent, said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York.

Auto Slump

The auto slump has already rippled through the industry. Johnson Controls, a maker of car interiors and batteries, said last month it will shut 10 factories and cut about 4,000 jobs. Dana, the truck-axle manufacturer that exited bankruptcy in 2008, said it will boost its payroll reduction to 5,800 this year, 800 more than previously announced.

"We are taking the difficult actions necessary to survive," Dana's Chief Executive Officer John Devine said in a March 16 statement.

Service industries, which include banks, insurance companies, restaurants and retailers, cut 358,000 workers after a 366,000 decline in February. Financial firms cut payrolls by 43,000, after a 44,000 decrease the prior month. Retail payrolls decreased by 47,800 after a 50,800 drop.

The ISM's services index, which covers almost 90 percent of the economy, fell to 40.8, the lowest level of the year, from 41.6 the prior month, according to the Tempe, Arizona-based group. Readings below 50 signal contraction.

The measure was projected to increase to 42, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of 67 economists. Estimates ranged from 38 to 45.

Fewer Orders

The ISM index of new orders fell to 38.8 from 40.7 the prior month, and its gauge of employment dropped to 32.3 from 37.3.

For many Americans, this employment slump has been an unfamiliar experience. Sarah Opple, 42, was fired in February from a sales position at Gaylord Hotels in Chicago after holding a series of jobs in the hospitality industry since she was 17 years old. "It's more real to me now," she said in a March 26 interview. "This recession is way more tangible than the others. It makes everyone feel they could be next."

Since taking office Jan. 20, Obama has enacted a series of measures aimed at stemming the recession. He signed into law a $787 billion stimulus plan on Feb. 17 that included spending on infrastructure projects to boost hiring.

The Treasury Department is also moving to repair the damaged financial system and lower record foreclosures, while the Fed is flooding markets with cash to boost borrowing and spending.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at bwillis@bloomberg.net

The art of war is of vital importance to the State - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.

The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation, and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that."

"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

The general who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany variation of tactics knows how to handle his troops - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

There were signs from the outset that this was a business event, not a social gathering. At each place around the table sat a single glass of water. No ice. For those who finished their glass, no refills were offered. There was no group photograph taken of the CEOs with the president, which typically happens at ceremonial White House gatherings, but not at serious strategy sessions.

"The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water," says a person who attended the meeting. "The signal from Obama's body language and demeanor was, 'I'm the president, and you're not.'"

Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

President Obama spoke to the group then threw the the conversation open to questions, "So, who'd like to talk?"

JPMorgan's CEO Jamie Dimon insisted to the the President that he'd like to give the government's TARP money back, (earlier he had offered offered Treasury  Secretary Tim Geithner a fake check for $25 billion).

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans- Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

The president offered an analogy: "this is like a patient who's on antibiotics," he said. "Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don't stop taking the medicine until you've finished the bottle." Returning the money too early, the president argued could send a bad signal.

Several of the CEOs disagreed with the President, "returning TARP money was their patriotic duty," "the return would send a positive signal of confidence to the markets."

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Unknown to the bank executives, at that time another meeting was taking place in Washington, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner was meeting with Obama's senior adviser Steven Rattner where he demanded Wagoner's resignation.

Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril - Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Politico, Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting

As April 15th looms, my wife and I presented our accountant with a challenge. 

Read more »

This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the case against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Citing prosecutorial misconduct as the primary reason, the Justice Department determined that the fairness of the trial had been too damaged by government misconduct to proceed further. Holder stated that, "[a]fter careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," and that "it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial." Holder's decision represents a critical first step in addressing a growing nationwide problem of prosecutors abusing their power in order to secure convictions.

The Stevens case had been marred by prosecutorial misconduct from the outset.  Judge Emmett Sullivan repeatedly criticized prosecutors for failing to follow orders to provide evidence to the defense. In addition, prosecutorial misconduct at trial led Judge Sullivan to hold one of the prosecutors in contempt, and at one point instruct the jury to disregard some evidence presented by the prosecution. Delays in the case persisted in order to allow the court to deal with additional allegations of misconduct. In February, after replacing the original trial team, new prosecutors discovered even more evidence that should have been turned over to the defense. That prompted Holder to dismiss the charges against Stevens and order an internal review of the offending prosecutors.

Read more »

Was getting rid of Rick Wagoner a good idea? Will capping executive bonuses at Wall Street banks do any good, or just make us feel good? Will all the efforts to make the government more transparent actually matter if we don't understand what we're looking at? Is our news media the equivalent of training wheels - something to hold us up until we can begin to see for ourselves - or are they more like bifocals - something we'll need to use the rest of our lives?

If we were all doctors, and the country was our patient, we would listen patiently at the outrage and disgust over Wall Street and the pity and regrets over the plight of the auto industry, take the nation's vital signs, review the symptoms of the citizenry, and prescribe a remedy. In this case, the proper medical protocol would call for alleviating the symptoms, if possible, while making an attempt to address the root cause of the problem.

Corporate governance would be our culprit in this case. It may sound innocuous, or tedious, the way some remedies your doctor prescribes may sound to you, but if you don't take the time to understand how power is wielded in a modern corporation, complaining about the fat cat salaries the media is spotlighting on TV these days is quite simply a waste of time. But we're human, so we yell at the TV anyway.

"U.S. restrictions on shareholder rights reflect the fact that U.S. companies are less controlled than non-U.S. companies by dominant shareholders. The U. S. has traditionally believed that directors are best placed to protect widely fragmented shareholder interests, e.g., long-term investors versus speculators, retail versus institutional, and large positions versus small."

Hal Scott

A Global Perspective On Corporate Governance

All of the power of a corporation stems from the way it governs itself - from the way its bylaws, rules and regulations determine who has what say so in how the company is run. The number one fallacy about public companies that permeates popular culture is shareholder rights. Shareholders, according to popular lore, wield the power to elect officers, board members, and other representatives. It is also widely believed that a majority of shareholders who band together can dictate the direction of the company.

These things have not been true for a very long time.

The most amazing thing about a public company is the way a man can walk in the front door on his first day with absolutely nothing in his briefcase, and walk out a few years later with so many millions he would need a caravan of Brink's Armored trucks to carry them if he received his golden parachute or severance pay in cash.

Why is this?

Because if you took a look at the balance of power between the shareholders (known in finance 101 as "the owners") and the C-level executives (known in finance 101 as "the managers"), you will find, in just about every public corporation in this country, that the people who have the least amount of skin in the game - "the managers" - have the most amount of power.

Think about it. If you owned a private business, lock stock and barrel, a business that was large enough for you to hire someone else to run it for you in an executive capacity while you went fishing, would you let him set his own salary? Would you smile dutifully when he requested large bonuses in the form of options on equity in your firm every year, staggered in size and date in such a way that the first award would literally fund the actual outright purchase of equity in your company without your manager putting up one dime of his own money? Would you jump and down with glee and turn handstands when he lost money for the year, happily hand over a fat bonus of cash and equity in your business to him, and then tell him you're thinking about improving his contract in order to "retain his services?"

Probably not, because every dollar you pay your executive manager is subtracted directly from your bottom line. When we talk about "real money", as opposed to the "play money" that corporations use, the picture becomes clearer in a hurry. But the money corporations use isn't play money. It's as real as if it came out of the cash register at a mom and pop store.

My old roommate from years and years ago was a computer trainer. He made pretty good money back in the 90's showing people how to use software. But he struggled to stay on a budget. So he came up with a method that helped to rein in his spending. After putting aside money for rent, telephone (remember when there was ONE telephone bill per household, and you had to wait your turn to use the phone), monthly bills and savings, he would withdraw all of his spending money in cash. He'd sit the stack of bills on our glass topped dining table and think about how it was going to be spent. He believed that handling the actual money was a visual deterrent - watching the money go through his fingers, he said, was enough to make him reconsider how much he was about to spend on many an occasion.

Rolling the cash equivalent of a CEO's pay into shareholder meetings in wheelbarrows and dumping it on the floor in front of him would be a nice grandstanding ploy that might be a little embarrassing for the recipient, but it really wouldn't help the shareholders much. What would help shareholders would be a return to the kind of basic corporate bylaws and rules that made shareholder rights take precedence over the rights of management. Can it be done?

In practically every instance that a shareholder proposal is broached, Super Corporations get their general counsels or outside counsels to issue a statement, one that normally contains language - "Super Corporation strongly urges the SEC to reject the shareholder proposal" - that denounces and rejects any overtures by shareholders to make it easier for them to have a voice in company matters. Combine that position with a slate of directors that most shareholders have never heard of, but the CEO has, and you have an entity that in effect answers only to itself, even as it sits atop a pile of other people's money.

We could go the English one better, and break out the windows of every bank on Wall Street, but after they are replaced, none of these board members will be any more sympathetic to us, or any more inclined to hoist their CEO's on a petard when necessary, or any less disposed to approve lavish pay packages whether the company earnings win, lose, or draw. The men who have signed off on the CEO pay bubble for the last thirty years are the directors, men and women who are supposed to be acting in your best interests. Men and women who are supposed to be the grown-ups in the room when your CEO throws a tantrum, or threatens to go home and take the shareholders ball with him if he doesn't get what he wants. Guess who they get their advice from when they need to make a decision? Guess who briefs them when the company has a problem? The guy with the ball - the ball that the shareholders own and the company's creditors have liens on.

If we go back to the analogy about being the owner of a private business, and take a look and one more item, we might get an idea of how to change this equation in the future. As a private business owner, the people you answer to are your bankers and your creditors. People you OWE money can influence you to do things as a business owner that you don't really want to do, just to get to continue to borrow money from your banker, or keep your longer term debt holders at bay. Common stock may be an outdated way to invest in a company. Bond holders and convertible debenture owners have much more leverage with Super Corporations than shareholders do.

This may not be the answer - I'm just thinking out loud here - but it is clear that what we have now only really works for the best interests of a few people. I'm tired of yelling at my TV too. Let's use this crisis as a way to rethink the relationship between capital and management for the new millennium.

Gay marriage is now officially legal in Iowa after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling this morning. It should be a few months until this goes into effect and would take at least two years to overturn with a state constitutional amendment.

Harry Reid has grown a pair, or maybe he borrowed my own representative’s. (Suddenly I’m feeling warm and fuzzy about Nancy Pelosi, after voting for Cindy Sheehan last year…).

We are advised, in the final graf of an otherwise unimportant piece, that the fix is in at the joint house/senate conference, and the confereees, (Robert Byrd notwithstanding) are bringing back a can of reconciliation whup-ass for the Senate Republican Caucus (and their DINO friends).

Pass the popcorn.

Classic Brooks here, make sure you aren't hoodwinked.

Point of departure:

"There are many theories about what happened, but two general narratives seem to be gaining prominence, which we will call the greed narrative and the stupidity narrative. The two overlap, but they lead to different ways of thinking about where we go from here."

They do more than overlap. Way more. So therefore, if your starting point is to bifurcate these narratives, you will arrive at some pretty shaky conclusions.

A little on my background, and why I am quite confident I can Brooks to task here - I am (recently) ex-Merrill, and prior to that, a regulator. As a regulator, one of my "projects" was to go to work on Gaussian copula technology, make sure I understood it and how banks were using it. If you have read the article, you will know Brooks refers to GC modelling, key point is, as usual, he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

I'll come back to GC, first let me cover some of the sins of commission and ommission in the Brooks article.

This is misleading: "There were major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks." IBs became more leveraged institutions in the last 10 years, that is certainly true. But it is not a question of their being officially allowed to gear up, they did because could and no-one stopped them.

This is wierd: "But when big events -- like the rise of China -- fundamentally altered the world economy, their tools were worse than useless." This is, I can only guess, a bastardized version of the macro theory that the reinvestment of China's trade surplus in Treasuries drove down risk-free returns and encouraged risky speculation. What this has to do with rocket-science bankers and their complex models is beyond me.

A more interesting question is why Bobo picked on "the rise of China" as his big event. Why not the housing bubble? I'll venture this - because mention of the housing bubble goes right to the heart of the hubris of bankers in the last decade. The rise of China is peripheral to the issue of asset-price bubbles and excessive leverage, the housing bubble however is not. Case-Shiller contained glaring warnings of a pending crisis, and stupidity was not the reason these warnings were ignored. You have to lay that one on greed and hubris, it was simply not possible to ignore Case-Shiller on the grounds of stupidity.

This too is misleading: "Bankers thought that if they bundled slices of many assets into giant packages then they didn't have to perform due diligence on each one." Not true, bankers either did not perform due diligence because they were not going to be carrying the risk for any significant period of time, or because they assumed someone else had done it. The risk transformation technologies assumed proper diligence had been done.

More crap here: "global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogenous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time." There is a critical difference between making "the same one-way bets" and unity of method. That's perhaps Nassim Taleb's key message - George Soros expresses in his own way (with his "fertile fallacies") - that financial crises are born less of everyone making the same bet, but everyone using the same tools to bet on the future. The "homogenous viewpoints" were not on the market itself, but in how to analyze the markets; and the reason these homogenous viewpoints came about was because technologies such as Black-Scoles, Value-at-Risk and Gaussian copulas gained wide acceptance through rigorous academic review. (Some of Taleb's most trenchant criticism is of awards like the Nobel Prize, which celebrate mathematical method to the point that these methods cease to be porperly scrutinized.) Global communications has frankly nothing whatsoever to do with anything; super-computing maybe, but again, you know what they say about bad workmen and their tools.

So what of this clever-sounding tool, the Gaussian copula? Felix Salmon's article, linked to by Brooks, is a pretty good overview, but the only two things you need to know is that (a) it is a way of estimating cross-default probabilities (i.e. if Company X goes bust, what's the probability this happens to company Y?); (b) parameters aren't constant - or predictable (and you therefore have, in regulatory speak, a question against model stability. More later).

Except for one thing - in a crisis, correlations reset to 1 (meaning, everything turns to shit). There is no mathematical proof of this, but any experienced trader knows this happens; and anyone with a memory of LTCM knows this very well.

LTCM blew up in 1998. Every single senior executive on Wall Street remembers LTCM very well. So let me briefly go back to Brooks' suggestion that stupidity, not greed, caused the crisis. Is that because the industry - and regulators - collectively forgot the lessons of LTCM (which would be stupid) or because they believed it couldn't happen again (which would be hubris and greed)?

This takes me back 7 years or so, but when we first ran into the Gaussian copula, we had one message for the rocket scientists and their overlords - model stability. It wasn't a new or clever message, like so many bright, shiny new things, we just wanted to have these people to backtest the living crap out of their theories and be ready in case a LTCM-type blow-up occurred.

Well, this didn't happen. And it didn't happen not because the industry was too stupid, it was because they convinced everyone who mattered that they didn't need to. The political establishment, which protected the hubris and greed of the bankers, had not coincidentally bought into the same set of values.

