Thursday, March 25, 2010
50 Guitars (LA Times)
How is it not a single Telecaster was included in this list? The Tele is the world's greatest guitar, played by at least half the guitarists on this list, but did they include a tele? No, they didn't. But some of these guitars ARE COOL!--jp
No Internet for Copyright Scofflaws
By David Kravets
The United States is nudging the international community to develop protocols to suspend the internet connections of customers caught downloading copyrighted works, according to a leaked draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.The United States is leading the 2-year-old, once-secret negotiations over the so-called ACTA accord. The Jan. 18 draft, about 56 pages and labeled “confidential,” just surfaced, and follows a string of earlier, less comprehensive leaks.
The leak shows that the treaty, if adopted under the U.S. language, would for the first time hold internet service providers responsible when customers download infringing material, unless those ISPs take action by “adopting and reasonably implementing a policy to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights.”
The specific ISP policy suggested in a footnote “is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts on the service provider’s system or network of repeat infringers.”
This so-called “three strikes” or “graduated response” policy is the holy grail of internet-copyright enforcement, staunchly backed by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.
“This makes it clear that the U.S. has put on the table a mandatory ISP safe-harbor policy,” Michael Geist, an ACTA expert at the University of Ottawa, said in a telephone interview.
The leak, courtesy of the French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net, marks the first time the entirety of the ever-changing draft proposal has come to light, and it confirms suspicions that the Obama administration is laundering a U.S. policy change through the treaty negotiations. Under the current U.S. law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet service providers are responsible only for the infringing material hosted on their networks, and only if they if fail to remove the content at the rightsholder’s request.
The ACTA draft comes two weeks after European Parliament agreed to oppose the measure if it contained a three-strikes policy.
Other negotiating entities include Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland. The ACTA negotiators are expected to meet next month in New Zealand for a new round of talks.
When You Hum, You Take Bread From The Mouths Of Musicians
And Every Time You Hum To Yourself, You’re Taking Bread From The Mouths Of Musicians
Mar 19, 2010 By Ken. Technology
The RIAA, whose Luddite thuggery and silly triumphalism represent the desperate grabbing of a drowning man, is only one villain. They’re like, say, Bizarro. “Me am protecting digital rights by suing college students for million dollars!”
By contrast, the International Intellectual Property Alliance, or IIPA, is the entire Legion of Doom. The IIPA, composed of the rogue’s gallery of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), Business Software Alliance (BSA), Entertainment Software Association (ESA), Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the RIAA, uses international lobbying the way the RIAA uses litigation — indiscriminately and towards the promotion of Pure Evil. Or, at least, pure profit.
Case in point: the IIPA, acting on behalf of its software-writing members, is doing everything it can to suppress the open-source movement. I’m browsing and writing this right now with Firefox, an exceptionally useful open-source product. Others, as you probably know, include Linux and Drupal and even Google Chrome. But the IIPA hates open source. The IIPA asserts that open source software “weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness.” Well, I suppose it does, to the extent you define “competitiveness” to mean “the ability for software companies to make big money off of shitty, bug-ridden, virus-susceptible products, because nobody is offering superior free or inexpensive products.”
How does the IIPA do it? Well, it uses the scare-word piracy the way our government uses the scare-word terrorism. The IIPA produces a watchlist of countries that “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection.” And now, apparently, the IIPA believes that if the government of a country uses open-source software, it merits inclusion on that list:
But tucked into the country surveys for Indonesia, the Philippines and India are concerns about the government urging or mandating the use of open-source software in government offices. Indonesia’s government has circulated a memo to all state-run offices encouraging (no requirement, just encouragement) the switch to open source, citing the desire to reduce software copyright infringement, interestingly enough. While the IIPA says that one point is a lofty goal, open source is evil, it explains, because it “weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness.”
About the Philippines, merely reports that the government was considering a bill that would mandate the use of Open Source in government offices rang alarm bells. In the report on India, it’s almost a footnote – indeed, the very last paragraph of the document – that notes the government is thinking about considering mandating OSS use in government offices and this needs to be closely monitored.
Does this have a substantial consequence? Not yet, it would seem — the Legion is merely grumbling and, perhaps, dreaming of what it might do. But it illustrates this point: just because an entity is created and funded by private enterprise, that does not mean that the entity supports innovation or free markets. That entity may, in fact, be the arch-nemesis of those values.
Mar 19, 2010 By Ken. Technology
The RIAA, whose Luddite thuggery and silly triumphalism represent the desperate grabbing of a drowning man, is only one villain. They’re like, say, Bizarro. “Me am protecting digital rights by suing college students for million dollars!”
By contrast, the International Intellectual Property Alliance, or IIPA, is the entire Legion of Doom. The IIPA, composed of the rogue’s gallery of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), Business Software Alliance (BSA), Entertainment Software Association (ESA), Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the RIAA, uses international lobbying the way the RIAA uses litigation — indiscriminately and towards the promotion of Pure Evil. Or, at least, pure profit.
Case in point: the IIPA, acting on behalf of its software-writing members, is doing everything it can to suppress the open-source movement. I’m browsing and writing this right now with Firefox, an exceptionally useful open-source product. Others, as you probably know, include Linux and Drupal and even Google Chrome. But the IIPA hates open source. The IIPA asserts that open source software “weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness.” Well, I suppose it does, to the extent you define “competitiveness” to mean “the ability for software companies to make big money off of shitty, bug-ridden, virus-susceptible products, because nobody is offering superior free or inexpensive products.”
How does the IIPA do it? Well, it uses the scare-word piracy the way our government uses the scare-word terrorism. The IIPA produces a watchlist of countries that “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection.” And now, apparently, the IIPA believes that if the government of a country uses open-source software, it merits inclusion on that list:
But tucked into the country surveys for Indonesia, the Philippines and India are concerns about the government urging or mandating the use of open-source software in government offices. Indonesia’s government has circulated a memo to all state-run offices encouraging (no requirement, just encouragement) the switch to open source, citing the desire to reduce software copyright infringement, interestingly enough. While the IIPA says that one point is a lofty goal, open source is evil, it explains, because it “weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness.”
About the Philippines, merely reports that the government was considering a bill that would mandate the use of Open Source in government offices rang alarm bells. In the report on India, it’s almost a footnote – indeed, the very last paragraph of the document – that notes the government is thinking about considering mandating OSS use in government offices and this needs to be closely monitored.
Does this have a substantial consequence? Not yet, it would seem — the Legion is merely grumbling and, perhaps, dreaming of what it might do. But it illustrates this point: just because an entity is created and funded by private enterprise, that does not mean that the entity supports innovation or free markets. That entity may, in fact, be the arch-nemesis of those values.
The War on Drugs Is Doomed
Strong demand and the high profits that are the result of prohibition make illegal trafficking unstoppable.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
They say that the first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging that you have one. It is therefore good news that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead a delegation to Mexico tomorrow to talk with officials there about efforts to fight the mob violence that is being generated in Mexico by the war on drugs. U.S. recognition of this shared problem is healthy.
But that's where the good news is likely to end.
Violence along the border has skyrocketed ever since Mexican President Felipe Calderón decided to confront the illegal drug cartels that operate there. Some 7,000 troops now patrol Juárez, a city of roughly one million. Yet even militarization has not delivered the peace. The reason is simple enough: The source of the problem is not Mexican supply. It is American demand coupled with prohibition.
It is doubtful that this will be acknowledged at tomorrow's meeting. The drug-warrior industry, which includes both the private-sector and a massive government bureaucracy devoted to "enforcement," has an enormous economic incentive to keep the war raging. In Washington politics both groups have substantial influence. So it is likely that we are going to get further plans to turn Juárez into a police state with the promise that more guns, tanks, helicopters and informants can stop Mexican gangsters from shoving drugs up American noses.