So when Bobo warns us not to "be trading the hubris of Wall Street for the hubris of Washington", I hope he realizes this can only be proposed after he has created another egregiously dishonest distinction. Greed-stupidity is one and the same problem, as is the Wall St-DC nexus when it comes to this present crisis.

Without an ability to recognize this, the idea that "we can agree" on any sort of reform is very wide of the mark.

The Financial accounting Standards Board caved to pressure by the banks and has loosened mark to market standards for banks reporting capital for regulatory purposes.  Though these banks are still leveraged institutions who might have too sell assets unwillingly in order to meet their debt obligations, they no longer have to confront the reality of the current market place for the complicated mortgage and asset backed securities on their balance sheets.

At the same time, Timothy Geithner has launched his Public/Private Investment Partnerships as an attempt to create a new buyer's market for these securities.  The deal is: the government gives private investors a non-recourse loan worth 93% of the auction price of these securities.  The government then buys an equal amount of securities alongside a private buyer like PIMCO or Blackstone.  Since we're giving the private investors free money to play with, the hope is that the investors will be willng to pay higher prices for the assets.

The hope is that investors and the government will pay prices that are high enough that the banks can sell at a slight mark-up to current prices but that aren't so high that the buyers overpay and take a bath.  Since the private investors only put up 7% of the capital, they don't have much to worry about.  But the Treasury risks losing much more if it overpays -- the loan made to the pirvate investor plus the equal investment made by Treasury.  Overpayment can mean a bloodbath for the taxpayer.

Now back to mark to market -- free from the realities of the market place, bankers can now hire auditors to develop sophisticated models for what these securities might be worth in fantasy land. This frees the banks up to hold out for higher auction prices from Geithner's partnerships.

The Treasury plan was always meant to inflate these asset prices a bit.  But ending mark to market will inflate them as well.  Put the two together and one of two things will happen: Banks will simply hang onto the securities, happily mark them to fantasy and then "shockingly" fail when reality intrudes or they will use this leeway to demand ever higher prices from Geithner and his pals, causing the partnerships to overpay and once again leaving the taxpayer with the bag.

Sucks.

He sees a window and he's already running.  That's what his risible demagoguery about Obama supposedly destroying churches signifies.  http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=473430

 

Gingrich is not just a cunning manipulator, he's brainy as well (and he wants to believe he also understands stupid people).  A self-aggrandizing dope like McCain (or Jindal) can't go toe-to-toe with Obama, Palin's a joke, and Romney may have a weakness in 2012 in that the economy will probably be doing pretty well.  Gingrich, though, can imagine himself getting past that crowd and winning a Presidential debate against Obama -- he wants contributors to view him early as a smart, credible guy, who can also excite the party's many dolts.   (BTW, Isn't he replacing Palin at some fund-raiser?)

 

Tossing out this laced meat to the idiotic, Talibangelical base is a step for him toward what must be a Southern Strategy (southern and rural).  He is reminding the intellectually challenged that they should regard him as a like-minded bumpkin himself, but a successsful one and their ally and protector.  Stupid people still prefer Palin, though.  But if can bypass her, who but Gingrich is going to protect them from Obama's black helicopters, once Obama gets rid of all their churches and betrays Israel?  Hell, Obama's middle name is actually Hussein, did you hear?!

Meet your new robot overlords...?

In a pair of articles on Wired, computers make a one-two punch of break-throughs

In Robot Scientist, for the first time, a Robot has taken on the role of a lab tachnician -- formulating hypotheses and deciding what experiments to conduct, and then conducting them without human intervention.  Rather than using brute force, it uses AI to automate the process and make findings.

In Program Self-Discovers Laws of Physics  a computer program using only simple laws of math and some advanced AI "evolved" its equations until it could describe the motion of a pendulum.  It turns out, it happened across Newtons second law of motion all by itself.

Both articles are significant for what Wired calls "science in the Petabyte Age" where humans are increasingly finding themselves with more data than ability to process it.  New discoveries will soon belong, more and more, to computers who can formulate correlations from massive or complex data sets.

Stay tuned....  

Barack Obama today at his G-20 press conference, to reporters from across the world:

It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- ( sneezes) -- excuse me -- I've been fighting this all week -- it doesn't mean that we want the state dictating salaries; we don't. We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- as I think people understand in America, at least, people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good. But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results.

I heard it live, I heard him stress: people don't  resent the rich, they want to BE rich--and then after a pause, affirm: And that's good.

More, shortly thereafter:

I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king. And I think what we've learned here, but if anybody had been studying history they would have understood earlier, is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes; that if it's completely unregulated, that if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.

And so, in that sense, I think that we just went through a couple of decades where there was an artificial complacency about the dangers of markets going off the rails. And a crisis like this reminds us that we just have to put in some common-sense rules of the road, without throwing out the enormous benefits that globalization have brought in terms of improving living standards, reducing the cost of goods, and bringing the world closer together.

 

I hate to break the spell, but it really is way past time those in denial give up their imaginary Obama now, he's just not going to show up. He wasn't just pandering to the middle on the campaign trail and in his campaign white papers on economics, he meant what he said. He didn't get stuck with Geithner and Summers and others of the same school, he purposefully chose them. He's not waiting for pitchfork rebellions to allow him to go to the left on economics, because he doesn't want to be there and he doesn't believe most Americans are there. He's not against capitalism, he likes it. (Not only that, but rumor has it, he even likes some people that are also extremely wealthy!)  He never lied about who he was on this front, either.

For those who missed it, I recommend reading the entire transcript or watching a video, it was quite a bit more interesting than his last one.

I was struck watching Boehner (yeah, we're on a last name basis) on Lehrer news hour say that Obama wants to move the country in a different direction, and the american people will get a chance to decide if that's the right move.  The thing is, that already happened: it's what brought the admninstration to power, that's why he won the election!  The critics can say what they like about Obama's administration, but one would be hard-pressed to say he hasn't tried to accomplish EXACTLY what he said he would.  Earth to Boehner - America already voted for that direction; your duty to your constituents is to try to find a way to make his direction consistant with your principles.  It is not to recommend that the President try things your way - we've been doing that since '96, and it was THAT record that got Obama and the democratic congress (just as importantly) elected this year and 2 years ago.  He also said that's what he came to washington to fight - big government, higher taxes, etc.  But while he was fighiting for more deregulation and lower corporate taxes

Also after reading the MIT scientists letter today I found it interesting that he had the opportunity to float his spun numbers but didn't this time when the conversation moved to the "energy tax".

Lastly, he worries about the debt that's being left to future generations.  I agree totally that the administration and Pelosi et.al. are shovelling nonsense when they claim they will cut the deficit in half (first you expand it to twice as big as usual and then cut THAT in half - very different than cutting to 1/2 the average of say the last 8 years), but my question is this: how does cutting taxes solve the demand problem, especially when you cut them primarily for the wealthy?  How many businesses would be looking to expand in this market just because they have an extra 50-100k lying around?  Almost none.  I am an independent contractor (real estate) - if the government cut my taxes 15% would I use that money to invest in a storefront when rents are falling?  No.  Would I hire employees when I have no idea what economic landscape will be in the next 6 months?  No. 

Anyway, I could go on and on but I'll leave it there for now...

As several states enter critical phases in their legislative sessions, the debate for one of the most controversial election reforms continues to dominate headlines and legislative hearings. This year, more than 26 states introduced legislation to go above and beyond federal election law relating to voter ID, despite near consensus among voting rights advocates that it hurts the process far more than it helps. Last week, the hysteria around voter ID reached an all time high in six states, evoking public concern from advocates and citizens alike.

Read more »

The film was short, black-and-white, and presented to a film school seminar for critique and appraisal.  The film-maker and star was understandably nervous because this was his first effort, and he was anxious that it be taken by the audience as a serious effort.

The film opens as the young man gets out of bed and helps himself to a beer from the fridge as his substitute breakfast.  He brushes his teeth, then rinses with the beer.

The audience breaks into laughter, but the film-maker mutters, "It's not supposed to be funny."

As the story continues, the young man takes a desultory walk, but his solitude goes beyond alone-ness, somehow, so that the audience--even though they may not yet realize it--feel his alienation, his isolation, his loneliness and apart-ness from not only others in the film but others in the audience.

In the final scene, the young man sits on the sofa, surveying a coffee table laden with empty beer bottles.  He reaches for a semi-automatic handgun and suddenly rams it into his mouth.

The camera breaks for a view of the table while, horrifyingly, the sound of a gunshot echoes and blood splatters over the table.

The movie ends.

The enthusiastic film-school kids rush to slap the young film-maker on the back and to tell him how good the short film was and how he seems to demonstrate a gift for the craft.

This pleases him, because he had been worried.  He goes home to a house he shares with half a dozen other young people, sits down, and tells the camera that he is glad they liked his movie because now he knows this is something he can do with his life.

But unless you'd been watching the program, MTV's "Real World: Brooklyn," from the beginning, you would not know that the young clean-cut man named "Ryan," is actually a combat vet.  He'd been deployed to Iraq   with the army's 101st Airborne Division for more than a year, had completed his enlistment commitment with the army, and had chosen to apply to the "Real World" program as his first foray into civilian life.

Which makes the short film he produced that much more disturbing, a point which was not lost on his roommates.

They had attended the screening, of course, to show their support for their friend, but they hadn't really stopped to think--not REALLY--what the true cost of war can be for the men and women who are called upon to fight it.  The guy they'd goofed around with for several weeks at that point, pranking, clubbing, hanging out--had just revealed to them, however indirectly, the depths of his depression and anxiety following his combat deployment.

And it brought them--and their viewing audience--up short.

One of his roommates, a pretty girl named Baya, told him later that night that she found the fact that he had actually been to Iraq "surreal."

Now, I'm not knocking this young woman, for the simple reason that she just expressed what most of the members of her generation--really, of ALL OF US--think about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans we may encounter.

Do you realize what a national SHAME that is?

Think about it.

This country has been at war now for SEVEN YEARS, six of them spent in Iraq.

SEVEN YEARS.

To a young person of 21, which is about Baya's age, this represents ONE-THIRD OF HER LIFE.  For one-third of her life, our military servicemembers have been fighting two terrible wars, and yet, to her--to most of us--the whole thing is "surreal."

Thanks to the fact that the president who immersed us into two wars in the first place asked nothing of the rest of us but that we go shopping and continue to visit such hotspots as Disneyworld, then it has fallen to LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION to fight these wars over and over again in a nightmarish Groundhog Day scenario.

And for our young friend Ryan, the second day was about to begin.

In the episode following, which covers the presidential election week, Ryan tells the camera that he will be voting for Barack Obama because, "If he ends the war in Iraq, then maybe I won't have to go back."

His roommates are confused by this because they thought he was out of the army.  He had to explain to them about the Individual Ready Reserve, in which, after you have completed your active-duty service, you are still committed for several more years to the armed services, which means that they can "recall" you at any point during that period of time.

They hadn't realized that, either.  It just makes me sad that so many people remain unaware of that little clause in the contract that can force a young person back to war even when they have completed their service to their country and are busy rebuilding their civilian life.

Most of the roommates are also pro-Obama--which tracks pretty much with the national vote-count--but a couple of the guys are Republican.  They tend to speak of John McCain in hushed tones and to refer to all soldiers and Marines as "heroes."

After the election and subsequent celebrations, Ryan receives an invitation to march in the Veteran's Day parade with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America organization, and to attend their party afterward.  He is honored by this and pays a visit to their offices, where he learns how they have fought for all sorts of things on behalf of the veterans of those wars, including the new G.I. Bill, extended testing and benefits for the war's signature injury, Traumatic Brain Injury, and better after-service care for those veterans who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Ryan is impressed by the scope and heft of the group, and he enjoys marching in his very first veteran's parade.  At the party afterward, he happily runs into one of his buddies from the army.

Most of Ryan's roommates have also attended the party, at his invitation, and while he is across the room, his buddy tells them what a fine warrior Ryan had been in Iraq, the commendations and ribbons he had been awarded, and tells them that they will always be safe with Ryan around.

For perhaps the first time--even counting the day they saw the movie--Ryan's roommates realize not just the cost he has paid to serve his country, but the reality of it in terms of his own service.

In individual remarks before the cameras, they call him a "hero" and marvel at how they never realized before that he'd been decorated for his service.  The war came front and center to them, and they all began to behave a bit differently around him.

One young man particularly moved by this is a naive but earnest fellow named Chet, who comes from a Mormon background and has therefore led a much more...shall we say...virtuous...life than many of his roommates.  He is absolutely dazzled by Ryan's achievements and begins to follow Ryan around like an adoring puppy dog.  Ryan is very kind and patient toward the younger man, treats him seriously and even begins to enjoy having him around somewhat.

So Ryan happens to be alone in the house with Chet when the phone call comes.

Ryan's brother informs him that he has received an official letter from the army, and that he is being recalled back into active-duty service for one purpose and one purpose only--to re-deploy to Iraq.

Ryan is so stunned by this news that he thinks his brother is kidding and asks repeatedly if it's true--really true--and when his brother says, "Dude, Mom and Dad couldn't call you with this.  They couldn't bring themselves to do it.  They were going to wait until you got home but I thought you'd want to start preparing yourself."

Both of Ryan's brothers are in the army as well.  Unlike his civilian roommates, they KNOW what this means.

It means no film school for the fall, which had been Ryan's intent.  It means probably losing his girlfriend, who barely made the harrowing first deployment and who, Ryan thinks, will fall to pieces at the news that there is to be another one.

He staggers around the large over-priced MTV loft in a state of complete shock before his legs give out on him and he plops down onto the couch next to Chet, where he suddenly puts his face into his hands and breaks down into sobs.

Now, no one watching this program would for one minute accuse this young man of cowardice.  As he makes clear almost immediately--he is trained as a warrior; it's his job and he does it well.  He will step up, as he did before, and he will do his duty.

But it sure feels like crap.

The news hits the roommates like a sledgehammer.

Suddenly, the war is RIGHT THERE, in their living rooms.

In their hearts.

It was something they never really had to think of before, not really.  There were video games they could play, where they could pretend to be fighting bad guys in Fallujah.  There were movies they could watch where other people pretended to fight bad guys in Fallujah.

But they didn't know anybody who would actually BE fighting insurgents in Iraq.

They are all heartsick for their friend because they knew he had plans, and that now those plans are wrecked.  Nobody knows how to act around him, what to say or do.

Over the course of the next episode, Ryan tries to deal with this iceburg that has struck the ship of his life.  He tells the guys he rooms with that he's going to "have to get my head in the game," and recruits a couple of them to go to the gym with him and help him start getting back into the kind of shape he'll need to be in for war.

He tells the camera that he's got to get himself mentally prepared, and to start thinking back in those terms again.

It's a whole other world, the world of war.  It takes a whole other mindset, a whole other skillset, to survive.  Like Ryan pointed out once, the skills he drew on when deployed before were second nature to him because he was active-duty and highly trained.  But he's been out of that environment for months now, and he's rusty.