Last week's gangland-style slaying of an unborn baby and three adults who had ties to the U.S. Consulate in Juárez has drawn attention to Mrs. Clinton's trip. The incident stunned Americans. Yet tragic as they were, statistically those four deaths don't create even a blip on the body-count chart. The running tally of drug-trafficking linked deaths in Juárez since December 2006 is more than 5,350. There has also been a high cost to the city's economy as investors and tourists have turned away.
Even with low odds of a productive outcome, though, Mexico can't afford to write off tomorrow's meeting. It is an opportunity that, handled correctly, could provide for a teachable moment. I suggest that one or two of Mexico's very fine economists trained at the University of Chicago by Milton Friedman sit down with President Obama's team to explain a few things about how markets work. They could begin by outlining the path that a worthless weed travels to become the funding for the cartel's firepower. In this Econ 101 lesson, students will learn how the lion's share of the profit is in getting the stuff over the U.S. border to the American consumer. In football terms, Juárez is first and goal.
Mexico hasn't always been an important playing field for drug cartels. For many years cocaine traffickers used the Caribbean to get their product to their customers in the largest and richest market in the hemisphere. But when the U.S. redoubled its efforts to block shipments traveling by sea, the entrepreneurs shifted to land routes through Central America and Mexico.
Mexican traffickers now handle cocaine but traditional marijuana smuggling is their cash cow, despite competition from stateside growers. In a February 2009 interview, then-Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told me that half of the cartel's annual income was derived from marijuana.
This is especially troubling for Mexican law enforcement because marijuana use, through medical marijuana outlets and general social acceptance, has become de facto legal in the U.S., and demand is robust. The upshot is that consumption is cool while production, trafficking and distribution are organized-crime activities. This is what I called in a previous column, "a stimulus plan for Mexican gangsters."
In much of the world, where institutions are weak and folks are poor, the high value that prohibition puts into drugs means that the thugs rule. Mr. Medina Mora told me in the same 2009 interview that Mexico estimated the annual cash flow from U.S. drug consumers to Mexico at around $10 billion, which of course explains why the cartels are so well armed and also able to grease the system. It also explains why Juárez is today a killing field.
Supply warriors might have a better argument if the billions of dollars spent defoliating the Colombian jungle, chasing fast boats and shooting down airplanes for the past four decades had reduced drug use. Yet despite passing victories like taking out 1980s kingpin Pablo Escobar and countless other drug lords since then, narcotics are still widely available in the U.S. and some segment of American society remains enthusiastic about using them. In some places terrorist organizations like Colombia's FARC rebels and al Qaeda have replaced traditional cartels.
There is one ray of hope for innocent victims of the war on drugs. Last week the Journal reported that Drug Enforcement Administration agents were questioning members of an El Paso gang about their possible involvement in the recent killings in Juárez. If the escalation is now spilling over into the U.S., Americans may finally have to face their role in the mess. Mrs. Clinton's mission will only add value if it reflects awareness of that reality.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
They say that the first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging that you have one. It is therefore good news that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead a delegation to Mexico tomorrow to talk with officials there about efforts to fight the mob violence that is being generated in Mexico by the war on drugs. U.S. recognition of this shared problem is healthy.
But that's where the good news is likely to end.
Violence along the border has skyrocketed ever since Mexican President Felipe Calderón decided to confront the illegal drug cartels that operate there. Some 7,000 troops now patrol Juárez, a city of roughly one million. Yet even militarization has not delivered the peace. The reason is simple enough: The source of the problem is not Mexican supply. It is American demand coupled with prohibition.
It is doubtful that this will be acknowledged at tomorrow's meeting. The drug-warrior industry, which includes both the private-sector and a massive government bureaucracy devoted to "enforcement," has an enormous economic incentive to keep the war raging. In Washington politics both groups have substantial influence. So it is likely that we are going to get further plans to turn Juárez into a police state with the promise that more guns, tanks, helicopters and informants can stop Mexican gangsters from shoving drugs up American noses.
Last week's gangland-style slaying of an unborn baby and three adults who had ties to the U.S. Consulate in Juárez has drawn attention to Mrs. Clinton's trip. The incident stunned Americans. Yet tragic as they were, statistically those four deaths don't create even a blip on the body-count chart. The running tally of drug-trafficking linked deaths in Juárez since December 2006 is more than 5,350. There has also been a high cost to the city's economy as investors and tourists have turned away.
Even with low odds of a productive outcome, though, Mexico can't afford to write off tomorrow's meeting. It is an opportunity that, handled correctly, could provide for a teachable moment. I suggest that one or two of Mexico's very fine economists trained at the University of Chicago by Milton Friedman sit down with President Obama's team to explain a few things about how markets work. They could begin by outlining the path that a worthless weed travels to become the funding for the cartel's firepower. In this Econ 101 lesson, students will learn how the lion's share of the profit is in getting the stuff over the U.S. border to the American consumer. In football terms, Juárez is first and goal.
Mexico hasn't always been an important playing field for drug cartels. For many years cocaine traffickers used the Caribbean to get their product to their customers in the largest and richest market in the hemisphere. But when the U.S. redoubled its efforts to block shipments traveling by sea, the entrepreneurs shifted to land routes through Central America and Mexico.
Mexican traffickers now handle cocaine but traditional marijuana smuggling is their cash cow, despite competition from stateside growers. In a February 2009 interview, then-Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told me that half of the cartel's annual income was derived from marijuana.
This is especially troubling for Mexican law enforcement because marijuana use, through medical marijuana outlets and general social acceptance, has become de facto legal in the U.S., and demand is robust. The upshot is that consumption is cool while production, trafficking and distribution are organized-crime activities. This is what I called in a previous column, "a stimulus plan for Mexican gangsters."
In much of the world, where institutions are weak and folks are poor, the high value that prohibition puts into drugs means that the thugs rule. Mr. Medina Mora told me in the same 2009 interview that Mexico estimated the annual cash flow from U.S. drug consumers to Mexico at around $10 billion, which of course explains why the cartels are so well armed and also able to grease the system. It also explains why Juárez is today a killing field.
Supply warriors might have a better argument if the billions of dollars spent defoliating the Colombian jungle, chasing fast boats and shooting down airplanes for the past four decades had reduced drug use. Yet despite passing victories like taking out 1980s kingpin Pablo Escobar and countless other drug lords since then, narcotics are still widely available in the U.S. and some segment of American society remains enthusiastic about using them. In some places terrorist organizations like Colombia's FARC rebels and al Qaeda have replaced traditional cartels.
There is one ray of hope for innocent victims of the war on drugs. Last week the Journal reported that Drug Enforcement Administration agents were questioning members of an El Paso gang about their possible involvement in the recent killings in Juárez. If the escalation is now spilling over into the U.S., Americans may finally have to face their role in the mess. Mrs. Clinton's mission will only add value if it reflects awareness of that reality.
Rogue Nation: USA
The Rogue Nation
by Philip Giraldi, March 11, 2010
In spite of the fact that the United States faces no enemy anywhere in the world capable of opposing it on a battlefield, the Defense budget for 2011 will go up 7.1 percent from current levels. A lot of the new spending will be on drones, America’s latest contribution to western civilization, capable of surveilling large areas on the ground and delivering death from the skies. It is a peculiarly American vision of warfare, with a "pilot" sitting at a desk half a world away and pressing a button that can kill a target far below. Hygienic and mechanical, it is a bit like a video game with no messy cleanup afterwards. The recently released United States Quadrennial Defense Review reports how the Pentagon will be developing a new generation of super drones that can stay airborne for long periods of time and can strike anywhere in the world and at any time to kill America’s enemies. The super drones will include some that can fly at supersonic speeds and others that will be large enough to carry nuclear weapons. Some of the new drones will be designed for the navy, able to take off from aircraft carriers and project US power to even more distant hot spots. Drones are particularly esteemed by policymakers because as they are unmanned and can fly low to the ground they can violate someone’s airspace "accidentally" without necessarily resulting in a diplomatic incident.
Washington’s embrace of drones as the weapon of choice for international assassination is one major reason why the United States has become the evil empire. Drones are the extended fist of what used to be referred to as the Bush Doctrine. Under the Bush Doctrine Washington asserted that it had a right to use its military force preemptively against anyone in the world at any time if the White House were to determine that such action might be construed as defending the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney defined the policy in percentage terms, asserting that if there was a 1% chance that any development anywhere in the world could endanger Americans, the United States government was obligated to act. It should be noted that President Barack Obama has not repudiated either the Bush doctrine or the 1% solution of Dick Cheney and has actually gone so far as to assert that America is fighting Christianity-approved "just wars," a position disputed by Pope Benedict XVI among others. Far from eschewing war and killing, the number and intensity of drone attacks has increased under Obama, as has the number of civilian casualties, referred to by the splendid bloodless euphemism "collateral damage."
Drones are currently killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. It should be noted that the United States is not at war with any of those countries, which should mean in a sane world that the killing is illegal under both international law and the US Constitution. America’s Founding Fathers used constitutional restraints to make it difficult for Americans to go to war, requiring an act of war by Congress. Unfortunately it has not worked out that way. The US has been involved in almost constant warfare since the Second World War but the most recent actual declaration of war was on December 8, 1941. And then there are the special and clandestine operations that span the globe. Apart from Israel, no other country in the world has an openly declared policy of going around and killing people. One would think that the international community would consequently regard both Tel Aviv and Washington as pariahs, but fear of offending the world’s only super power and its principal client state has aborted most criticism. Most nations are resigned to letting assassination teams and hellfire armed drones operate as they please. If Iran were operating the drones and bumping off its enemies in places like Dubai you can be sure the reaction would be quite different.
And it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has effectively blocked any inquiry into the use of torture by US government officials, mostly from the CIA. The Administration claims to have stopped the practice but has declared that no one will be punished for obeying orders to waterboard prisoners, an argument that was not acceptable at the Nuremberg trials in 1946 and should not be acceptable now. The United States is a signatory to the international agreement on torture and there are also both federal and state laws that prohibit either carrying out or enabling the practice, so the ruling by Holder is essentially a decision to ignore serious crimes that were committed against individuals who, in many cases, were both helpless and completely innocent. It also ignores the participation of Justice Department lawyers and CIA doctors in the process, involvement that most would consider both immoral and unethical. Worst of all, it lets off the hook the real war criminals, people like George Tenet and those in the White House who approved the practice. Tenet, one recalls, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and a $4 million book deal. He still teaches at Georgetown University. Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who made the legal arguments for torture are now respectively a tenured professor at Berkeley and a federal appeals court justice. One assumes that the actual CIA torturers continue to be employed by the federal government or are enjoying a comfortable retirement. So much for accountability for war crimes under President Obama.
Finally there is assassination. On February 3rd Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair commented during a congressional briefing that the United States reserves the right to kill American citizens overseas who are actively "involved" with groups regarded as terrorist. Involvement is, of course, a very slippery expression providing maximum latitude for those seeking to make a case for summary execution. The death list involves a due process of sorts in that a government official makes the decision who shall be on it based on guidelines but it does not allow the accused to challenge or dispute evidence. It should also be noted that no one in Congress objected to the Blair statement and the media hardly reported the story, suggesting that tolerance of illegal and immoral activity now pervades the system. As former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein has commented, the claimed authority to suspend one’s constitutional rights overseas can be extended to anyone in the United States by declaring one an enemy combatant under the terms of the Military Commissions Act. Jose Padilla was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial even though he was an American citizen and was arrested in Chicago, not overseas. Can we anticipate extrajudicial killing of American citizens in America as part of the war on terror? Of course we can.
Three strikes and you’re out, Mr. Obama. Your government stands for preemptive killing and missile strikes on people living in countries with which America is not at war, lets torturers and torture enablers go free, and has asserted the right to assassinate its own citizens anywhere in the world based on secret evidence. Ronald Reagan once described his vision of America as a shining city on a hill. Over the past ten years the shining city has become the ultimate rogue nation, pumped up with power and hubris in spite of the clearly visible signs of decline and moving inexorably towards a catastrophic fall.
by Philip Giraldi, March 11, 2010
In spite of the fact that the United States faces no enemy anywhere in the world capable of opposing it on a battlefield, the Defense budget for 2011 will go up 7.1 percent from current levels. A lot of the new spending will be on drones, America’s latest contribution to western civilization, capable of surveilling large areas on the ground and delivering death from the skies. It is a peculiarly American vision of warfare, with a "pilot" sitting at a desk half a world away and pressing a button that can kill a target far below. Hygienic and mechanical, it is a bit like a video game with no messy cleanup afterwards. The recently released United States Quadrennial Defense Review reports how the Pentagon will be developing a new generation of super drones that can stay airborne for long periods of time and can strike anywhere in the world and at any time to kill America’s enemies. The super drones will include some that can fly at supersonic speeds and others that will be large enough to carry nuclear weapons. Some of the new drones will be designed for the navy, able to take off from aircraft carriers and project US power to even more distant hot spots. Drones are particularly esteemed by policymakers because as they are unmanned and can fly low to the ground they can violate someone’s airspace "accidentally" without necessarily resulting in a diplomatic incident.
Washington’s embrace of drones as the weapon of choice for international assassination is one major reason why the United States has become the evil empire. Drones are the extended fist of what used to be referred to as the Bush Doctrine. Under the Bush Doctrine Washington asserted that it had a right to use its military force preemptively against anyone in the world at any time if the White House were to determine that such action might be construed as defending the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney defined the policy in percentage terms, asserting that if there was a 1% chance that any development anywhere in the world could endanger Americans, the United States government was obligated to act. It should be noted that President Barack Obama has not repudiated either the Bush doctrine or the 1% solution of Dick Cheney and has actually gone so far as to assert that America is fighting Christianity-approved "just wars," a position disputed by Pope Benedict XVI among others. Far from eschewing war and killing, the number and intensity of drone attacks has increased under Obama, as has the number of civilian casualties, referred to by the splendid bloodless euphemism "collateral damage."
Drones are currently killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. It should be noted that the United States is not at war with any of those countries, which should mean in a sane world that the killing is illegal under both international law and the US Constitution. America’s Founding Fathers used constitutional restraints to make it difficult for Americans to go to war, requiring an act of war by Congress. Unfortunately it has not worked out that way. The US has been involved in almost constant warfare since the Second World War but the most recent actual declaration of war was on December 8, 1941. And then there are the special and clandestine operations that span the globe. Apart from Israel, no other country in the world has an openly declared policy of going around and killing people. One would think that the international community would consequently regard both Tel Aviv and Washington as pariahs, but fear of offending the world’s only super power and its principal client state has aborted most criticism. Most nations are resigned to letting assassination teams and hellfire armed drones operate as they please. If Iran were operating the drones and bumping off its enemies in places like Dubai you can be sure the reaction would be quite different.
And it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has effectively blocked any inquiry into the use of torture by US government officials, mostly from the CIA. The Administration claims to have stopped the practice but has declared that no one will be punished for obeying orders to waterboard prisoners, an argument that was not acceptable at the Nuremberg trials in 1946 and should not be acceptable now. The United States is a signatory to the international agreement on torture and there are also both federal and state laws that prohibit either carrying out or enabling the practice, so the ruling by Holder is essentially a decision to ignore serious crimes that were committed against individuals who, in many cases, were both helpless and completely innocent. It also ignores the participation of Justice Department lawyers and CIA doctors in the process, involvement that most would consider both immoral and unethical. Worst of all, it lets off the hook the real war criminals, people like George Tenet and those in the White House who approved the practice. Tenet, one recalls, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and a $4 million book deal. He still teaches at Georgetown University. Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who made the legal arguments for torture are now respectively a tenured professor at Berkeley and a federal appeals court justice. One assumes that the actual CIA torturers continue to be employed by the federal government or are enjoying a comfortable retirement. So much for accountability for war crimes under President Obama.