You can't go to war with rusty skills.

But even as he prepares himself for the shock of army re-entry, he can't bring himself to tell his girlfriend.  She's in college, and every time he calls, she regales him with stories about all the exams she's taking and how stressed she is.  He doesn't want to worry her.  So he keeps this cataclysmic event to himself.

Chet and the others can't stop themselves from looking at Ryan like he's a dead guy.  He could be in the near future, after all, and the truth of that is hitting home pretty hard.

WHY HADN'T THEY THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE?

This is MY howl. 

Why don't we ALL think of that?

I was once lectured by my brother about how many churches and classes were doing projects for soldiers, sending Care packages and the like, as proof of how engaged the country is in "supporting the troops."  I was too exhausted by my own son's two combat deployments by then to point out the cold brutal fact that in every instance of which I am aware, Care-package drives and the like, there is always, always, at some point near the epicenter-- a military family.

SOMEONE who started that drive has a family member who is either deployed or has been.  ONLY THEY know just how hard these deployments have been on military families, and in nearly every instance, it is a small coterie of like-minded people who are directly touched by the war who get the ball rolling, even if it's just, say, a church family.  Many volunteers join in--don't get me wrong--but it is very rare to see such an effort spearheaded by someone who has not either deployed themselves or are married to veterans or who have warriors in their families.

The rest of us don't think about it that much.

In fact, it never ceases to amaze me when I see pundits and pontificators claim that Michelle Obama needs to get herself "a signature cause."

The thing is, she already HAS.  Even during the campaign, she has done everything in her power to draw the country's attention to the plight of military families and to do whatever she can to improve their lives, but it seems that even then, people don't pay much attention unless they know someone in the military.

Which, I might point out, means that very few pundits, pontificators, or politicians will take notice. After all, it's not THEIR kids...is it?  Not often, anyway.

So.  I repeat.  The country is not at war.  The U.S. military is.

Around the MTV loft, the kids are in quiet awe of Ryan.  He's a hero to them.

And this is where I have a real problem.

You see, every single member of that household was young, vital, and healthy.  Those very bright young men who voted for John McCain are just the right age to step up THEMSELVES, but I didn't see a single member of that household offering to volunteer to go fight themselves.

As long as you can set servicemembers apart in your mind as "heroes," then somehow that makes them SUPERIOR to you and me, made of sterner stuff somehow, exalted, like something out of a comic book.

Ohhh, I COULD NEVER, goes the thought process.  THOSE GUYS ARE HEROES.  I'm just a lame-old regular nerd-person.  I'd never be able to hack it.

As many of my readers know, I come from a proud military family who, at one time, had five immediate family members who were active-duty, three of whom had deployed to Iraq, and the other two to Afghanistan.  And all those who were too old to be active-duty, were themselves, veterans.

And yet I have never once heard any soldier or Marine EVER refer to himself or herself as a HERO.

Soldiers and Marines are professionals.  Soldiering is their JOB.  No one on the face of this planet does it better.  But ask any one of them you encounter any place doing anything and they will tell you point-blank that they are not only NOT heroes, but that they are uncomfortable being referred to as such.

This is because combat vets, to a man or woman, have all encountered REAL heroes in wartime.  Each and every one can recount to you the story of a man or a woman they knew who risked his or her life for their fellow soldiers and Marines, or to take out a nest of enemy troops, or who gave up their lives in the effort.

THOSE are the true heroes, to the troops who have known them.  I have spoken to MEDAL OF HONOR winners who steadfastly refuse to refer to their own accomplishments as heroic.  Why?  Because they came home alive.

Ryan, engaging and courageous as he may be, is no more heroic than any other young man or woman who shares the MTV loft.  Every single one of those kids could step up and do what he did and what he is doing right now.  (He was due to redeploy this month, with a Stryker brigade.)

As Ryan's friends awkwardly tried to help him forget, by taking him to Atlantic City, it was clear that, for a soldier who has been recalled, there IS NO forgetting.  It was clearly in his mind, behind his eyes, a part of his soul every moment of his life after he got the phone call from his brother.

Back home after a lackluster trip to the casino, Ryan looked up his official orders online and showed his roommates what a Stryker vehicle was, since they did not know.

But all this time, you can't forget the short film at the beginning of the series.  This was a young man who was suffering from depression, alienation, and anger, and he was not even going to be allowed the time to sort through those feelings and maybe even get help from such groups as the IAVA, before he was yanked back into war.

By the final episode, Ryan has accepted his lot and says he's ready to step up.  He tells an old army buddy that he will be re-deploying with a unit that has never deployed.  "I figure if something I can show someone, or something I can do, can save a life because I was there and could draw on my experience, then I will have served my purpose."

Still, he gets into a barfight.  Aided and abetted by his MTV friends, but still, the anger and depression are right there, simmering beneath the surface.

His friends present him with a going-away gift--a journal.  One of the guys tell him to write down all his film ideas, "And then, when you get back, you'll be ready to go.  You won't have to wait for ideas to come to you."

Each member of the household has written a letter to him within the pages of the journal.  He is touched, and it shows.

But in the final episode, the reality of the world inhabited by a man who has served in combat and who is about to do so again comes into stark, sharp focus.

On the night before everyone is due to leave, the girls decide to prank all the guys, to get revenge on the guys for pranks they've played in the past.  But the pranks become mean, and one guy who has tried to stay out of the whole thing gets unfairly blamed by the girls, which causes an enormous argument between all the roommates.

Ryan gets the last word, as he finally shouts at the girls, "Right now, I need to be thinking about ONE THING.  Getting my head in the game!  Getting focused on things that are REAL.  I need to be totally worried about getting my head focused SO THAT I DON'T DIE!  I don't need to be worried about this petty little bullshit..."

It's ironic, isn't it?  The program is called, "Real World."

But to a young soldier, there is only one thing in this life that is real:  STAYING ALIVE.  Keeping their buddies alive.

All the drama, all the bickering, all the nonsense that takes up what passes for real life these days, all the ridiculous American Idol "reality," is, to the soldier or Marine of today, completely UNREAL.

They come home and are greeted by an increasingly silly population, most of whom have no idea just how precious each and every moment of their lives should really be.

Ryan's rage at his clueless roommates is just a microcosm of the way all these guys feel each and every day they are walking around in the civilian world.

As my son said about his civilian job, "I can look at the photograph on my desk of me and my buddies in front of the Blackwater Bridge in Fallujah, and I can think, Gee, this lady cussed me out at work today but hey, at least she wasn't shooting at me."

It's time that we, the collective American WE, stepped up and did our parts.  We don't all have to serve in the military, but the least we could do is stop treating those who do like they are somehow alien creatures apart from the rest of us.

Reach out.  Offer one a beer.  Give him or her a job if you're looking to fill one.  Tell him you appreciate his service, and then go out of your way to make him a part of your world.

Make it real for him, or for her.  Make it real.

Update:  I would like to thank The Real World producers and camera crew for going out of their way to portray the reality of civilian life for combat vets, for highlighting the fine work of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the Iraq Vets Against the War, and for drawing attention to this terribly important issue of our times. 

   Did anyone actually catch this on PBS?

Sick Around America

Investigating the stories of Americans whose lives have becomes a quest to find and keep health insurance...

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/

Following are the comments in response from across the country.

posted march 31, 2009

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/talk/

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am disappointed that this long-awaited special on healthcare did not address the single payer option. There were ample interviews with insurance company lobbyists but no discussion of this obvious choice. Our nation's people are in crisis and the shameful greed displayed in other industries is replicated in the for profit hospital corporations, insurance companies and pharmceutical industries. We cannot afford profit in healthcare, as we will continue to have a chaotic, threadbare system riddled with donut holes and pitfalls for those who can least navigate: patients and their families. I'd like to see equal time -- a Frontline on the single payer option.

Grace Gifford
Conway, SC

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

Many viewers have written criticizing this report for not looking at solutions, in particular, a single payer system. Certainly, the topic is another important piece of any examination into the health care system and how it can be improved. And it would warrant a separate program of its own. We would like to point out that we did examine how the single payer system works in many European countries in our program last season, Sick Around the World. You can view this online.We believe that our report this week, Sick Around America, was equally of value in focusing on our current private health insurance system and showing how many Americans are only one or two events away from financial disaster or total ruin because they can't afford this insurance, or because it offers inadequate coverage, or because it suddenly can be rescinded by the insurer for alleged omissions or errors. We also felt it important in this report to look at another major problem with the private insurance system: America's for-profit medical system means that insurers have a fiscal duty to avoid risk and make profits for investors. Thus, insuring people who already have serious, chronic illnesses works against the interests of stockholders.

Dear FRONTLINE,

How many letters will get published? By cutting off the debate, you have once again silenced the single payer advocates like myself. Single payer represents social justice, compassion over greed. Why are our voices silenced? Sick people don't deserve to be sick. Illness and disease are not punishment for a poor life style.

Pamella Gronemeyer
Glen Carbon , IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for investigating America's health care system and bringing to light many facts that all of us need to be aware of. A national discussion on what is beginning to look like an American tragedy is obviously way past due.

It is now clear to me that "the market" has failed as a mechanism to provide health care for all Americans due to an inherent conflict of interest within the health insurance industry. Whereas companies in most industries fail their investors unless they provide value and service to their customers, companies in the health insurance industry achieve success by minimizing (excluding, denying and delaying) value and service. This is wrong. It is also wrong-headed.

If our nation really wants to live up to its Christian and democratic ideals it needs to be a moral and just nation. Should we really allow the invisible hand of "the market" to decide whether this or that human being is worthy of care? I can see that in many aspects of our lives the "market" system serves us exceedingly well. But, when it comes to fulfilling our basic needs for defense, police, roads, fire protection, education . . . and health care, it seems to me that we are best served by pooling our resources and caring for one another. Medical care for sick people should be a right, not a privilege.

How we respond to the fact of our broken health care system is not only a test of our morality. It is a test of our intelligence. And, it's a test that we can't afford to fail.

Karen Scarvie
Bainbridge Island, Washington

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am a health insurance agent in Utah. I sit on the board of the utah health underwriters as webmaster for www.uahu.org and www.benefitsmanager.net. I was heavily envolved in designed a web connector to help Utah residents by pulling private and state sponsored insurance mechanisms together. Low budget of around $150k that virtually guaranteed health insurance coverage through either the private or state programs. Our state insurance committee rejected the idea. The elected to go for a Mass. type connector program that isn't working well when you check the actual facts. Our state approved H.B. 188 with a zero fiscal note attachment. My point is, I have been a fly on the wall in countless legislative meetings, insurance board meetings, hospital board meetings, the list goes on. The problem is conflict. Your episode brought perspective. You are absolutely right when you claim that healthcare is now unsustainable. I have been crying that a long time. Nobody listens.

Mike Oliphant
Layton, Utah

Dear FRONTLINE,

Dear Frontline,

Your program was as informative as it was interesting.

You highlighted a case where a man was caught in a downsizing and had to move in with his mother. Of course we all are troubled about his situation, but you did not explore lifestyle choices that may have lead to his 95% clogged artery.

Lifestyle choices can be addressed through "Wellness Programs" by addressing a problem BEFORE it becomes life threatening.

There are many cost reductions available in our health care system that could be addressed through more control on fraud. Isn't it possible to achieve cost reduction & improved efficiencies through streamlining red tape and allowing various computer systems to share certain data bases?

And shouldn't tort reform be a part of the solution? There is a large problem nationally of OB-Gyn's leaving their practice due to the high cost of liability insurance. Who benefits most in that area - the lawyers or ???

Lastly I was surprised there was NO mention of our Illegal Immigration situation on medical costs.

Mark Kennedy
Scottsdale, AZ

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have two thoughts on Sick Around America. If we go to a healthcare system like they have in Canada and Europe, be expected to pay a lot more in taxes. At least up to 20% more in taxes. Is this exceptable? An extra 20% more taken out of your paycheck? It would be cheaper to pay the insurance offered by the company.

My other thought is this. I have a lot of dealing with the health care system as I have kidney disease and had a kidney transplant. I have had to have procedures done when I was not on health care. I have dealt with a couple of hospitals under these circumstances. I set up a payment plan with them at surprisingly affordable monthly payments. Hospitals seem to be helpful if you at least try to set something like this up since they will get their money one way or another. Just some thoughts.

Brainerd, Minnesota

Dear FRONTLINE,

I got home late from work and ran sum errands finally turned on the TV to my favorite channel 11.

I was glued to your program and was relieved to finally here that someone got it right about our health system and spoke out about it. We desperately all need to get involved no matter what level of income we live on. In time it will affect us all.

I am currently working for one of the major health organization you have mention in your program. To keep my identity safe I cannot mention names. However I can relate to most of the issues that were talked about in your program.

Let me explain how it ran from the inside. I do know why some of the insurers are given the wrong plans. Everything seems to be done by call centers or on line, so allow me to describe briefly how they work. First of all you are at your desk for 8 or more hours call after call and told you must take 70 calls a day and are allowed to only be on a call for not longer than 10 minutes. So to keep customer volumes up you must rush through to the contents of a policy that you may think best fits their needs with a scripted you must follow. If the caller asks too many questions you suggest mailing then an application or they can apply on line or call back if they have any other questions. While you are on the phone looking up several option for the customer and navigating through several screens (7 or 8 sometimes) and logging information into the system all at once. You are not allowed to put the customer on hold or call them back, so if the customer is satisfy with you he may not get to talk to you again and would have explain his situation all over again to another repersenitave.

That is just a very few of the rules employee need to follow for the companies and I am sure this applies to several other organizations. Take for instance the big groups that run our doctors' offices. Most are allowed only 10 to 15 minutes with a patient. I mean I could go on and on about rules and guidelines in organizations and I am sure we could all tell our stories. What happen to making our customers happy maybe we all should eliminate some of these rules and slow it all down, and give one another the time we need? I know it's all about the making profits and fast sales. But people are canceling and tired of facade. We are all customers and deserve the best. Remember, don't forget in the end it's all about the work of the mouth.

By the way I will be leaving my company shortly. I do believe in treating all my customers with the utter most respect and receive several compliments thanking me for being patient with them and giving them the time they need.

Willowbrook, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am an independent insurance agent and life marketer. I too was irritated by lack of mention of a single-payer or 'Medicare for all' option on your program, but not for the reasons already pointed out by many. I read your editor's note in response to this issue and agree it was not necessarily the point of this program. However the producers failed miserably in the context that, during the segment on Obama's meeting regarding healthcare, a statement was made to the effect that "all parties were in attendance", This is an outright lie - all but one were there. This administration point-blank refused to consider the single-payer route from day one. Any supporters of the most popular concept with the general public were specifically not invited to attend, including several persons on the grass roots level who have been Obama's staunchest supporters for years. Just like the massive giveaways to the financial sector, the Obama administration is comfortably in the back pockets of their campaign contributors.