Finally there is assassination. On February 3rd Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair commented during a congressional briefing that the United States reserves the right to kill American citizens overseas who are actively "involved" with groups regarded as terrorist. Involvement is, of course, a very slippery expression providing maximum latitude for those seeking to make a case for summary execution. The death list involves a due process of sorts in that a government official makes the decision who shall be on it based on guidelines but it does not allow the accused to challenge or dispute evidence. It should also be noted that no one in Congress objected to the Blair statement and the media hardly reported the story, suggesting that tolerance of illegal and immoral activity now pervades the system. As former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein has commented, the claimed authority to suspend one’s constitutional rights overseas can be extended to anyone in the United States by declaring one an enemy combatant under the terms of the Military Commissions Act. Jose Padilla was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial even though he was an American citizen and was arrested in Chicago, not overseas. Can we anticipate extrajudicial killing of American citizens in America as part of the war on terror? Of course we can.
Three strikes and you’re out, Mr. Obama. Your government stands for preemptive killing and missile strikes on people living in countries with which America is not at war, lets torturers and torture enablers go free, and has asserted the right to assassinate its own citizens anywhere in the world based on secret evidence. Ronald Reagan once described his vision of America as a shining city on a hill. Over the past ten years the shining city has become the ultimate rogue nation, pumped up with power and hubris in spite of the clearly visible signs of decline and moving inexorably towards a catastrophic fall.
D/FW Ground Zero for Commercial Real Estate crash?
(Great! I live at Ground Zero for the Commercial Real Estate crash! It all starts here, folks! They continue building skyscrapers downtown even with like 16% occupancy for the all the buildings downtown. 16% occupancy? We need more buildings and clients who will default on their loans!-jef)
Dallas-Fort Worth commercial foreclosure filings top $1 billion
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
By STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News
Commercial property foreclosure filings in the Dallas-Fort Worth area top $1 billion for the upcoming April sales.
That's much higher than commercial foreclosure posting totals in recent months.
"It's certainly the highest we've seen in this cycle," George Roddy of Foreclosure Listing Service said Monday.
The Addison-based foreclosure-tracking firm counts 333 D-FW commercial properties scheduled for auction by lenders next month.
During the last few months, the auction totals have averaged about 250.
Among the properties set for sale next month are the Element Hotel in Irving, with $13.1 million in debt, and the Firewheel Distribution Center in Garland, with $13.1 million in debt, according to Foreclosure Listing Service.
Part of Allen's Star Creek development on State Highway 121, with about $15 million in debt, also made the April foreclosure list.
The biggest current foreclosure posting is still the Four Seasons Resort and Club at Las Colinas, with $183 million.
Although the 400-acre resort has been facing auction for several months, owner BentleyForbes and its lenders have reached a "standstill agreement" while debt negotiations continue.
BentleyForbes officials said earlier this month that they "expect that a resolution will be reached in the near future."
But it's not unusual for a mortgage holder to continue posting a property for foreclosure while talks go on.
Not all properties listed for foreclosure each month are actually sold by the lender. Many times, the borrower reaches a new mortgage agreement or delays the forced sale.
In 2009, the number of commercial properties posted for foreclosure in Dallas-Fort Worth jumped almost 27 percent. More than 2,400 properties, including offices, warehouses, shopping centers, hotels, apartments and commercial land, were posted for foreclosure last year.
It's no wonder that Dallas-Fort Worth's commercial property foreclosures are spiking.
A new report by First American CoreLogic says that D-FW led the nation in commercial mortgage maturities in February. More than $4 billion of about $20 billion in U.S. commercial property loans that came due in February were on properties in North Texas, the researchers found.
The Houston area was second, with almost $3 billion in maturing commercial mortgages.
With lenders still keeping a tight rein on real estate debt, it's often impossible for borrowers to extend or refinance commercial property loans.
Dallas-Fort Worth commercial foreclosure filings top $1 billion
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
By STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News
Commercial property foreclosure filings in the Dallas-Fort Worth area top $1 billion for the upcoming April sales.
That's much higher than commercial foreclosure posting totals in recent months.
"It's certainly the highest we've seen in this cycle," George Roddy of Foreclosure Listing Service said Monday.
The Addison-based foreclosure-tracking firm counts 333 D-FW commercial properties scheduled for auction by lenders next month.
During the last few months, the auction totals have averaged about 250.
Among the properties set for sale next month are the Element Hotel in Irving, with $13.1 million in debt, and the Firewheel Distribution Center in Garland, with $13.1 million in debt, according to Foreclosure Listing Service.
Part of Allen's Star Creek development on State Highway 121, with about $15 million in debt, also made the April foreclosure list.
The biggest current foreclosure posting is still the Four Seasons Resort and Club at Las Colinas, with $183 million.
Although the 400-acre resort has been facing auction for several months, owner BentleyForbes and its lenders have reached a "standstill agreement" while debt negotiations continue.
BentleyForbes officials said earlier this month that they "expect that a resolution will be reached in the near future."
But it's not unusual for a mortgage holder to continue posting a property for foreclosure while talks go on.
Not all properties listed for foreclosure each month are actually sold by the lender. Many times, the borrower reaches a new mortgage agreement or delays the forced sale.
In 2009, the number of commercial properties posted for foreclosure in Dallas-Fort Worth jumped almost 27 percent. More than 2,400 properties, including offices, warehouses, shopping centers, hotels, apartments and commercial land, were posted for foreclosure last year.
It's no wonder that Dallas-Fort Worth's commercial property foreclosures are spiking.
A new report by First American CoreLogic says that D-FW led the nation in commercial mortgage maturities in February. More than $4 billion of about $20 billion in U.S. commercial property loans that came due in February were on properties in North Texas, the researchers found.
The Houston area was second, with almost $3 billion in maturing commercial mortgages.
With lenders still keeping a tight rein on real estate debt, it's often impossible for borrowers to extend or refinance commercial property loans.
Geithner: Taxpayers to Face "Very Substantial" Losses from Fannie/Freddie
Geithner: Taxpayers Are Likely to Face "Very Substantial" Losses From Government's Takeover of Fannie and Freddie
Tim Geithner told the House Financial Services Committee today that txpayers are likely to face "very substantial" losses from the government's takeover of home mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As Shahien Nasiripour notes:
And as Nasiripour points out, Geithner has absolutely no idea how to fix Fannie or Freddie.
Heck of a job, Timmy.
Tim Geithner told the House Financial Services Committee today that txpayers are likely to face "very substantial" losses from the government's takeover of home mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As Shahien Nasiripour notes:
Taxpayers have pumped more than $125 billion into the failed firms -- and on the hook for many more after the administration promised an unlimited source of funds just before Christmas to backstop their growing losses.
And as Nasiripour points out, Geithner has absolutely no idea how to fix Fannie or Freddie.
Heck of a job, Timmy.
Two Procedural Violations Force a New Vote on Health Care Reform Legislation in the House
Somebody messed up...
Violations: Health bill to face fresh House vote
Published on 03-25-2010
Republicans forced a new vote on fixes to historic US health care reform legislation by finding two procedural "violations," a spokesman for a top Democratic senator said on Thursday.
"After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told AFP.
Reid had been working to corral Senate votes for a package of "fixes" to the health care legislation, which President Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday.
Manley said the violations related to provisions dealing with "higher education," but did not provide further details.
"I'm confident that the House will be able to deal with these and pass the legislation," he said.
A day after Obama signed the main health care reform legislation into law, the Senate began debate Wednesday on modifications sent by the House.
Often the Senate and the House pass bills containing different language and then hammer out a consensus bill that both houses then vote on again.
In this case no compromise bill was drawn up and the House agreed to use the Senate version for its historic vote last Sunday.
The fixes were to alter provisions in the original Senate version of health care reform that the House had agreed to pass in exchange for certain alterations.
The Senate took up the package of fixes Wednesday, with Republicans seeking to introduce dozens of amendments aimed in part at forcing the House to vote anew.
Democrats planned to approve the changes in the Senate under rules that prevent Republicans from using a filibuster to indefinitely delay and kill the measure.
The health care legislation Obama signed into law Tuesday is his administration's key priority and will extend coverage to some 32 million Americans who currently lack insurance.
The $940 billion overhaul means 95 percent of US citizens and legal residents under the age of 65 will have health insurance.
The 2,000-plus page bill mandates that all Americans buy insurance, or face fines -- a provision that has drawn lawsuits from several state attorney generals who claim it is unconstitutional.
Among other key reforms, the legislation also bans insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, from dropping clients who get sick or from setting lifetime caps.
Republicans presented a united front in opposition to the bill, which also drew anti-reform protesters to Washington.
But a USA Today/Gallup poll taken just as it was signed into law found that nearly half of Americans support the overhaul, with 49 percent of respondents saying the bill was a "good thing," while 40 percent considered it a "bad thing."
Dennis Hopper Dying
I hope this isn't some stunt to avoid his hearing. If it's for real, he will be missed. He's a crazy f#@ker, or often plays one.
Dennis Hopper Dying, Attorney Says
Divorce Lawyer Says Actor, 73, Too Weak from Prostate Cancer to Undergo Chemotherapy, Court Proceedings
(AP) Dennis Hopper is terminally ill and unable to undergo chemotherapy as he battles prostate cancer, his attorney wrote in a court filing.
Attorney Joseph Mannis wrote about the "Easy Rider" star's grave condition in a declaration filed Wednesday asserting the actor cannot be questioned by his wife's attorneys in a deposition.
The prognosis contradicts previous filings in the divorce proceedings that were bullish about Hopper's recovery chances.
Hopper, 73, and his wife, Victoria, have been locked in a bitter feud since the actor, director and artist filed to end the couple's nearly 14-year marriage in January.
He weighs barely 100 pounds and was described by his physician Dr. David Agus in the court filing as extremely weak and unable to carry on long conversations.
Agus states that undergoing a deposition "could actually threaten his ability to survive his current health crisis."
The doctor added, however, that he approved an appearance Friday by Hopper to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame because it is likely to be a positive experience.
A phone message seeking comment from Victoria Hopper's attorney, Sorrell Trope, was not immediately returned. Mannis did not return a call seeking further comment.
Hopper filed a declaration last month saying he was undergoing promising chemotherapy treatments and remained hopeful "that this treatment will be successful so that I may soon resume the full enjoyment of my life and work."
Dennis and Victoria Hopper have agreed to stay 10 feet away from each other while the divorce is ongoing. She has stated in court filings that Hopper filed for divorce to cut her out of her inheritance, a claim the actor has denied.
The case is scheduled for a court hearing on April 5.
Dennis Hopper Dying, Attorney Says
Divorce Lawyer Says Actor, 73, Too Weak from Prostate Cancer to Undergo Chemotherapy, Court Proceedings
(AP) Dennis Hopper is terminally ill and unable to undergo chemotherapy as he battles prostate cancer, his attorney wrote in a court filing.
Attorney Joseph Mannis wrote about the "Easy Rider" star's grave condition in a declaration filed Wednesday asserting the actor cannot be questioned by his wife's attorneys in a deposition.
The prognosis contradicts previous filings in the divorce proceedings that were bullish about Hopper's recovery chances.
Hopper, 73, and his wife, Victoria, have been locked in a bitter feud since the actor, director and artist filed to end the couple's nearly 14-year marriage in January.
He weighs barely 100 pounds and was described by his physician Dr. David Agus in the court filing as extremely weak and unable to carry on long conversations.
Agus states that undergoing a deposition "could actually threaten his ability to survive his current health crisis."
The doctor added, however, that he approved an appearance Friday by Hopper to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame because it is likely to be a positive experience.
A phone message seeking comment from Victoria Hopper's attorney, Sorrell Trope, was not immediately returned. Mannis did not return a call seeking further comment.
Hopper filed a declaration last month saying he was undergoing promising chemotherapy treatments and remained hopeful "that this treatment will be successful so that I may soon resume the full enjoyment of my life and work."
Dennis and Victoria Hopper have agreed to stay 10 feet away from each other while the divorce is ongoing. She has stated in court filings that Hopper filed for divorce to cut her out of her inheritance, a claim the actor has denied.
The case is scheduled for a court hearing on April 5.
Looming Commercial Real Estate Crash
‘Huge’ Commercial Real Estate Crash Coming
By John Gittelsohn and Thomas R. Keene
(Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr., said today the U.S. is in the beginning of a “huge crash in commercial real estate.”
“All of the components of real estate value are going in the wrong direction simultaneously,” said Ross, one of nine money managers participating in a government program to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets. “Occupancy rates are going down. Rent rates are going down and the capitalization rate -- the return that investors are demanding to buy a property -- are going up.”
U.S. commercial property sales are forecast to fall to the lowest in almost two decades as the industry endures its worst slump since the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s, according to property research firm Real Capital Analytics Inc. The Moody’s/REAL Commercial Property Price Indices already have fallen almost 41 percent since October 2007, Moody’s Investors Service said Oct. 19.
Billionaire George Soros, speaking today at a lecture organized by the Central European University in Budapest, said a “bloodletting” may be coming for leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate.
“The American consumer will no longer be able to serve as the motor for the world economy,” said Soros, 79.
His comments came in the same week that Capmark Financial Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after originating $60 billion in commercial property loans in 2006 and 2007.
‘Extreme Caution’
Ross, the 71-year-old chairman and chief executive officer of WL Ross & Co. LLC, said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio that he would use “extreme caution” before putting money into commercial real estate, especially office space, because properties are losing tenants.
U.S. office vacancies hit a five-year high of almost 17 percent in the third quarter, while shopping center vacancies climbed to their highest since 1992, according to the property research firm Reis Inc.
“I think it’s going to take quite a while to work itself out,” Ross said.
As of Oct. 15, Ross said he had spent less than $100 million of at least $1.5 billion available to him under the Public-Private Investment Program, an investment pool of private and government money for purchasing distressed assets from financial institutions.
Ross used the funds he spent so far to purchase residential mortgage-backed securities, he said in a Bloomberg Television interview.
Corus Investment
WL Ross was among a group of firms that agreed Oct. 6 to buy $4.5 billion of Corus Bankshares Inc.’s real estate. Starwood Capital Group LLC and TPG led the group to buy the assets of the Chicago-based lender, which was seized by federal regulators Sept. 11 after its investments in construction loans for condominiums went bad.
In 2007, Ross ventured into the declining residential property market, winning an auction for the home-loan servicing unit of Melville, New York-based American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. He agreed to pay between $435 million and $500 million for the right to collect payments and maintain escrow on about $45.3 billion of home mortgages.
Making Lists
Dubbed the King of Bankruptcy by clients during his quarter century at the Rothschild investment bank, Ross entered the U.S. home mortgage business as an increasing number of borrowers quit making payments and profits sank in loan servicing.
“Our methodology is to make a great big list: What’s every thing we can think of that’s either wrong with the industry or that we just plain don’t like about it,” Ross said today.
“Then we start work on another list. If we had control of this industry, what would we do to fix each one of those problems?” he said. “Once we feel that there is a reasonable likelihood that the second chart kind of equals the first chart, that’s when we get ready to do something.”