Craig Honaker
Jupiter, FL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your program, like almost all the programs on the health care issue, lacks one important statistics -- where did all the money go? In 2007, over 70% of the total health care expenditures went to hospital care, professional services and nursing homes. Prescription drugs only accounted for 10% of the total cost and the net cost of health insurance was even lower. That is to say, even if we force all the pharmaceutical companies to provide us free drugs and wipe out all the profit the insurance companies made, we won't get any meaningfully lower cost of health care. If you really want to do a high quality investigational report and responsibly address our health care crisis, just follow the money.

All these numbers can be easily found from the website of US Department of Health and Human Services:http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

New Haven, Connecticut

Dear FRONTLINE,

I thought your program was excellent. I note that the insurance exec speaking towards the end called on doctors and hospital administrators to reduce their pay but said nothing about insurance CEO's doing the same. As a family physician, I know that some of these insurance CEO's make millions of dollars.

I feel we need to move towards a single payer system.

Alice Frazier
Delaware, OH

Dear FRONTLINE,

In December of 2008, I was laid-off from my job. I lost my health care. My husband and I applied for a family plan through Kaiser Permanente; we had been with Kaiser for several years. My husband was accepted but I was rejected. Kaiser rejected me for a history of colon polyps (my father had died of colon cancer and I have regular colonoscopies), and some very minor reasons, like rosacea. I appealed this decision, sending letters from 3 of my physicians at Kaiser, along with the appeal.

We had just seen the Frontline report on Health Care. Today, I received a letter stating that Kaiser had rejected my appeal because of my history of colon polyps. Now, I feel like some of the people that were profiled in the report. I am being denied health coverage because I am trying to maintain my health. I have regular colonoscopies to prevent getting colon cancer. I just saw a commercial with Katie Couric, urging people to get colonoscopies to avoid this cancer. For now, I am covered by an expensive Cobra plan, after the loss of my job. I don't know what I will do in the future to maintain my health. Perhaps seek medical care overseas, in countries that place the patient before the coverage.

Nancy Maekawa
Vallejo, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am an insurance broker and can see both sides of the arguement. It is understood within the industry that premiums have reached a tipping point for both participants and small business. I am disappointed at how consumer driven health was brushed off as an invalid option and poor coverage. In actual fact, consumer driven health is a sure way to decrease the amount of money given to the insurnace company on a monthly basis and often times has a stop loss of less than $3000 for any one calander year. Additionally preventive care and screenings are built in to the premiums and offered at 100% to the insured. That is RICH coverage.

One of the reasons for the rising cost of healthcare is that nearly 100% of claims are paid by a third party (either govt or insurance company). The actual patient has no idea, or vested interest in how much a particular service may cost. Whether it be an office visit, CAT Scan, MRI or Viagra the insured does not care how much it costs. In fact all they care about is how much the copay is. If the insured had a vested interest in some cost share of medical expenses there would not be such a spike in medical costs. For instance Lasik surgury is one of the newer and more popular services offered and does not qualify under any medical plan. The cost for such surgury has decreased enormously since it's inception. The same can be true for all other services paid direct by the consumer as well. It sometimes amazes me how detached people are (and want to be) when it comes to health care costs. Insurance should be in place to cover all catostrophic costs and preventive services. The costs in between should be "budgetable" and paid through a tax advantaged account. All in all a thoughtful program.

Gabriel Christensen
norfolk, va

Dear FRONTLINE,

My husband and I view your program regularly. Last nights show was particularly topical for me. Today I received a rate increase from my health insurance carrier raising my monthly premium from $764.16 to $893.02. I have a $50.00 copay, $5000.00 deductable and I pay 20% of all bills within the PPO network. Only I am covered by this policy. We pay premiums for my husbands too. Like many Americans, I was laid off in October of 2008. I just found employment at less than half of my former salary and am so greatful to have work. You showed America how the middle class is struggling and falling. I hope our congressional and senatorial representatives were watch too. Excellent reporting.

Joliet, Illinois

Dear FRONTLINE,

The reason why medical costs have spiraled out of control and health care in this country is way too expensive for the average person is essentially because Medicare and Medicaid are the health-care industry's built in government bailout money -- always has been -- therefore there's no incentive for the industry to lower, and keep, medical costs down. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and researchers, and medical supplies companies all need to step up to the plate and implement reductions in salaries and costs, and face the music just like the rest of the country in this bad economy. With all due respect to their educations and professions, doctor's salaries are astronomical, and need to come down. At least this would help begin a cycle of lowering health care costs.

Thanks, Frontline, for another insightful presentation.

James Stellhorn
Scottsdale, AZ

Dear FRONTLINE,

In response to the "Sick Around America" report.

I recall I believe it was the 2nd presidential debate between Obama and McCain where an audience member asked

"Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?"

For profit insurance companies exist for exactly that...FOR PROFIT! Is it too hard to understand that? Must we accept that our health, our very lives depend on how some corporate auditor assesses the impact our illness has on the profit margin??

For pity sake...wake up, America!

Ed Crist
Sarver, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,

While I found the program informative (as always), I was disappointed in your discussion of Massachusetts' attempt to provide universal health coverage. By showing one family, which just missed the cut-off for subsidized care, you neglected to show the thousands of poor Americans who have benefited tremendously from Mass's subsidized plan (I know; I'm one of them)-- people who don't necessarily have the option of picking up a job with insurance, as the family you focused on did. As I considered this, I thought about the fact this program really was "Sick and Middle-Class Around America"-- certainly more likely to tug on viewers' heartstrings, but by neglecting to mention the working poor at all, I think you ended up giving a far more negative portrayal of Massachusetts than it deserved, rather than offering it as a model or at least a positive first-step that the rest of the country could consider. Why not talk about the poor?

Gloucester, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

"Sick Around America" leads me to the conclusion that was never said or even suggested in the program: our health care insurance is too essential and important to be conducted on a for-profit basis. People die so others can make a profit, sometimes a considerable profit. It doesn't have to be that way and this may be the biggest change that has to be made in our health care system if we are to make any progress. Our lives are not commodities.

Robert Cambra
san francisco, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I work for a large health insurance company. I must agree with one of the posts that I read that there should be a primary focus on preventive health whether it is a government-run program or a private health plan. The company I work for, and likely many other companies, are already doing this. There are programs that provide discounts on health clubs, offer tobacco cessation programs, and have preventive coverage up-front such as yearly physicals to those that are covered by our plans. These types of things have proven to improve the overall health of a person and catch a treatable disease early on if one would actually participate in those offerings. I do believe that a large percentage of Americans do not take responsibility for their own health and choose to not take advantage of these types of programs. I have seen our company offering payment in the form of gift cards just to "entice" enrollees to participate in the "healthy-living" programs we offer. I think this shows what is wrong with our system- -- we have to pay people to actually take care of themselves..

Robbinsdale, MN

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have been an Oncology nurse for 39 years. The health care system has increased in complexity and decreased its ability to care for patients. Part of my work in recent years involved getting insurance approval for cancer therapies and most recently Hospice. My message for ALL OF US is that although we may pay for insurance we have no idea what will really be covered until the time of our illness - many times a loop hole is found to avoid payment. There are some very disreputable companies who approve therapy (including Hospice care!) and then do not pay the bills after the service; finding loop holes. They have methods to force customers and providers to give up seeking payment (i.e. voice mail with no option for a live person, circular transfers where after 40 minutes you end up where you started, many hoops to jump through, will not put anything in writing; their approval is over the phone - easily deniable).

It is wrong for insurance to be for profit because the profit will always come before the patient.

Thank you for a wonderful program.

Katherine Finstuen
Portland, Oregon

Dear FRONTLINE,

I only wish that the health care picture in Massachusetts were as rosy as Dr Bigby portrays it. My daughter and her family of four live in Mass. She has been diagnosed with Sclerederma and her husband needs surgery for an intestinal condition and has a history of cancer. She cannot work. He cannot afford the premiums for the plan offered by his employer. The family income is in the $60,000 range. The state recently took a portion of their much needed tax refund as a penalty. For them it is a roof over their head and food on the table or health care and yet they have been punished by the state. They were far better off in Rhode Island where they had Neighborhood Health. My daughter suffers from her symptoms daily yet receives no health care at all. Massachusetts has the best hospitals in the country but the worst health care system.

Janet Bagley
West Greenwich, RI

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a pharmacist with 25 years of experience in a variety of health care settings and a keen interest in improving the health care system it is refreshing to see a candid expose of how our disfunctional health care "system" results in profound negative effects on peoples lives. Thank you for helping me make a more informed idea of our current system and what alternatives are possible. There is no doubt that there are other models of providing health care that do a much better job of meeting the needs of their participants than ours does.

Joel Gingery
Plymouth, MN

Dear FRONTLINE,

Why was nothing said about the huge cost of malpractice insurance the Dr. have to pay that drives up the cost in the USA that other nations do not have! Tons of money is spent just trying to cover the possibility of being sued and not really helping the patient. I am a small business owner wanting to drive the cost of health care down, but that is not going to happen without some huge changes like limiting the liability of Dr., cutting service, and more preventive care. Are we still spending half our lifetime health care cost in the last 6 months of life?

jeff Ballard
Dallas, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your program failed to include the affects the legal system has had and currently has on the escalating costs of medical care. The Obama administration should also include tort reform in the equation along with health providers, hospitals, pharmacies, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Robert Fiore
Newton, NJ

Dear FRONTLINE,

FRONTLINE'S Sick Around America did a fine job, in a limited time, of providing insights into several facets of our national disgrace aka the financing of our healthcare non-system. Arm Chair Quarterbacks, like myself, would have wanted the film to include:

1. A spotlight on the politics of healthcare, which sustains hollow reform and enables those benefiting financially from it to prevail ... indeed, proliferate their roles.

2. A focus on the impact of fraud, waste, and abuse, which are exponentially more costly than technology, malpractice insurance, defensive medicine, or other superficial excuses for not dealing directly with the paralyses of real reform.

3. The fundamental question: Why should the nation entrust the insurance industry, which has exhibited for decades patterns of egregious business practices, blindness to public interest concerns, unbridled greed, and an unconscionable contempt for its customers?

Terry Brauer
Chicago, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Sadly Frontline left out discussion of Single Payer or even Obama's Public Option plan that he ran his campaign on, but at least the problems of private health insurance have been exposed because until you have to deal with it, you just have no idea that it runs the way it does. I was laid off from my job 2 months ago, where I carried the health insurance for my husband and I because we couldn't afford his company's insurance. It's great for some that Cobra is subsidized and more affordable now, but I am ineligible for Cobra because insurance is "available" through his company. Yes, the same unaffordable insurance that caused me to take the full time job that I lost. The result is that we will probably insure my husband through his company and I will face a life with NO insurance since I have been denied private insurance due to a pretty bogus pre-existing condition.

I would love to see the problem exposed even more by getting loud mouth right-wing talk hosts and hypocritical members of Congress who have the best taxpayer-funded insurance available but who rail against "socialized medicine" to apply for private health insurance just to see if they could get it. My bet would be that they couldn't. Remember how even cancer survivor John McCain would've been denied the very insurance that he wanted the rest of us to get? What a joke.

Cecil Township, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,

There are three issues that I believe carry much weight that were not discussed in the episode.First is the main cost that drives our medical system into the ground- poor health. Lack of exercise and poor diet contribute more than any other factor to high cost problems like heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity. As a nation, we need to improve the mindset of the citizens by pushing health initiatives like eating healthy, exercising daily, and quitting smoking.Second, I believe uninsureds need some way to negotiate their medical costs. These costs are inflated by providers in order to recoup a greater portion from insurers. Doctors & hospitals should be limited to charging the Medicare-approved rate for services to those without any bargaining power.Third, another culprit in the inflation of costs is the incredible cost of malpractice insurance. Though technology is a major cost for doctors and hospitals, the liability insurance costs that they face are also being passed on to patients and society. These high costs also act as a barrier to entry for doctors who would otherwise become general practitioners. This has moved the delivery of care away from the family doctors to a host of higher cost specialty doctors. Finally, it is up to Americans to decide to live more healthy lives, which will in turn reduce the demand for medical procedures and prescriptions and thus lower costs.Thank you for your reporting.

Charles Rosenbaum
New York, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you Frontline for producing this and the "Sick Around the World" episodes. Although we, as Americans, may disagree about healthcare in this country, we need to be aware that along with education, energy policy, and the economy this issue should and must be addressed.

As I see it, and as were discussed in both pieces, there are two essential questions: 1) Should we have some sort of universal healthcare?2) If so, how do we pay for it?

Personally, I believe deeply and with great moral conviction, yes, we should. To me, it is a basic human right. There are many who would disagree, but I think it speaks to what sort of person they are, and I hope there are more who would agree rather than not. As for cost, it will have to be balanced and come from all sectors. Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies (or other healthcare entities/payers), government, and consumers. We all have a stake and we all should make sacrifices and contribute. Idealistic? Perhaps, but I also think it's cold hard realism.

Joel Steinbrecher
Chicago, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Until health care comes to be seen as a right, nothing will change, and it only such a change in attitude that will make a single payer system possible. Perhaps if Mr. Long's suggestion is taken, and people only got the medical care they could afford, the true costs would be more apparent--particularly as those costs come to be paid in numbers of bodies, of people dying in their homes and on the streets of this nation. I fear it will take such a Dickensian spectacle to permit the political powers that be to effectively address the problem. In the interim, I expect to work until I die (without medical coverage and precious little medical care), or until I get too ill to work and die in penury.

Des Moines, Iowa

Dear FRONTLINE,

While you did make some good points for folks who are totally uninformed( and never saw SiCKO) it seemed as if this was to promote Obama's health plan. I was also disappointed that all the examples were white middle class folks-no diversity at all. Pretty sad.

Speaking as a long time Single Payer activist it sure would be refreshing to see PBS do a documentary on why Single Payer is the only real solution-interviewing folks from the other countries who have coverage and why they would not want to trade for ours. Debunking all the myths that the other countries' systems are failing and unpopular. More and more states have Single Payer bills going through the legislative process. The public and now more than half of the doctors are supporting Single Payer. Amy Goodman seems to be the only responsible journalist pointing this out on her Democracy Now program. You mentioned Taiwan and could have expanded more on it as a model for the US. It was in the Sick Around the World piece, as I recall.

Lynn Huidekoper,RN
Menlo Park, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

A daunting task like establishing universal healthcare is best approached incrementally. I suggest step one should be to see to it that everyone gets access to preventive medicine - I mean routine diagnostics. Add to that a substantive effort at public education, letting people know how important it is to get those tests. If you don't tackle preventive medicine first you are making work for yourself in terms of people needing more expensive treatment.

Then you can go after universal repair medicine.

lucy flanagan
seattle, wa

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your "Sick Around America" show was excellent in all respects except one. Once again you held to the media standard of maintaining absolute blackout regarding the option of a "Single Payer" system. Most advanced countries provide superior care, far more efficiently, with less cost without the burden of insurance. Your coverage never included that possibility as proposed by HR 676. And, you stated that President Obama's meeting included all the stakeholders without mentioning that Single Payer advocates were deliberately excluded. Such coverage withholds critical information from the public.