By John Gittelsohn and Thomas R. Keene
(Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr., said today the U.S. is in the beginning of a “huge crash in commercial real estate.”
“All of the components of real estate value are going in the wrong direction simultaneously,” said Ross, one of nine money managers participating in a government program to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets. “Occupancy rates are going down. Rent rates are going down and the capitalization rate -- the return that investors are demanding to buy a property -- are going up.”
U.S. commercial property sales are forecast to fall to the lowest in almost two decades as the industry endures its worst slump since the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s, according to property research firm Real Capital Analytics Inc. The Moody’s/REAL Commercial Property Price Indices already have fallen almost 41 percent since October 2007, Moody’s Investors Service said Oct. 19.
Billionaire George Soros, speaking today at a lecture organized by the Central European University in Budapest, said a “bloodletting” may be coming for leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate.
“The American consumer will no longer be able to serve as the motor for the world economy,” said Soros, 79.
His comments came in the same week that Capmark Financial Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after originating $60 billion in commercial property loans in 2006 and 2007.
‘Extreme Caution’
Ross, the 71-year-old chairman and chief executive officer of WL Ross & Co. LLC, said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio that he would use “extreme caution” before putting money into commercial real estate, especially office space, because properties are losing tenants.
U.S. office vacancies hit a five-year high of almost 17 percent in the third quarter, while shopping center vacancies climbed to their highest since 1992, according to the property research firm Reis Inc.
“I think it’s going to take quite a while to work itself out,” Ross said.
As of Oct. 15, Ross said he had spent less than $100 million of at least $1.5 billion available to him under the Public-Private Investment Program, an investment pool of private and government money for purchasing distressed assets from financial institutions.
Ross used the funds he spent so far to purchase residential mortgage-backed securities, he said in a Bloomberg Television interview.
Corus Investment
WL Ross was among a group of firms that agreed Oct. 6 to buy $4.5 billion of Corus Bankshares Inc.’s real estate. Starwood Capital Group LLC and TPG led the group to buy the assets of the Chicago-based lender, which was seized by federal regulators Sept. 11 after its investments in construction loans for condominiums went bad.
In 2007, Ross ventured into the declining residential property market, winning an auction for the home-loan servicing unit of Melville, New York-based American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. He agreed to pay between $435 million and $500 million for the right to collect payments and maintain escrow on about $45.3 billion of home mortgages.
Making Lists
Dubbed the King of Bankruptcy by clients during his quarter century at the Rothschild investment bank, Ross entered the U.S. home mortgage business as an increasing number of borrowers quit making payments and profits sank in loan servicing.
“Our methodology is to make a great big list: What’s every thing we can think of that’s either wrong with the industry or that we just plain don’t like about it,” Ross said today.
“Then we start work on another list. If we had control of this industry, what would we do to fix each one of those problems?” he said. “Once we feel that there is a reasonable likelihood that the second chart kind of equals the first chart, that’s when we get ready to do something.”
Peter Schiff: Don't Bet On Recovery
Don't Bet on Recovery
By Peter Schiff
03/04/10
It is astounding how many economists, government officials, and Wall Street strategists construe the current economic conditions as evidence of a bona fide recovery. It is a testament to the power of the rose colored glasses handed out by our nation's leading universities that such a feeling could be widely held despite the clear and present danger that compounds daily. The myopia leads us to enact policies that actually exacerbate our problems. The "remedies" are postponing, perhaps indefinitely, a true recovery.
The oracles who have described the nature of this imminent recovery do so based on their conviction that consumer spending is slowly returning to levels that existed prior to the recession. New data released today seems to support this view, with consumer spending up 0.5% in January.
However, missing from their analysis is any plausible explanation as to why consumers will be able to sustain such spending given the plunge in income and credit, and the lack of available savings. In fact, the same January spending report showed that personal income increased by only 0.1%, while the savings rate slowed to the smallest since 2008.
I would challenge those who fantasize about a consumer-led recovery to describe where the spending money will come from. Most consumers are tapped out, millions are unemployed, and home equity has been wiped out. The only reasonable thing for them to do is to pay down debt and sock away as much money as possible to rebuild their savings.
Beyond the question of "how" the spending could be achieved, is the deeper question of "why" such activity should be sought at all. Excessive spending, fueled by an insane housing bubble and catalyzed by reckless monetary and fiscal policy, was the reason that our current recession became unavoidable. Why would we want to go down that road again?
During the run up to the crash, excess spending had created economic distortions that have yet to be resolved. Too many resources, including land, labor, and capital, were devoted to servicing an unsustainable economic model in which Americans borrowed money to buy homes, products and services they really could not afford. In many cases consumer behavior was influenced by overly optimistic assumptions regarding real estate related riches.
However, now that the real estate bubble has burst, Americans are coming to terms with a more sober reality. Many have cut up their credit cards, dramatically reduced their spending, and have squirreled away as much money as they can. This change in behavior should necessitate a dramatic shift in the labor market as workers move away from jobs associated with consumer spending and toward jobs associated with real production, primarily for exportable goods.
The real problem is that monetary and fiscal policy designed to re-inflate the burst spending bubble is preventing this transition from taking place. As a result we are not creating the jobs we need to replace -- the ones we have lost in mortgage servicing, home improvement, and real estate sales (which we never really needed to begin with). As these jobless remain unable to find alternative employment, our economy will continue to languish.
Some will argue that the new jobs created by government stimulus spending will provide the additional purchasing power necessary to revitalize consumer spending. There are two problems with this expectation. First, those jobs being "created" by the government are outnumbered by those being destroyed by government domination of resources. Second, even if it were possible for job growth to return, having hopefully learned from their mistakes, workers will be far more frugal with their paychecks than they were in the past.
Others hope that rising real estate prices will give consumers more confidence to spend. The reality is that housing prices are still too high and will likely fall further. But even if they did rise, consumers will still be reluctant to resume their shopping spree. Home equity extraction loans, which just a few years ago turned houses into ATMs, are now much harder to come by. When it comes to spending, it's not just about confidence; it's about cash.
The only possible way consumers can spend is if the government gives them the money. However, since the government cannot legitimately give money to one American without first taking it from another, the most likely means of doling out cash will be to run it off the printing presses.
That, in a nutshell, is our government's plan for economic recovery. Print a bunch of money and give it to consumers to spend. This is not a plan for recovery but a recipe for disaster. Those betting that this program can succeed in putting together a healthy and sustainable economy simply do not understand the nature of their wager. The smart money is going the other way.
By Peter Schiff
03/04/10
It is astounding how many economists, government officials, and Wall Street strategists construe the current economic conditions as evidence of a bona fide recovery. It is a testament to the power of the rose colored glasses handed out by our nation's leading universities that such a feeling could be widely held despite the clear and present danger that compounds daily. The myopia leads us to enact policies that actually exacerbate our problems. The "remedies" are postponing, perhaps indefinitely, a true recovery.
The oracles who have described the nature of this imminent recovery do so based on their conviction that consumer spending is slowly returning to levels that existed prior to the recession. New data released today seems to support this view, with consumer spending up 0.5% in January.
However, missing from their analysis is any plausible explanation as to why consumers will be able to sustain such spending given the plunge in income and credit, and the lack of available savings. In fact, the same January spending report showed that personal income increased by only 0.1%, while the savings rate slowed to the smallest since 2008.
I would challenge those who fantasize about a consumer-led recovery to describe where the spending money will come from. Most consumers are tapped out, millions are unemployed, and home equity has been wiped out. The only reasonable thing for them to do is to pay down debt and sock away as much money as possible to rebuild their savings.
Beyond the question of "how" the spending could be achieved, is the deeper question of "why" such activity should be sought at all. Excessive spending, fueled by an insane housing bubble and catalyzed by reckless monetary and fiscal policy, was the reason that our current recession became unavoidable. Why would we want to go down that road again?