Jerry Reed
Grants Pass, Oregon

Dear FRONTLINE,

I doubt America's health insurance companies are interested in any meaningful reform. Insurance executives with their nine-figure compensation packages and large institutional investors who have fared extremely well under our market-based health care financing system are not willing to give all that up.

Other nations that use private plans do so within a program of social insurance. Their plans are designed for the public good, assisting individuals in receiving the care they need without having to be concerned about the source of payment. They fulfill the insurance function by effectively pooling risks, whether through a single risk pool or though various methods of risk adjustment. Our private plans are based on a business model designed to ensure success in the health care marketplace. Success is defined by the medical loss ratio, spending the least they can on health care. Much of their profound administrative waste is due to their elaborate efforts to avoid paying for care.

The nations with the most efficient health care delivery systems use a single, universal risk pool that is equitably funded. This is most easily accomplished through progressive taxes. If we did the same here in the United States, why would we continue to support the intrusion of the wasteful private insurers who do no more than take away our choice of hospitals and physicians while laying bets on our health?

With single payer, public administration is much more efficient, plus enrollment is a one-time event - absolutely everyone is covered for life.

Representatives for Single Payer are legion. Frontline could do no harm by interviewing them.

Martin Bring
Bellingham, Washington

Dear FRONTLINE,

After seeing both the "health programs" (World vs US), I think Obama should just take the Taiwan system and ramp down Congress to get that pass. I am pretty sure all Americans will support him. We have enough smart people here than can come up with a system w/out the input of the insurance companies. There only two parts to this equation: doctors and patients. I am pretty sure all "good" and conscientious doctors will make all effort to cure the sicks -- the last things they want is to look at the bill. So do the patients -- the last thing they want is to worry about the bill when disasters struck them.

1) Make health care universal2) Train more doctors and nurses -- the universities are monoplizing this and dont make enough efforts to get the more peope through the systems. Today, with so much needs for nurses -- why can't we train them? 3) Get rid of the insurance companies -- we really don't need them.

When I see the bill for $1Millions -- I wonder how is that possible? Someone makes profit on that -- it's sure isn't the sicks. We have a system that acting like a parasite on the sicks -- until we see it that way, it's hard to do much.

Zachery

Zard Zachery
Fremont, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Why don't we eliminate the middle man (Insurance Companies).Insurance Companies do nothing to help people get better. They are just a middle man making a profit off the sick I see no reason for them having anything to do with health! It should be illegal for them to have anything to do with medicine. How do they help with anyone's health?I am a diabetic and have survived for 43 years of diabetes having only had insurance for the first 5 years of my disease.Insurance companies are a joke, if you have any illness you are out of luck. No compassion from them.

Petaluma, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

There is more than enough blame in this entire mess to go around.The real reason health care is such a mess is the same reason the economy is in such a mess. We as a society, value money, more than we do people.

Willard Gatzke
Canon City, Colorado

Dear FRONTLINE,

My father and I just finished watching the piece on America's health care, it was very interesting to say the least. I myself am only eightteen and I am pretty sure I don't have to worry about health problems for a while, but what concerns me are my loved ones. My father is in his fifties, without health care and his only insurance is "Don't get sick". I find this ridiculous and no one no matter what age should have that type of mindset, especially with our technology.

I find it amazing, but not surprising, how our government has let this go out of control for so long. What I find even more amazing is that the American people have let this happen. Do the people who run the insurance companies have no souls? Does the government really care? Or is it just more money in their pockets..? All in all I don't think there is any reason or excuse what so ever, to treat people like this. It is unjust, and I honestly don't know how these people sleep at night.

Hopefully later on in my life this country will finally get it together and make this whole insurance thing work. This is no small issue and cannot be slept upon. If other countries can make it work why not this one? One answer I can think of is, we are one selfish country and everything is about ourselves. As long as the top dogs are making big bucks off of our misfortune, who really cares? We are of no importance to them, we are just the little people that keep them at the top.

So please, become informed and not let them blind you with their haze. Thank you PBS for clearing up that haze and making great programs such as Frontline.

Continue to tell it like it is :)

Renee Park
Los Angeles, California

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for covering this. Now that the middle class is being significantly impacted by job losses, the ridiculous practice of tying health benefits to an employer is finally coming under scrutiny. This is absolutely an economic issue and I'm disappointed that President Obama has decided to take single payer coverage off the table.

Everyone will need health care at some point. This needs to be a shared risk that we bear. Every western nation, except ours, provides this and their health metrics beat ours in every category.

Amy Flynn
Phoenix, AZ

Dear FRONTLINE,

Dear Frontline:

Where in the world did we ever get the idea that healthcare should be just another "typical" consumer good or service that we can either purchase or forgo? Didn't we ever stop to think that the guaranteed health of our citizens, families, and loved ones is not an OPTIONAL thing? Why is it right and proper for government to provide fire department services, police protection services, military services, and legal services - but NOT healthcare services? Who in their right mind would not put healthcare ahead of all these other government-provided services? Who would put up with having to provide a credit card number or a suitable insurance policy before they could summon the services of a policeman or fireman?

How can we possibly think of continuing this uncontrolled profit-intensive healthcare system when by all indications it is an abject failure and a national embarrassment? How many lives must be lost, sufferings prolonged, savings decimated, and bankruptcies endured before we finally decide that the only way for any moral society to provide healthcare for all is to put it at the top of government-provided services?

There are plenty of ways to utilize for-profit market mechanisms but healthcare is NOT one of them. At the end of the day for-profit healthcare is simply immoral.

Jim Thomas
Marietta, Georgia

Dear FRONTLINE,

As Americans we are all faced with this problem of the health care crisis. Yes this is what it is, a crisis. Our government just spent billions of tax payers money to bail out the banks and wall street. It's interesting that our financial health as a nation is more important than our physical and mental health.

The question we need to ask ourselves, and this is the issue, what kind of society do we want to live in? I read on letter on this forum in which the writer refused to pay for someone else. His attitude was pay your own way and leave me out of it. This speaks volumes to me. The subtext of this mans selfish comments, and I bet he considers himself a good christian, the subtext is that in America we are individuals. This is a bastardization of some mythological ideal left over from the frontier age of the 19th century. The fact is there was no period like this. The settlers of the past knew about collective living, their lives depended on it.

It's time we as country grow up and make decisions that are good for our collective good as a nation. I would also like to add that the Massachusetts model is the wrong model to follow, I should know I live here.

I am also so very disappointed with president Obama on so many fronts. From the health care issues to the financial crisis it is clear to me that I voted for a man who has turned out to be nothing more than another politician who is good at being rhetorical without any vision or ability to really solve problems.

The insurance companies are the major problem as I see it.One can also point to the way we educate doctors who end up with enormous debt from all the schooling they go through. When you start to dissect this problem you start to see that our whole system from cradle to grave is broken, the health care issues is just one of the larger problems we a country have created for ourselves.

boston, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Where are the people of color? Where are the poor, the working poor, the gay people with AIDS? Your documentary showed precisely two people of color, both of whom are administrators in the "system". Regardless of the intent of the documentary's producer, shame on you for failing to show "all of America" - particularly when so many of the front line of America's healthcare system - the nurses - are women of color, often immigrants. We were truly disappointed in you, PBS! An otherwise great show ruined by your myopic view of who is America.

Marc Matheson
San Rafael, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Frontline's Sick Around America touched only the tip of an sick 'health? care system.

Some one should do a documentary on the accounting practices of hospitals? How profit and 'non' profit is dependent on physicians ordering multi and repeatative examinations? How levels of patient acuity are manipulated to increase profit? How prolonged Intensive care stays cover costs of excessive overrides in other departments?

denver, cO

Dear FRONTLINE,

What a journalistic failure. The problem with health care is coverage of people, obviously stricken with Munchausen syndrome [maybe by proxy], who go to the doctor for something like an antibiotic for the common cold. Antibiotics, by definition, don't work with the common cold. The "victims" should be charged for the full cost, and the doctor shouldn't be able to bill a dime to the same plan that I, a non narcissistic "victim", pay into.

I don't mind that 99.9% of my premiums pay for people like the cute girl with Lupus who died. I am disgusted that the vast majority of my premiums pay for painfully stupid "victims" who go to the "doctor" for a sniffle, and insist on coverage, and thus cause the death of people who really need coverage that I grudgingly pay for. The blood of the cute girl with Lupus who died is on the hands of every "victim" who goes to the doctor with what is obviously an untreatable common cold.

I'm disappointed in the recent Frontline producers who can't ask the real questions. Dot con rocked, but it's like Frontline production was taken over by suburbanites with degrees from CU in ethnic studies or something. I think I'd rather watch Fox News for entertainment.

Phil Kaplan
San Francisco, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

As a family physician, I have witnessed 33 of my primary care collegues bancrupt, close their doors without a buyer, or change careers in the last 7 years. Meanwhile, we have twice as many ER physicians and hospitalists in my town. What this means is that if you live here and don't have a primary care physician you get your care later in the disease process and at a higher cost. Please don't talk to me about physician prices, being a family phyisican is like being a family farmer or small grocer, we are getting killed in the marketplace and the public needs to wake up to this fact and stop lumping us with specialists bringing down a half million a year.

John Bender
Fort Collins, CO

Dear FRONTLINE,

We need universal health care, with whatever streamlining and rationing it will require. There are too many people who have done everything right, but just don't happen to work for a major employer. So they get to die or go bankrupt when they get a serious illness? Do we have to choose our jobs by the type of health insurance, regardless of our skills? I think we have to ask ourselves if someone deserves to die because they are under-insured, unemployed, self-employed, bankrupt, work for a small company, a new college graduate, widow, or full-time caretaker (those were just a few examples). This documentary did a great job of showing how those too young for Medicare and newly graduated from college are particularly vulnerable.

Sandi Dooley
Libertyville, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

To say that I'm scared is an understatement. I, like Nikki, have a chronic condition that appeared with no rhyme or reason. No doctor, none of my six specialists can tell me how it came about and NO PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS (I was never a smoker) would have made a difference! I hit the jackpot on the "rare not so rare" disease list. And there are many like me who need real medical care, not just a checkup every year.

Medical insurance is life and death issue for me, but only because it opens access to medical care. I have insurance that I bought on the private market when I was well, but it is hard for me to afford the doctors' appointments and CTs that I desparately need to determine my current status. My insurance is better than most, but it only covers 1 doctor's appointment a quarter and only $1000 of one procedure a day. Many days I feel as if America is telling me to die, which really pisses me off, because with access to regular care I believe that I can keep this "monster" in the box. Some symptoms exist, but I have to ignore them and am putting off a trip to a specialist until I can afford the co-pays. Folks this is the reality of healthcare in America; most people even if they have insurance face crushing debt (and the possibility of not having an income source if you get well). The healthcare debate is NOT about insurance coverage... It is about whether Americans truly understand and are willing to embrace the value of creating the right to medical treatment without the stress of financial ruin and being a "loss" on some company's income statement.

Irving, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

You're program on healthcare was disappointing and slanted. The bulk of the interviews were of people in the healthcare industry, the heads of the companies or people who represented the industry as a whole. I saw only two physicians who didn't represent the healthcare industry interviewed. Dr. Delbanco works at a large tertiary hospital and thus does NOT have to deal with the day to day rigors of having to battle with health insurers for services, medications, etc. The general public has very little idea of how their insurers attempt to insinuate themselves into people's personal and private lives. The dirty little secret of the insurance industry is that if one had the opportunity to look at their ledger sheets, the number one item on accounts payable would be administrative costs and not reimbursements. This program sadly did nothing to confront the way the health insurance industry is run.

Michael Katz
Norwell, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Let me add my voice to the others who wish that this program had discussed the option of a single-payer system. Can America afford the continued existence of the private health insurance industry?

Oak Park, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

The first thing to be done is identify the true culprit here -- False Costing. Then take away the "false buffer" that exists. The Insurance Companies selling health insurance. Let insurance companies sell their other products for a profit. Such as car insurance, life insurance, flood insurance, etc. These are rare events that strike randomly. Let the insurance companies play in these sandboxes. Then we can concentrate on the real problem which is a run away cost process within the actual health system. One which we cannot clearly see now. But take away the "buffer" and suddenly the air will clear revealing a greedy system that feeds on the people's fear of being hurt and dying. Do you ask the cost of fixing your broken leg as you lay there in pain? Probably not, and this is the root of the problem. When we buy a product in a store it is clearly labeled with the price and we can make a decision. Why is this opportunity denied us in the health system? The health system is important to us all, just like the water we drink and the utility system. These are price regulated. Why not the health system?

Shreveport, LA

Dear FRONTLINE,

It is utterly dissapointing that the program spends so little time talking about solutions; analyzing and comparing the data, the arguments and the criteria that seperate the key proposals for a solution going forward. In illinois, the health care justice act, sponsored by then State Senator Obama created a comission to study key proposals for achieving universal healthcare in Illinois. Eight proposals were put forward, most by insurance industry backed groups. The most cost effective solution by a wide margin was the single-payer proposal. It was estimated to cost Illinois tax payers around $600 million per year. Incedentally, that turns out to be near the amount in combined reported operating profits by Illinois' health insurance industry.

This is the kind of information we need to see in order to fuel a truely constructive national dialog. How many single-payer spokespeople did you have on the program? I didn't count one. How many industry spokespeople did you have on the program? A half dozen.

What kind of public-interest reporting is this?

I'm again dissapointed by Frontline.

Dorian Breuer
chicago, il

Dear FRONTLINE,

While you have presented a lovely apologetic for socialized medicine, you completely ignore the lack of transparency in health care cost and quality. If I walk into an emergency room with a broken finger under current circumstances no one within five floors, possibly even 100 miles, can tell me how much it will cost. No wonder costs are out of control. Rather than trumpeting ideas like forcing everyone to purchase health insurance and fixing wages and prices, how about proposing medical providers and insurance companies be forced to notify consumers of the cost of service in advance (including the enormous discounts offered to large insurers). If I can get a good faith estimate from my auto mechanic, why is it that a bunch of MD, PhD, and MBA's are too stupid to do the same.

Scott D
Springfield, VA

Dear FRONTLINE,

President Obama, reportedly, has declared that a single player health plan is "off the table" in his administration, deliberations on health care reform. I found it deeply disappointing that Frontline, in "Sick Around America", also clearly chose to take the concept of a single player health care plan off the table. What a shame, to be left wondering if PBS and Frontline's editorial judgement has been compromised by the influence of the for profit health care industry.

Larry A. Unruh
Chicago, IL

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for your efforts tonight to show viewers a few of the glaring shortcomings of the U.S. medical insurance system, as well as your past coverage of how our medical insurance compares to other systems from around the world. Given this body of coverage, then, it seems to me it would have been logical tonight to discuss alternatives to our system; to take this moment in time to show viewers how other developed nations have been able to develop systems that deliver high quality medical care at lower costs. It is not news to us that the U.S. health insurance system is broken. It is news to consumers that other nations do it better. If debate continues to be limited to the insurance architects we saw tonight, this nation is doomed to the idea that underwriting, or rescision, or whatever buzzword is now in vogue to describe medical insurance denial, is acceptable.

Pat Motherway
Oakdale, Minnesota

Dear FRONTLINE,

Health care is not a right and we shouldn't try to make it one. The American people need someone to tell them that if they get sick it is their own personal responsibility to pay for it. The government should not be forcing individuals to subsidize others health care costs, and yes that goes for the people on medicare and medicaid too.

The best way to solve the healthcare "problem" is for the government to get out of the health care business. Let's put an end to medicare and medicaid and tell people that if they get sick to pay for it themselves. If they can't pay... then too bad.... that's your problem not mine.

Hugh Long
Atlanta, Georgia

Dear FRONTLINE,

The last visit I made to my doctors I was the only person sitting and waiting to see the doctor and whilst I sat there, a never ending line of prescription drugs reps walked in and dropped off samples for promotion to my doctors patients, there is only one word for this kind of activity and that is OBSCENE.It is time now for the USA to revamp the system and throw out all the people and corporations in this industry that are bitten by the greed weed and also make every single citizen contribute to a better health care system, every other country on the planet earth has better than us and it should be unacceptable to us here in the USA to have anything less

st charles, missouri

Dear FRONTLINE,

Until we all share the costs of health care as a nation, we are all at risk. Many of us make just enough to not qualify for help paying for health insurance. In Massachusetts having health insurance has been mandated. I got on board and did my share to join the system. It went from about $600 to $850 per month for just one individual, certainly not affordable. I also do not see any cost containment, or needed reductions. It is no longer possible to afford this "slanted system". Every month I paid into insurance, the less I had to pay those who actually provided me good medical care, such as my dentist. I was being forced to choose between having insurance and putting my money into real health care such as dental fees. As individuals we are one illness away from financial ruin.

We as individuals and families are bring told that we are too costly to insure, while most of us pay taxes to support the health insurance coverage of municipal workers, teachers, police officers, our legislators, state and federal employees, service men and women.

We as individual citizens are not looking for free health care. We do however need and demand a system that is fair to all. As long as we send our dollars monthly to the insurance companies we will always be at their mercy for rescision, for for monthly increases. My dollars are my vote and I for one am not willing to pay until the system is reformed to fairly share the burden of health care.

Vineyard Haven, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

[This] documentary portrays so much of what is wrong with the health care financing industry in this country. My daughter's insurance company denied her claim for coverage of a complication of delivery, and after two appeals, a letter from the Obstetritician, and enlisting the aid of a billing advocate, the company rescinded its decision and paid, twelve months after my grandson was born. How many people would have just given up and paid? Or gone bankrupt? I am one of the 59% of American physicians who suppports Single Payer healthcare reform.

Carol Paris
Leonardtown, MD

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you, Frontline, for your inspiring programs first on health care around the world and now on health care in the U.S. We should draw three conclusions:

1. As Dr. Delbanco stated so eloquently, the first step is to provide health care to everyone. Only then, and at the same time, should we tackle the problems of cost and quality. If we wait to expand health coverage until we have succeeded in curtailing costs, we will wait forever and acquiese in the suffering of those without access to the care they need.

2. If we truly want everyone to have health insurance, we need to provide it to them, i.e. to make signing up as autonmatic and easy as possible. Mandates to purchase health insurance are inefficient, expensive, incomplete, and unnecessary.

3. To make universal health care as efficient and inexpensive as possible, we need to institute a single payer system, i.e. to eliminate the hassle imposed on patients and providers by the private insurance system and eliminate the waste of health care dollars in marketing, claims processing, administrative salaries, and profits. The models are the single payer bills introduced by Representative Conyers in the House and by Senator Sanders in the Senate.

Thank you again, Frontline, for teaching us these lessons.

Paul Sorum
Schenectady, New York

Dear FRONTLINE,

The insurance consultant's conclusion is that patients, doctors and hospitals should all take less. Naturally, he makes no mention of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies' exhorbitant profits. If we took those profits, we could cover the cost of health care for everyone in this country. In our country, we have the insurance companies running the system for their own profits and people be damned! Health care should not be a profit-making enterprise, it should be a right for everyone in the US. I think the only answer is a single-payer system and we can design one that fits our country. It will be more cost effective and will bring decisions about medical care back to the physicians and the patients, and not leave it to the insurance companies to say who can get care and who can not based on their profit-making needs.

Euthemia Matsoukas
Delmar, New York

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am a physician in private practice (pathology) in Wisconsin. Your program made some very good points, with the usual big insurance versus physicians versus government issues pretty well explored. From a physician's standpoint, it is a constant source of annoyance to be held up for ridicule for what is seen by the public to be excessive income. While many physicians do earn solid six figure incomes, look at the level of skill and training they require (8-10 years or more of expensive medical school and further training AFTER college before making any serious money)! By the way, even the best paid and most highly skilled physicians' compensation pales in comparison to the $100 million plus BONUS paid to the CEO of United Healthcare Insurance in 2005! Why do people balk at the thought of a neurosurgeon, for instance, making a half million dollars or more a year for arguably the most technically skilled job in the world, working inside human brains where the slightest slip or mistake could easily be fatal, and not complaining at all about their favorite NFL quarterback getting 50 times that or more per year to play a game, or a corporate CEO who can make a neurosurgeons LIFETIME income in a single "bonus"! Where are our priorities???????

James Kranz
Kenosha, WI

Dear FRONTLINE,

Sick Around America" is a good assessment of the sorry state of health care in our country, but there was one glaring omission--the possibility of a single-payer system. A discussion of an expanded "Medicare for All" system should have been a part of this program and should be on the table in Obama's health care reform plans. As Harvard professor Uwe Reinhardt said in the program, cutting the administrative costs of the health insurance companies would easily pay for all the uninsured. In other words, by eliminating the health insurance industry as middleman, we solve the health care crisis. Medicare for all makes both good business and moral sense. Are our legislators brave enough to take this step?

Carolyn Ferguson
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Time to move beyond story after story of the dysfunctional, for profit U.S. health insurance system; the public is ready to learn how "other developed countries" manage to provide health care for everyone. Frontline had nary a word about single payer system. Oddly, there was no mention of the highly popular U.S. single payer insurance called Medicare. Have you ever met a 65 year old person willing to forego Medicare because it is a government program? I am disappointed that Frontline did not provide basic information about how a European country or Canada manages national healthcare, including the "premiums" that the citizenry pays.

Phyllis Stutzman
Goshen, IN

If anyone bothered to take the time to scan some of these responses, what's your take on a how people are feeling about this pressing issue?

If you had actually viewed this presentation from PBS, what's your take?

~OGD~

The Global Plan Annex - Declaration on Strengthening the Financial System has been published.  It is a good start, although it appears to have been watered down by the US-UK-Japan Axis of Improvidence.

TPM has had a couple of front page notes about Koh.  One was titled Stipulated for the Record.  It references a Slate article.

A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."  http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?&page=1

New York lawyer Steven J. Stein attended a recent dinner of the Yale Club of Greenwich which was addressed by Yale Law School dean, Harold Hongjiu Koh. Koh suggested that sharia law, among other foreign laws, could have applicability within the United States in certain circumstances. If we are a nation constituted solely and entirely by "ideas," isn't it distressing to see how easy it is for such a prominent person to forget them? Fortunately Stein remembers. His letter is below. 

I am a PBSer. I love watching the mini-series they broadcast mostly without commercials. One of the best documentaries I have ever seen was Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Johnson produced by David Schaye, Paul Barnes and Ken Burns. I was so impressed that I bought it.

I bought it because it was the most compelling turn from the 19th century to the 20th century story about race, sports and life in the United States. When I watched Unforgivable Blackness I was trying to imagine what life was like for my great grandfather and his father. Neither men were boxers but they were black men living in the United States at the same time. I guess this story pique my interest because I wanted to imagine what life might have been like for my great grandfather and his father after I found documents about their lives. There aren't or weren't too many stories about black people especially black men outside of W.E.Dubois and Booker T. Washington. There aren't too many narratives  outside what is popularized in and by the American narrative. Jack Johnson is/was a character. His story is unique. He was so interesting that it didn't matter that he was a boxer and I am far from being the biggest fan of boxing. There is one point in the documentary where the narrator reads a few words written by the famous writer Jack London. London's words--if they are his--are shocking to say the least. This story was compelling enough that it shaped and reshaped what I knew, what I thought I knew and what I imagine about the lives of black people during this era in American life.

Jack Johnson's life ended tragically. Sometimes, according to the documentary, it seemed that he was larger than life. He was so large that the Federal government tried to bring him down. Today, legislation is moving forward to give Jack Johnson a posthumous pardon for crimes only in the minds of  those who controlled society.

INTRODUCTION: Since his election as RNC Chairman, Michael Steele has been under fire for his frequent gaffes and incompetence.  Steele recently said in an op-ed in Politico that the special election in NY-20 was a referendum on President Obama's agenda.  The goal of this study was to quantify the prevalence of Utter Bullshit in Steele's words.

METHODS: A thorough review of the paragraphs and sentences in Steele's 4/1/09 op-ed in Politico was conducted.  Word counts were performed using Microsoft Word.  Bolded words were defined as wrong, and underlined words were defined as misleading.  Words with regular font were defined as correct.  Utter Bullshit was defined as the composite total of wrong and misleading words.

RESULTS: Steele's op-ed contained N = 852 words.  427 words (50.1%) were designated as wrong, and 306 words (35.9%) were designated as misleading, yielding an overall Utter Bullshit Score of 86%.

CONCLUSION: I ♥ Michael Steele.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author would like to thank the TPM Cafe community for permitting him the forum with which to conduct this analysis; and of course, Michael Steele.

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PREVALENCE OF THE UTTER BULLSHIT OF MICHAEL STEELE.
By SuperBowlXX

The present study has reproduced the entirety of Michael Steele's op-ed, originally found here.  The author estimates that 86% of Michael Steele's words in the editorial are Utter Bullshit; non-Utter Bullshit words include simple words like "the" and "and."  Similar findings on Rush Limbaugh's use of Utter Bullshit words were demonstrated by the author previously.  The results of the present study strongly indicate a substantial increase from normal levels in the prevalence of Steele's Utter Bullshit on April Fools Day (p < 0.001).  The authors hypothesize that this was not a coincidence, but rather it was "all part of Steele's plan, baby."  Please see the Appendix for further descriptions of the formulas used to calculate the Utter Bullshit Ratios.

Table 1:

Tuesday's special election in New York's 20th Congressional District was closely watched, and rightly so. The election represented the first opportunity for voters to give Democrats a progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery policies and, judging by the results, voters don't like the "change," let alone the taxing, spending and borrowing, that's coming from Washington.

Total Words = 57
Correct Words = 3 (5.3%)
Misleading Words = 12 (21.1%)
Wrong Words = 42 (73.7%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 18.0

The NY-20 race was actually not the first opportunity for voters to give President Obama a progress report.  Running polls of President Obama's approval rating have been running for quite some time, as far back as January.  In addition, judging by the results of NY-20, the Democratic candidate Scott Murphy had more votes by the end of the night than Republican opponent Jim Tedisco, pending the outcome of absentee and military ballots.  That Murphy leads the vote count in a race where the Republicans spent more money than did the Democrats, particularly in a district which has 70,000 more registered Republicans, shows that Steele is both wrong and dishonest in Table 1.

Table 2:

Make no mistake -- we believe Jim Tedisco will win once all the absentee and military ballots are counted. And let's be clear, this is not a recount.

At least 4 percent of the votes have yet to be counted in the first place. Tedisco's victory will be a credible repudiation of the spending spree that Obama and Congress have been on since January. Even the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee acknowledged over the weekend that the race was "a referendum on the Economic Recovery Act and Barack Obama's policies."

Total Words = 92
Correct Words = 18 (19.6%)
Misleading Words = 25 (27.2%)
Wrong Words = 49 (53.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 4.1

Steele and the GOP certainly do believe Jim Tedisco will win after all ballots are counted, and it is yet too early to determine if he is wrong here.  However, the sentence "And let's be clear, this is not a recount" has been labeled as misleading for the following reasons: 1) "Let's be clear" is a bastardized version of President Obama's frequent argument modifier "Let me be clear" -- evidence suggesting that Steele is in fact jealous of Obama -- and 2) the NY-20 race is not a recount YET.  Republicans simply haven't gotten around to overturning the results, despite their threats to do same before the ballots were closed (not to mention the GOP's hypocrisy re: recounts in recent elections).  So while this statement is not incorrect per se, it still falls under the broad category of Utter Bullshit.

Furthermore, all precincts have reported in NY-20.  Steele is misleading the reader by leaving out the detail of absentee and military ballots, of which there are currently 5,907 out of 155,000 votes cast (~3.9%).  The bolded statement in Table 2 is both astoundingly wrong and stupid because the race in NY-20 yielded, for now, the opposite result from what might have been expected several weeks ago, when Tedisco was way ahead in the polls in a solidly conservative district.  The fact that voters went to the polls and helped Murphy climb all the way back into the race, with a potential victory, potentially explains the exact opposite of what Steele is claiming.

Plus, the sentence "a referendum on the Economic Recovery Act and Barack Obama's policies" was not uttered at all by the DCCC executive director, Brian Wolff.  Typing the phrase into Google, with quotation marks, produced one hit -- specifically, Michael Steele's own editorial.  Actually, Wolff did say this on March 11: "The stimulus package and the economy, and our candidate, are striking a tone with voters in the 20th District."  Wolff's statement was in response to Tedisco, who said that he would have voted No on the stimulus with the rest of the Party of No, despite the fact that most Americans support it.

Table 3:

Well, the DCCC is right -- this likely Republican victory is a referendum on the president. Democrats sent mailers out to voters linking their candidate to the president, and the Obama campaign team used its much-vaunted e-mail list to rally its troops in support of Scott Murphy. Obama himself made a high-profile endorsement of Murphy in the closing days of the race, Vice President Joe Biden cut a radio ad and a robocall for Murphy, and the Democratic Party ran an ad in the closing days featuring the president himself.

Total Words = 89
Correct Words = 5 (5.6%)
Misleading Words = 74 (83.1%)
Wrong Words = 10 (11.2%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 16.8

The underlined statement in Table 3 is not technically wrong -- President Obama and Vice President Biden did write e-mails and cut ads in support of Murphy in the heat of a close race.  However, the statement is misleading because Steele is implying that support for a Democratic candidate by the White House would mean a rejection by the voters of the President if Murphy should lose -- but not a rejection of Republican policies if Murphy should win.  The Utter Bullshit about the concept of NY-20 being a referendum on anything cuts both ways, but unfortunately Mr. Steele wants to have it both ways.  One might recall that a giant smackdown of Republican policies did take place on November 4, 2008, and the current polls on the approval of Congressional Republicans still seem to reflect this sweeping rejection of the GOP.  The approval ratings of both Democrats and Republicans are not likely to move that significantly as a result of this race.