During the run up to the crash, excess spending had created economic distortions that have yet to be resolved. Too many resources, including land, labor, and capital, were devoted to servicing an unsustainable economic model in which Americans borrowed money to buy homes, products and services they really could not afford. In many cases consumer behavior was influenced by overly optimistic assumptions regarding real estate related riches.
However, now that the real estate bubble has burst, Americans are coming to terms with a more sober reality. Many have cut up their credit cards, dramatically reduced their spending, and have squirreled away as much money as they can. This change in behavior should necessitate a dramatic shift in the labor market as workers move away from jobs associated with consumer spending and toward jobs associated with real production, primarily for exportable goods.
The real problem is that monetary and fiscal policy designed to re-inflate the burst spending bubble is preventing this transition from taking place. As a result we are not creating the jobs we need to replace -- the ones we have lost in mortgage servicing, home improvement, and real estate sales (which we never really needed to begin with). As these jobless remain unable to find alternative employment, our economy will continue to languish.
Some will argue that the new jobs created by government stimulus spending will provide the additional purchasing power necessary to revitalize consumer spending. There are two problems with this expectation. First, those jobs being "created" by the government are outnumbered by those being destroyed by government domination of resources. Second, even if it were possible for job growth to return, having hopefully learned from their mistakes, workers will be far more frugal with their paychecks than they were in the past.
Others hope that rising real estate prices will give consumers more confidence to spend. The reality is that housing prices are still too high and will likely fall further. But even if they did rise, consumers will still be reluctant to resume their shopping spree. Home equity extraction loans, which just a few years ago turned houses into ATMs, are now much harder to come by. When it comes to spending, it's not just about confidence; it's about cash.
The only possible way consumers can spend is if the government gives them the money. However, since the government cannot legitimately give money to one American without first taking it from another, the most likely means of doling out cash will be to run it off the printing presses.
That, in a nutshell, is our government's plan for economic recovery. Print a bunch of money and give it to consumers to spend. This is not a plan for recovery but a recipe for disaster. Those betting that this program can succeed in putting together a healthy and sustainable economy simply do not understand the nature of their wager. The smart money is going the other way.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Opposition to HR 3590 is Not Only Drawn Down Partisan Lines
by spiderlegs
OK, I'm getting pretty sick of the lazy classification of all opposition to the Health Care Reform Bill as strictly Right WIngers and Tea Baggers. Many, many Progressives are against the bill, and many left leaning independents who bailed on the Corporatist Democratic Party in the past for being puppets of the corporate power structure like their Republican counterparts are.
I oppose this bill not because of bullshit rhetoric like "socialist" or any other reactionary extreme term meant solely to provoke an emotional reaction.
See, I've read the bill. I've seen all the little loopholes in it that basically water down or even reverse its so called "reform" measures. In fact, I was angered to see that this bill actually does even more for the corporate health insurance providers than the existing system. There are so many corporate perks, you sit there wondering why they didn't do a better job of trying to hide them. The answer being of course, "no one's gonna read the damn thing!"
I severed my ties with the Democratic Party a decade ago--basically after the capitulation of 2000. I still have argued for their side in certain debates--mainly against the war in Iraq, and many other George W. Bush policy blunders. But once away from the Dems, it became easy to see they were just as controlled by the corporations as the Republicans are, except the GOP doesn't try and hide it. They make it plainly clear that their mouths are on the phalli of the corporations, and they swallow, too.
But the Democrats have always tried to hide it, tried to make it seem like they were the party of the people, when they are the party for the lawyers and investment bankers. In truth, both parties try and put up this front like they are so diametrically opposed to each other, that it's funny to watch them go through their acts.
But they have the same bosses. They legislate with the same end results and bottom lines. That's why this health care bill is a corporate blow job with a reach around. And anyone who says it's good for the people is spouting talking points without having read it, or they favor corporate rule, I guess.
But please understand, oh readers, that opposition to the bill is not just from conservatives, tea baggers, Republicans, and the like. Progressives, Libertarians, Green Party members, Independents, and here's the funniest part: Socialists are against this bill. I have two friends who claim membership to the Socialist Party, and both of them hate the bill, too. There is very little in it that can be considered socialist, and no more socialist than the post office or education system.
The merging of corporate and government administration is more accurately termed fascist, but the Tea Baggers latched on to "Socialist" because it's "scary." Thinking they could hearken back to McCarthyism days, they tried to pull another "red scare" that wasn't necessary: the bill on its own is scary enough. Any form of corporate control is scary because corporations are much more evil and corrupt than almost any government. There's a saying that if you left a corporation under a jar left to go about its business without intervention, when you came back after a time, you'd find 12 really fat people sitting around a table with mouths open like baby birds. See, they had eaten everything (consumed all the resources), were still hungry (still greedy for more profits), and now they're begging for more food (asking the govt for a bailout).
It is my opinion that the corporate way of administration is inherently corrupt. It bastardizes the concept of free market capitalism to the point where corruption and greed are its dominant characteristics, and will always work their way to the forefront and control every aspect of life. Those who work for the corporation have rights under the constitution, but that wasn't enough: they wanted extra rights. So not only did those individuals employed by the corporation have rights, they coerced the courts into giving them even more rights which superceded those of individuals, making the corporate entity infinitely more powerful and influential than the individual. And thus, the beginning of the end of the United States of America.
The end came last January with the SCOTUS Citizens United decision giving the corporations the right to buy political candidates, and influence the legislature with their huge sums of money. Starting this November, there will never be a candidate elected who is not affiliated with corporate interests. Not that there are many now, but they no longer have to pretend.
And then came HR 3590, the corporate health care reform (not!) bill that was written by health care industry lobbyists, serving the interests of the health insurance providers and pharmaceutical corps while the politicians assumed their age old roles of good cop/bad cop, with the Republicans pretending to be outraged by this turn to communism, worse than Communist Russia said one idiot congressman from Texas. This is for our benefit, 'we the people.' The show where the Democrats pretend the bill is for us, and the Republicans pretend to argue in our interest against it, when both sides know how much it benefits their corporate masters and their shareholders when the mandate kicks in. Such theater, and so many of us, the people, are convinced it's real life, that we get caught up in it. And we argue for it or against it, not knowing really what it says or who it favors, really. We watch our legislators, we mimic them "baby killer! baby killer!" and we settle down in our partisan divisions, blindly following someone else's lead.
I say "we" but I don't mean "we." For once, I actually educated myself on a supremely controversial issue, and once I learned how badly in favor of corporate interests this bill was geared to the expense of those who need health care reform (all of us), I had to side with those who believed the bill is a communist plot--not because that's what I believe, but because they were the only ones opposing it vociferously. I heard the voices of other progressives, independents, and those not affiliated with the "right" I listed earlier, join mine in opposition to the bill, but so few noticed that we somehow got lumped in as right wing nut jobs. Those of you who know me personally know that calling me a right wing nut job is probably the most hilarious thing ever. And even though I'm not a Democrat, only a few of my economic views-- a handful of them, to be true--even approach conservative, and they are more along the lines of Goldwater than Reagan or the neocons.
And let me say that even though we lost, and the world's worst health care reform bill was signed into law yesterday, it was a pleasure aligning temporarily with you right wingers for this cause. I think I learned that we as Americans have more in common with each other than the differences we have which we let destroy our unity as a nation. We can come together if we're all willing to listen to each other, and not put personalities and ego ahead of what's best for the country. Philosophically, I've always downplayed bi-partisanship as a gimmick to make legislators look appealing to the common man. But the enemy of my enemy...prevails just fine. If I can be an example of just one thing, it's that all of you people who consider yourselves Republicans or Democrats are being played, lied to, and manipulated for your support. Your parties are the property, employees of, and tools of the corporate ownership of this country, more aptly named the Corporate States of America. Because the only way in which we are united anymore, is that we have the same boss. We are owned by corporate America, the banks, the health industry (pharma, insurance, etc), the food processors, the mainstream media outlets, the telecom corporations who help the NSA spy on us, oil companies, retail chains, and fast food corps. And that's due directly to the Republicans and Democrats, guaranteeing corporate rule for as long as they exist.