Table 4:

Well, the voters have spoken, and while the results are still pending, Republicans are confident that the final vote tallies will show those voters have rejected the president's approach. This will be true even in this Democratic-leaning district that candidate Obama carried in the presidential election and the previous Democratic candidate for Congress carried with more than 60 percent of the vote.

Total Words = 62
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 24 (38.7%)
Wrong Words = 38 (61.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

See the explanation for Table 3 about the abject bullshittery on the referendum talking point.  The district is not Democratic-leaning, as stated previously, and Republicans didn't sound very confident about the NY-20 results, as per House minority leader John Boehner's words on voting day.  The underlined statement is for the most part true, but it is considered misleading for assuming that a district that Obama won and went more than 60% for the Democratic candidate in November is somehow offering a wholesale rejection of the President because the NY-20 race was a toss-up (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Table 5:

Look at it this way: Does any student of politics think that this race would have been competitive if it had been held last November? Answer -- no. The ground has shifted, and is shifting, as the voters become increasingly worried about Obamanomics.

And who can blame them?

Total Words = 47
Correct Words = 5 (10.6%)
Misleading Words = 27 (57.4%)
Wrong Words = 15 (31.9%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 8.4

While the author of the present study is a student of politics, he is also a student of epidemiology.  And one of the more important lessons that an epidemiologist will teach his or her students is the idea of the counterfactual conditional -- that you can take Population X, expose it to drug Y, and measure the rate of disease following the exposure, but you cannot then measure the rate of disease in Population X as though it were never exposed to the drug, because they were already exposed a priori.  In other words, you don't live in a parallel universe -- well, most of us don't, but Michael Steele seems to be doing that just fine, because he somehow knows that Murphy would have beaten Tedisco by a lot more in November than he did in March.

Steele's Utter Bullshit logic, of course, is puzzling.  Yes, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand did win her race in NY-20 in November by a wide margin, but she was a popular Representative in upstate New York and an incumbent.  An outsider candidate with no public office experience like Murphy would not necessarily have been favored in November against a 26-year veteran of New York political office like Jim Tedisco since the Republicans had a built-in registration advantage over Democrats, and a big one at that.  Utter Bullshit applies to this statement because Steele is apparently living in his own world, and he still thinks that the outcome of the NY-20 race was a rejection of President Obama when the simple reality is that only a month ago, Tedisco would have mopped the floor with Murphy.

As for the question "Who can blame them?", Steele is deliberately misleading the reader by suggesting that voters are now turning en masse against Obama and his agenda.  Hardcore Republicans certainly are, according to the latest polls -- but most Americans are on board (for the moment), and most Americans aren't actively hoping for the President to fail (nor are they apologizing to Rush Limbaugh for suggesting that Rush is entertainer who spouts ugly and incendiary bullshit).  So when Steele asks, "Who can blame them?"  The author answers, "I do.  I blame them for buying into discredited right wing talking points and Utter Bullshit."

Table 6:

As the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Obama pledged he would be a responsible steward of the taxpayers' money, saying, "I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper."

That was then. Today, a mere two months into his administration, Obama and congressional Democrats have demonstrated that their only solution to the current economic crisis is to spend, tax and borrow. The Democrats' reckless approach will leave our children and grandchildren with a staggering national debt owed to China and oil-rich countries in the Middle East.

Total Words = 109
Correct Words = 23 (21.1%)
Misleading Words = 32 (29.4%)
Wrong Words = 54 (49.5%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 3.7

The Utter Bullshit-a-thon continues.  President Obama did say the quotation above, as Steele claims, during the second debate with John McCain.  Of course, Steele is ignoring the fact that many of his party's own brethren railed against earmarks in the stimulus, yet still tried to take credit for the earmarks that made it into the final bill.  Steele wades further into an Utter Bullshit storm by criticizing Obama's "reckless" approach to fixing the economy when Obama's predecessor did quite a few reckless things himself.  You know, like getting the U.S. into a war in an oil-rich country in the Middle East, exploding the national debt, and turning a budget surplus from 2000 into a huge budget deficit, all while slashing taxes for the wealthiest and creating the worst economic collapse since 1929.  This ain't Obama's recession, Steele.

Table 7:

First came the president's $787 billion economic stimulus package. Not only did the version congressional Democrats passed and he signed into law contain billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending -- spending Obama pledged to weed out as a candidate for president; it offered families little hope by way of direct job creation at a time when unemployment rates are at historic levels. It also contained the loophole allowing millions of dollars in bonuses to be distributed to executives at American International Group, which, because of mismanagement, had already been bailed out by the taxpayers.

Total Words = 93
Correct Words = 9 (9.7%)
Misleading Words = 52 (55.9%)
Wrong Words = 32 (34.4%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 9.3

Oh noes!  Not the awful PORK spending!  We wouldn't want THAT around to do anything reasonable like volcano monitoring, would we (see Figure 2)?

Sarcasm aside, Steele is still serving up a hefty plate of Utter Bullshit here.  First of all, McCain was the earmark warrior.  Obama was pretty clear when he said, repeatedly, that eliminating $18 billion worth of earmarks won't do a whole lot to settle the problems of the economy.  Nor will a complete five-year spending freeze, as Steele's colleagues have so kindly proposed.  Second of all, Steele then goes on to criticize the stimulus because he doesn't think it will create jobs, but of course, Steele also thinks that government never created a single job anyway.  Third, it might surprise Steele to know that the American public overwhelmingly doesn't blame Obama for the stuff that AIG pulled -- yet that didn't stop Steele from dropping yet another brick of Utter Bullshit into Politico's servers.

Figure 2:

Table 8:

Then came the president's jaw-dropping $3.6 trillion budget proposal that some members of his own party couldn't fully support. His budget came on the heels of $787 billion in economic stimulus spending, $410 billion in spending on a fiscal year 2009 omnibus package that contained 8,000 earmarks and billions of dollars in spending for corporate bailouts. It will raise taxes on the very job-producing small businesses our economy needs right now. And it will leave a $9 trillion debt hanging over the heads of our children and grandchildren.

Total Words = 88
Correct Words = 13 (14.8%)
Misleading Words = 36 (40.9%)
Wrong Words = 39 (44.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 5.8

True, some blue dog Democrats have voiced their concerns about the President's budget.  But what's so jaw-dropping about returning to the marginal tax rates that were in use during the Clinton years?  That the rich may have to pay a little more in.....(gulp).....TAXES???  Besides, the voters still favor the President's agenda over that of the Republicans on health care, taxes, energy, the deficit,....oh and the budget plan too.  But I guess we're still a center-right country, right Steele?

As for the national debt, Steele is riding his way into Utter Bullshit town by lamenting the possibility of a $9 trillion debt should Obama's budget be signed into law.  Not that the prospect of a rising national debt is a humorous topic, but isn't it funny how Steele never seemed all that worried about the national debt doubling under George Bush?  Steele seemed rather busy encouraging America to drill, baby, drill.  Also, according to CBS, the national debt stood at $9.8 trillion in September, before Obama took office.  The author of this study doesn't consider himself a math expert, necessarily, but isn't the $9 trillion debt that Steele envisions LESS than a $9.8 trillion debt?  I can't figure that one out.  Oh well, let's move on.

Table 9:

Tuesday's close election shows that voters are not comfortable with Obama's prescription for our economy's current ills, and his exorbitant spending proposals are a pill that is simply too tough to swallow.

Total Words = 32
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 32 (100%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

See the explanations for Utter Bullshit in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Table 10:

Republicans have a different approach, one that spends much more wisely on priorities that will improve our economy and help families. One that lowers taxes and will create much-needed jobs. One that abides by the same fiscal responsibilities that millions of American families follow and won't spend money that we don't have today with the hope that it can be repaid decades from now.

Total Words = 64
Correct Words = 5 (7.8%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 59 (92.2%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 11.8

The only patently true, non-bullshit words in Table 10 are the first five.  Republicans DO have a different approach to fixing the economy compared to Obama, and it's in a nice li'l booklet that has graphs and everything (see Figure 3)!

Figure 3:

Table 11:

The fact that Democrats did not sail to victory in yesterday's special election in New York should be seen as a wake-up call to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Voters want our economy to improve and want their elected officials to make it a priority, but they haven't given the White House and Congress a blank check. America's elected officials need to find solutions, but they must be fiscally responsible ones. We simply can't spend our way to economic recovery.

Total Words = 80
Correct Words = 35 (43.8%)
Misleading Words = 16 (20.0%)
Wrong Words = 29 (36.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 1.3

Yet more Utter Bullshit about how voters rejected Obama by giving more votes to Scott Murphy.  Talking about fiscal responsibility would mean something if it weren't coming from a guy who's gotten into hot water for campaign finance fraud while running for the Senate in 2006.

Table 12:

Voters are watching. They have seen how congressional Democrats have simply rubber-stamped Obama's spending proposals. Tuesday's election was a vote of "no confidence" in the Democrats' tax, spend and borrow approach.

Total Words = 31
Correct Words = 3 (9.7%)
Misleading Words = 0 (0%)
Wrong Words = 28 (90.3%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 9.3

Steele out-bullshitted himself by first mentioning in Table 8 how some Democrats objected to President Obama's budget -- but then he backtracks by saying that Democrats just rubber-stamp everything the President wants!  Did Steele forget his party's own rubber-stamped, unanimous DONUT they handed the President when voting on the stimulus bill?  Steele then calls the NY-20 race a "vote of no confidence" in the Democrats, even though the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican (not counting absentees).  Ah well, who are we to expect reason and logic about how voting and winning elections work from a guy who got beaten the last time he ran against a Democrat, who lied about which party he belonged to in order to mislead voters (see Figure 4), and who bussed in homeless people for his GOTV efforts?

Figure 4:

Finally, Steele caps off his stupendous Utter Bullshittery with this gem in Table 13:

I hope Obama and congressional Democrats are listening.

Total Words = 8
Correct Words = 0 (0%)
Misleading Words = 8 (0%)
Wrong Words = 0 (0%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = Undefined

Do you really want us to be listening to you, Steele?  I call bullshit on that too, because every time you say or write words, both bullshit and hilarity ensue.  The author of this study concludes that Steele should be hoping Democrats are NOT listening to him, because we're both listening and laughing our asses off.

***************************

FINAL RESULTS:

Total Words = 852
Correct Words = 119 (14.0%)
Misleading Words = 306 (35.9%)
Wrong Words = 427 (50.1%)
Utter Bullshit Ratio = 6.2
Adjusted Utter Bullshit Ratio = 7.3

In conclusion, we have investigated the level of Utter Bullshit from Michael Steele and have determined that 86% of the words contained in his Politico editorial are characterized by false, misleading, wrong, stupid, and Utter Bullshit information.  The author would like to caution that 86% may be a conservative estimate, as it does not take into account other factors like this:

***************************

APPENDIX

The Utter Bullshit Ratio (UBR) for each Table (block of text) represents the ratio of Utter Bullshit (wrong and misleading words) to correct words.  The Crude UBR, therefore, represents the UBR for the whole editorial.  The UBR was calculated using the following formula:

UBR = (Wrong + Misleading)/Correct

The Adjusted Utter Bullshit Ratio (AUBR) represents the ratio of Utter Bullshit to correct words in each of the 13 Tables (blocks of text).  As each block contains a specific percentage of text for the whole editorial, the Tables are weighted differently to calculate an adjusted ratio.  The AUBR was calculated using the following formula:

AUBR = a1x1 + a2x2 + ... + a13x13

where a1, a2, ... , a13 represent the "weights" of each Table - the proportion of the total words in each Table with respect to the total number of words for the whole editorial - and x1, x2, ... , x13 represent the UBRs of each Table.  Adjustment caused Michael Steele's Utter Bullshit Ratio to increase by 17.7%.  NOTE: The AUBR formula excludes Tables 4, 9, and 13, where the crude UBR could not be defined because the # of correct, non-bullshit words = 0.

***************************

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

It's a very old question in the social sciences: do governments act the way they do because of the pressure of politically powerful and organized groups ("interests") or because of prevailing views on what is desirable and feasible ("ideas")?  (Here is nice scholarly account by my colleague Peter Hall.) What is making me think of this is the Simon Johnson thesis which puts the blame for our current predicament on the overwhelming political influence of American banks. 

No-one could deny that interest groups play a role in shaping policy.  But I would argue (i) that the identity of the groups that get to exercise power and (ii) the manner in which their interests are advanced are also determined by prevailing world views about the proper role and functions of government.  On the first point, isn't it the case that the reason trade unions, say, have lost power in recent decades is the ideology of deregulation which swept Washington, D.C.?  Or that U.S. auto makers have been unable to get large-scale import protection because this was a no-no in the prevailing ideological climate?

Read more »

I hope you have/had a chance to watch Obama's news conference in London just now. He has a pretty bad head cold and was a little slower than we're used to but his quite thoughtful and detailed answers to a variety of questions from world journalists was quite remarkable.

This guy is the real deal.  He thinks deeply about virtually everything a President should think about and had to have just knocked out anybody used to the pathetic performance our former President used to deliver.

Whether you like, dislike, or absolutely hate all or any particular part of his economic, political or foreign policy program, we are very lucky to have such a thoughtful and decent human being as our political leader in these troubling times.

I am not the first to say this, but debating an idea as the preamble to voting on it in a democratic society which values freedom of expression and embraces concepts of equality as America does, requires that the debater move beyond moral and personal instinct onto a plane of logical argument.

The debate itself is understood as being decisive in our equality-based societal philosophy. This is used by people such as anarchists, many of whom do nothing else but prepare, and change-everything people and groups of all stripes who are focused on their cause.

The listeners and voters, us, are mostly off doing something else everyday and come into such pivotal debates in learning mode. Because of this, we cannot often: 1) convince ideologues; or 2) out debate them. So we are left, at the end of the day, with the values we walked in with.

The people of the America need to understand this and the concepts of ideological debate better than many presently do. The times demand it.

Pass this on.

So I was reading this account of a Seymour Hersh interview on Fresh Air in which he says that Cheney loyalists have been "burrowed" into sensitive government positions, and continue to feed him information:

"I'll make it worse. I think he's put people left. He's put people back. They call it a stay-behind. It's sort of an intelligence term of art. When you leave a country and, you know, you've been driven out the, you know, you've lost the war. You leave people behind. It's a stay-behind that you can continue to have contacts with, to do sabotage, whatever you want to do. Cheney's left a stay-behind. He's got people in a lot of agencies that still tell him what's going on. Particularly in defense, obviously. Also in the NSA, there's still people that talk to him. He still knows what's going on. Can he still control policy up to a point? Probably up to a point, a minor point. But he's still there. He's still a presence."

(Audio at bottom)

And the first thing that went through my head was, "People from the NSA are talking to a guy who orchestrated the outing of a covert CIA agent?"

Then I realized that the real question was, "Why does Richard Bruce Cheney still have a security clearance?"

Based on my reading of the entire Lewis "Scooter" Libby case, it's clear that Patrick Fitzgerald had concerns that Cheney was aware of the leaks on some level, though he lacked any hard evidence (missing emails anyone?) to go any further.

That being said, a security clearance is not a legal procedure, it's an administrative procedure, and to a significant degree, it is necessary for the holder of this clearance to show that they not a security risk, either intentionally or through negligence.

There is also an additional duty to report any credible potential security violations to the appropriate authorities.

This is a lower standard of proof than, for example, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, or obstruction of justice statutes.

There is therefore a significant concern that Dick Cheney violated the terms of his clearance, and pending an investigation, his clearance should be suspended pending an investigation.

Unlike a government employee whose livelihood is dependent on having a clearance, this should not provide an undue burden, and a hearing, with witnesses, including Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Mr. Cheney, testifying under oath, would be an appropriate venue to decide whether or not he was either deliberately or negligently cavalier with sensitive intelligence data.

Of course, if Mssrs Cheney or Libby were to make untrue statements in the process of giving their testimony, that would be a matter for the federal prosecutors.



Youtube link

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

I've been thinking a lot about trust.  And how it relates to this crisis of identity in our nation.  A crisis precipitated (in part) by this economic meltdown.  A meltdown precipitated by the deceit and selfishness and greed of unscrupulous financiers, whose only allegiance was to the almighty dollar and their cronies in crime.   What Matt Taibbi described as:

....a completely insane, horribly skewed set of societal values that puts a premium on greed and severely undervalues selflessness, communal spirit and intellectualism...

So I started by thinking about positives and negatives.  And how important trust is to civil discourse.  And how mistrust and dishonesty undermine civil discourse, as I wrote to someone last week:

One of the things that is very bothersome in our society is this sense that people should be admired for their ability to hoodwink. As if society were one big poker game and the ones who were best at bluffing should be held up as exemplars and emulated.

We have gone far from our "dreamtime" ideals. And that is the thing we need to address, I think. It pertains in every area of society - including the Cafe. That's why pretense by users ultimately undermines civil discourse.

Which leads to the question of what qualities we, as a society, really value.  And what must be discarded if we are to pursue what really matters.  We've been circling this question for some time:  What really matters?  And how do we figure that out?  How do we conceptualize this?

Here at the Cafe, Larry has been pondering too; recently with starwalker:

Larry said:

For the last few months I have been writing here at the Café and thinking about the dimensions of the crisis of culture that is our current discontent... Something has to change but I have been stuck on how to position the problem in a way that allows a solution. My guardian angel gave it to me. Love, for all of its importance, is not enough if the relationship is abusive of one's spiritual integrity. If one looses the latter then the former becomes destructive. Sometimes one must leave a familiar lover and move on, in order to love well again, in order to endure.

And starwalker responded:

What is the love we may need to abandon in order to preserve our spiritual integrity?

I believe that these are the important questions. We are in need of some fundamental NEW way of conceiving our world. The choices aren't how to survive, they are WHAT will we preserve and WHAT will we let go.

And others are pondering too.  I hope you'll read this wonderful, short illustrated story, And the Pursuit of Happiness, which ends with a description of the writer's trip to a New England town meeting, where she anticipates:

I imagine it will soon be filled with all kinds of characters venting their fury and perceived injustices...  But no.  People speak their mind with grace and civility.  They listen with respect. ...

The enterprise is based on trust....

Love.   Integrity.   Trust.   Identity Crisis.  Those words jogged my mind ... reminding me of something. 

And suddenly it popped into my head.

Trust versus Mistrust.  That's the first of Erik Erikson's Eight Stages of Development.   Ego Integrity is the last stage.   Love (Intimacy) is in the middle.   As is the "identity crisis" - something which interested Erikson particularly, especially in relation to the "vision quest" of Native American spirituality. 

So for a week or more I've been pondering the various uses of this theory:  It's going to come in very handy, I think, in helping us to answer the questions:  what to keep - and what to discard.  As well as how to analyze what's benefiting or impeding that process.  In effect, I'm going to take this theory of individual development and apply it to politics and a whole lot more.  Because here's the thing:  The very qualities which foster development at earlier stages are manifested by individuals who have successfully navigated the last stages.  In effect intimacy, self-less giving and ego-integrity foster the qualities we prize at the earliest stages.  So that what's necessary for successful development of children (certain qualities of care-giving and integrity), are also vitally important for a well-functioning society, for honest and trustworthy institutions and caring communities. 

So let's take a brief look at Erikson's theory. 

It's a very simple theory - based on 8 sets of opposites (a series of 8 conflicts to navigate), yielding 8 stages from infancy to old age.  Plus, each stage builds upon the next.   So, for example,  failures in early stages are cumulative - leading to problems negotiating later stages.  It's a theory that works for development, for understanding problems in mental health, and also, I'm going to suggest, for what goes wrong (or right) in society, in institutions, in communities large and small - even here at TPM Café.

In a nutshell below are the eight stages or conflicts, Erikson posits, that all of us must navigate in our journey from infancy to old age.  I've italicized the positive qualities on the left.  And you may also want to pay special attention to the negative qualities (on the right) - since my own contention is that these are the very maladaptive qualities arising or being sown by negative forces within our society, in communities large and small, including TPM Cafe.

Erik Erikson:  Eight Stages of Development

1. Trust   vs            Mistrust
2. Autonomy   vs    Shame/Doubt
3. Initiative  vs       Guilt
4. Industry   vs       Inferiority
5. Identity   vs        Confusion/Negative Identity
   
6. Intimacy   vs      Isolation
7. Generativity vs  Stagnation/Self-Absorption
8. Integrity   vs      Despair

Well the banks can now appraise  their assets higher.
Even though they are walking away from some of these
same valuable properties.

Well thats one way to make the auditors happy, I guess.
Wish I could do that when my car falls apart. Would certainly
make my bottom line much better. Being able to get a higher
trade in for it than what it's actually worth.

Works for me.

C

Financial derivatives and their friends have disappeared so many trillions of dollars from banks that nobody even knows how many, and nobody is going to jail.

For Mr. Obama it’s all more or less a joke, and he naturally chose late-night comedy as an appropriate venue for his “expert” opinion…

Here’s the dirty little secret, though. Most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal.

Now we know, since we heard it from Barack Obama, a “lawyer” who never tried a case in court or published an article in a legal journal.

But words like “fraud” and “bribery” also have a plain English meaning, however much they may have been distorted by judges intent of keeping people like themselves out of jail.

Kenny Lay died in his mansion, while a thousand kangaroos in long black robes made it almost impossible to convict a white-collar criminal of anything, because…

People like us must not go to jail!

Kenny Lay dumped his stock in a bankrupt corporation while thousands of his employees were locked into worthless Individual Retirement Accounts composed entirely of stock in Enron, but Kenny Lay never went to jail, because…

People like us must not go to jail!

And if you pulled off their long black robes, and put fifty federal judges on one bus, and fifty bankers on another, you would never know which bus was which without a score-card.

People like us must not go to jail!

So before you can convict Kenny Lay or Richard Fuld of fraud, you have to jump through so many hoops that Dick and Kenny will probably die at home, surrounded by all the good things of this world… except justice.

Phil Gramm devised the law that exposed bank deposits to incomprehensible manipulation and eventual disappearance into the void, and Gramm-Leach-Bliely made a lot of bankers very, very happy!

So when Phil Gramm left the Senate he got a multi-million-dollar job at UBS, and that very good job was a bribe.

There wasn’t any mystery about how Phil Gramm got that beautiful job and all those millions of dollars. It was just a delayed payoff. It was nothing but a bribe, and a bribe so screamingly obvious that anyone who doubts it was a bribe is ape-shit crazy!

But public corruption has been defined so narrowly by courts and legislatures that you would have to have a video-recording of somebody delivering a suitcase full of money to Phil Gramm before you could convict him of accepting a bribe, and when the bag-man handed the bag of money to Phil Gramm, the bag-man would have to say “I am giving you this money specifically as a payoff for breaking down the barriers between banking and speculation,” and then Phil Gramm would have to say “I am accepting this money specifically as a payoff for Gramm-Leach-Bliley,” and still, unless every “i” in every warrant was dotted and every “t” was crossed, Phil Gramm would walk out of court rich and free, and no judge would convict him, because…

People like us must not go to jail!

Jacob Freeze

Sometimes a reply to a comment grows so far beyond the boundaries of the thread in which it was born that it needs to leave home and make a life for itself over in the user blog.  This is one of them. 

The story was this one:

 [Excerpt:]

Looks like we may soon be learning more about the preferential treatment major banks may have enjoyed in the wake of the AIG bailout.

Last week, we noted Rep. Spencer Bachus's efforts to bring to light the issue of smaller U.S. banks that are allegedly being stiffed on their loans to an AIG subsidiary even as major CDS counterparties (some of them foreign banks) were paid off in full. Bachus is the ranking member on the House Financial Services committee, and he aired his concerns at a hearing and in letters he sent to both Geithner and Barney Frank, the committee chairman.

After we reported this, the Wall Street Journal dug up a couple examples of just this issue, one of which occurred in Bachus' district.

My comment was as follows:

What a bunch of demogogic ka-ka.

The nationality of the counter-parties has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than trying to attach a nice jingoistic stench to a story that's about whether parties to entirely different classes of contracts are being treated differently.

The guys in the story are real estate developers who entered into partnership agreements with an AIG affiliate to develop shopping centers. Contractual disputes over payments and capital contributions in those kinds of deals, especially when the economy goes south, are a dime a dozen. Whether AIG has a valid basis for witholding payment under those agreements--e.g. occurance of an event of default or failure of a condition specified in the agreement--is unknown and there's nothing in anything I've seen that precludes the possibility.

Apples and oranges.

Show me an American credit default swap counterparty who's getting the shaft while a foreign company in the exact same kind of contract is getting paid, and I may work up some jingoistic outrage. Otherwise, its just cheap Lou Dobbs hackery.

The reply that made me reailze I had failed miserably in conveying my point said:

I'm sure glad that "formerly known as NC Steve" knows the details of these issues when no one else in the country, except perhaps the perpetrators, do.

Perhaps I'm just a conspiracy nutcase. But it certainly seems to me, taking everything into consideration, that the Wall Street types, both in and out of the Administration, are far far more concerned with the financial well-being of the people they go skiing with than they are with the well-being of the people who grow and process our food, make whatever we still make in this country, take care of ourselves, our children, our parents, etc.

I am a solid Obama supporter, but this policy of rewarding the greedsters who have torn down our economy while paying little regard to the needs of the 320 million other Americans is NOT a lack-of-change I want to believe in.

And here's what I apparently failed to cogently convey the first time.

Without getting into whether I agree or disagree with the viewpoint of the reply, my point, and my only point, was that the issue of nationality was a typical politician red herring.

I don't know much about these transactions.  I said that.  No one else does either, however and I tried to point that out too. 

What I did do, however, was read the links.  And based upon both the TPM and WSJ stories in the links, it appears that the guys doing the complaining are commercial real estate developers who partnered--not borrowed from, partnered with--with AIG and are upset because, for unspecified reasons, AIG stopped pouring more cash into their projects. 

If AIG was treating companies it parterned with in foreign real development projects, or foreigners with whom it partnered for American real estate development deals, differently from the way it treats Americans with whom it partnered in American real estate deals, I'd concede cause for nationalistic outrage.  If AIG treated foreign-counter parties to credit default swaps differently from the way it treats American counter-parties to credit default swaps, I'd concede cause for nationalistic outrage. 

However, the only real question in this matter is whether it is fair for very differently situated creditors to be treated very differently by AIG.  Period.  One can fairly debate that question, though fair debate would require a lot more detail than has been released.  Based on what has been disclosed, however, nationality has absolutely nothing to do with this story.  

Personally, I don't feel like my financial or emotional stake in the financial well-being of commerial real estate developers is any greater, or any smaller, than my emotional and financial stake in the well-being of the counter parties to AIG's credit default swap agreements.  To the extent that the banks who lent to these developments are getting less than 100% of what they are owed in cash, I would want to know whether they are also getting title to collateral--e.g. the property being developed--to know whether they were really getting a raw deal.  But all three classes of investors played a big part in creating the mess we're in now.  The developers, the banks that generated the loans that were being sold and packaged in collateralized debt obligations and the insurers like AIG who, for a price, created the illusion that risk could be properly asessed without knowing anything about the quality of the underlying loans.  So even though AIG was apparently involved in both ends of the mess, I have a hard time working up a lot of outrage over differential treatment between the other two classes. 

And Baucus knows that if the matter were framed in those terms, the media and public indifference would be more general.  That's why he, being a Republican, injected the word "foreign" into the debate.  Of course he did.  it's what he knows and It's all they got.  It's all they've had for years, now.  And for his part, Barney Frank knows that standing in front of the jingoism train at a time of great public fear and anger is the job allotted by the Constitution to senators and the president, not representatives. 

So yeah, I admit I don't give a hoot in hell whether an LLC set up to replace trees with strip malls fails or whether the banks that funded them--and who at least had every opportunity to properly evaluate the risk--get stiffed.  However, it bothers me a lot when politicians, knowing it to be completely irrelevant, drag nationality into a dispute in order to drum up outrage among people who are already angry and scared.  It is the worst, most dangerous, most destructive kind of demogoguery, the only kind of demogoguery that can bring down the Republic. 

We are afraid, and with good reason.  And we are angry because anger and fear are opposite sides of the same marred coin.  However, we all have very recent experience of what can happen when politicians are allowed to cynically exploit fear and anger.  This isn't ancient history, it's not tales of Father Coughlin and Huey Long or stories of campfire mutterings about dictatorship among the Army of the Potomac's officer corp.  It's history we all lived through.   

We watched it unfold over the course of five years.  We saw the Republic taken to the very brink of tyranny before the people began clawing the country back from the fearmongers in what I truly believe may have been a last-chance election for democracy. 

As I've indicated a time or ten, I am not a fan of either fear or anger as decision-making tools.  But if we can't stop ourselves from being scared or afraid, and evolution has ensured that we usually cannot, we at least need to hang on to enough presence of mind to remember that those emotions make us vulnerable to illogical arguments.  And, in particular, I would hope that what happened in this country from 2001 to 2006 has at least taught us that times when we are scared and afraid are when we have to be most careful about letting politicians exploit our emotions for their own ends.  Just as in 2001, the Republicans, and perhaps even a few Democrats, have agendas of their own that do not necessarily coincide with remedying our real problems.  It is foolish and dangerous to let them harness our very real fear and anger to  their ends by mouthing jingoistic semantic nullities calculated to provoke knee-jerk reflexive responses.