OK, I'm getting pretty sick of the lazy classification of all opposition to the Health Care Reform Bill as strictly Right WIngers and Tea Baggers. Many, many Progressives are against the bill, and many left leaning independents who bailed on the Corporatist Democratic Party in the past for being puppets of the corporate power structure like their Republican counterparts are.
I oppose this bill not because of bullshit rhetoric like "socialist" or any other reactionary extreme term meant solely to provoke an emotional reaction.
See, I've read the bill. I've seen all the little loopholes in it that basically water down or even reverse its so called "reform" measures. In fact, I was angered to see that this bill actually does even more for the corporate health insurance providers than the existing system. There are so many corporate perks, you sit there wondering why they didn't do a better job of trying to hide them. The answer being of course, "no one's gonna read the damn thing!"
I severed my ties with the Democratic Party a decade ago--basically after the capitulation of 2000. I still have argued for their side in certain debates--mainly against the war in Iraq, and many other George W. Bush policy blunders. But once away from the Dems, it became easy to see they were just as controlled by the corporations as the Republicans are, except the GOP doesn't try and hide it. They make it plainly clear that their mouths are on the phalli of the corporations, and they swallow, too.
But the Democrats have always tried to hide it, tried to make it seem like they were the party of the people, when they are the party for the lawyers and investment bankers. In truth, both parties try and put up this front like they are so diametrically opposed to each other, that it's funny to watch them go through their acts.
But they have the same bosses. They legislate with the same end results and bottom lines. That's why this health care bill is a corporate blow job with a reach around. And anyone who says it's good for the people is spouting talking points without having read it, or they favor corporate rule, I guess.
But please understand, oh readers, that opposition to the bill is not just from conservatives, tea baggers, Republicans, and the like. Progressives, Libertarians, Green Party members, Independents, and here's the funniest part: Socialists are against this bill. I have two friends who claim membership to the Socialist Party, and both of them hate the bill, too. There is very little in it that can be considered socialist, and no more socialist than the post office or education system.
The merging of corporate and government administration is more accurately termed fascist, but the Tea Baggers latched on to "Socialist" because it's "scary." Thinking they could hearken back to McCarthyism days, they tried to pull another "red scare" that wasn't necessary: the bill on its own is scary enough. Any form of corporate control is scary because corporations are much more evil and corrupt than almost any government. There's a saying that if you left a corporation under a jar left to go about its business without intervention, when you came back after a time, you'd find 12 really fat people sitting around a table with mouths open like baby birds. See, they had eaten everything (consumed all the resources), were still hungry (still greedy for more profits), and now they're begging for more food (asking the govt for a bailout).
It is my opinion that the corporate way of administration is inherently corrupt. It bastardizes the concept of free market capitalism to the point where corruption and greed are its dominant characteristics, and will always work their way to the forefront and control every aspect of life. Those who work for the corporation have rights under the constitution, but that wasn't enough: they wanted extra rights. So not only did those individuals employed by the corporation have rights, they coerced the courts into giving them even more rights which superceded those of individuals, making the corporate entity infinitely more powerful and influential than the individual. And thus, the beginning of the end of the United States of America.
The end came last January with the SCOTUS Citizens United decision giving the corporations the right to buy political candidates, and influence the legislature with their huge sums of money. Starting this November, there will never be a candidate elected who is not affiliated with corporate interests. Not that there are many now, but they no longer have to pretend.
And then came HR 3590, the corporate health care reform (not!) bill that was written by health care industry lobbyists, serving the interests of the health insurance providers and pharmaceutical corps while the politicians assumed their age old roles of good cop/bad cop, with the Republicans pretending to be outraged by this turn to communism, worse than Communist Russia said one idiot congressman from Texas. This is for our benefit, 'we the people.' The show where the Democrats pretend the bill is for us, and the Republicans pretend to argue in our interest against it, when both sides know how much it benefits their corporate masters and their shareholders when the mandate kicks in. Such theater, and so many of us, the people, are convinced it's real life, that we get caught up in it. And we argue for it or against it, not knowing really what it says or who it favors, really. We watch our legislators, we mimic them "baby killer! baby killer!" and we settle down in our partisan divisions, blindly following someone else's lead.
I say "we" but I don't mean "we." For once, I actually educated myself on a supremely controversial issue, and once I learned how badly in favor of corporate interests this bill was geared to the expense of those who need health care reform (all of us), I had to side with those who believed the bill is a communist plot--not because that's what I believe, but because they were the only ones opposing it vociferously. I heard the voices of other progressives, independents, and those not affiliated with the "right" I listed earlier, join mine in opposition to the bill, but so few noticed that we somehow got lumped in as right wing nut jobs. Those of you who know me personally know that calling me a right wing nut job is probably the most hilarious thing ever. And even though I'm not a Democrat, only a few of my economic views-- a handful of them, to be true--even approach conservative, and they are more along the lines of Goldwater than Reagan or the neocons.
And let me say that even though we lost, and the world's worst health care reform bill was signed into law yesterday, it was a pleasure aligning temporarily with you right wingers for this cause. I think I learned that we as Americans have more in common with each other than the differences we have which we let destroy our unity as a nation. We can come together if we're all willing to listen to each other, and not put personalities and ego ahead of what's best for the country. Philosophically, I've always downplayed bi-partisanship as a gimmick to make legislators look appealing to the common man. But the enemy of my enemy...prevails just fine. If I can be an example of just one thing, it's that all of you people who consider yourselves Republicans or Democrats are being played, lied to, and manipulated for your support. Your parties are the property, employees of, and tools of the corporate ownership of this country, more aptly named the Corporate States of America. Because the only way in which we are united anymore, is that we have the same boss. We are owned by corporate America, the banks, the health industry (pharma, insurance, etc), the food processors, the mainstream media outlets, the telecom corporations who help the NSA spy on us, oil companies, retail chains, and fast food corps. And that's due directly to the Republicans and Democrats, guaranteeing corporate rule for as long as they exist.
What the Watchdogs Were Watching While the Economy Tanked
SEC Employees Were Masturbating to Kiddie Porn While Your Economy Tanked
Over the past two years, more than a dozen Securities and Exchange employees and contractors have tried to view pornography on government computers at least 8,273 times. Here's what they were looking at while the global financial system cratered.
It's unclear from the investigation report precisely what the man did (or does) for the SEC, but it's clear from the context of an interview transcript that he attended graduate school and works in a professional capacity. Two video files found on his computer were referred to the FBI because investigators suspected that the men depicted having sex in them were underage:
Anyway, here's the full list of sites referenced in all the investigations. Enjoy!
The Washington Times broke the story of the SEC's porn problem, which became the subject of numerous inspector general investigations, last month. And Dealbreaker subsequently published one report of an inspector general investigation into an SEC regional supervisor who viewed transvestite porn at work as stress relief.
Now we've obtained reports of 16 investigations into porn-surfing by SEC employees and contractors (one of them is a woman!), including one man who said his daily porn viewing at work was limited to "no longer than an hour and a half a day." The man told investigators that his porn habit grew out of looking at photos of men in bathing suits, which is sometimes known as "gateway porn":
It's unclear from the investigation report precisely what the man did (or does) for the SEC, but it's clear from the context of an interview transcript that he attended graduate school and works in a professional capacity. Two video files found on his computer were referred to the FBI because investigators suspected that the men depicted having sex in them were underage:
Anyway, here's the full list of sites referenced in all the investigations. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)