java

2011-01-27T22:45:00.000-06:00

it's been even longer since i returned to my chronicles of political betrayal this time. i know, i know, no one gives a damn what i have to say anyway, but i guess i could attempt something productive on the internet again.

it's not that i have any sense that this blog was read by movers or shakers (though shakers do have a history of believing in peaceful behavior) but it did give me an outlet for frustration at the headlines of the day at a time when those headlines were exhausting. looking at the postings and the compilation, i am rather proud of the of the years that i regularly posted.

to be honest, blogging became exhausting. it is much easier to just point and click on facebook or twitter. it is immediate gratification. it does not, however, allow you to have a narrative. this blog had a narrative.

i am not sure i can pick up the story because the characters have changed and the news is now very digital. when i first started this compilation, the drudge report had just begun to be player for media attention. now things are much, much different.

just a note to myself. i should start paying attention and mapping out the news to make sense of it again. maybe tomorrow.

2010-08-15T01:12:00.001-05:00

back again--jeez things haven't changed much around here, have they?

2010-08-12T12:28:00.001-05:00

omg, i am back again. it has been awhile, hasn't it? but then look at the last article that i posted and i guess it hasn't been all that long after all.

Gibbs should be fired

By John Amato Thursday Aug 12, 2010 8:00am

DOWNLOADS: (127)

PLAYS: (399)

Yesterday I said that Gibbs should resign, but now he's not backing off his outrageous criticisms of the 'professional left" so I think he should be fired.

Speaking publicly for the first time since he disparaged the "professional left," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he stands by his comments, has no plans to resign and that he fully expects progressive voters to go to the polls in 2010.
"I don't plan on leaving and there is no truth to the rumor that I've added an inflatable exit to my office," the press secretary said during Wednesday's briefing, referencing the recent incident in which a Jet Blue flight attendant bolted his plane in frustration.
Taking the podium after a day off to tend to a sore throat, Gibbs said he has not reached out to any Democrats to discuss his remarks, in which he chastised liberals for wanting to "eliminate the Pentagon" and pursue Canadian-style health care reform. Nor, he added, has he talked to the president about the matter.
Does he stand by the comments? "Yes," he replied.
It was suggested that the remarks may have been part of a cynical strategy to depict the White House as not beholden to the progressive base. But the press secretary insisted that there was nothing underhanded in his interview with The Hill. He had said what he said in a bout of frustration.
"There are many time when I read the transcripts... that I could have said things slightly differently. I watch lot of cable TV and you don't have to watch long to get frustrated by some of what's said."

Obviously his statement was off script the other day, but now it has been approved by the President. Look, they can be upset at progressives for wanting more of the change that he promised instead of some half baked DLC legislative victories they've accomplished, but this type attack is off the wall. Maybe we should cut up a video ala Breitbart ourselves and post it which says that Gibbs hates "the left and all he really ever wanted to be was a Republican but couldn't get the job he wanted from Newt Gingrich." Would that be enough for him to get fired?
I doubt that would matter though because Gibbs has the idiot known as Ruth Marcus on his side.

asset or liability?

2010-05-28T17:41:00.002-05:00

WH had Clinton try to ease Sestak out of Pa. race

PHILIP ELLIOTT - Associated Press Writer (AP)

Originally published 11:23 a.m., May 28, 2010
Updated 02:43 p.m., May 28, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — Forced to disclose backstage political bargaining, President Barack Obama's embarrassed White House acknowledged on Friday it had enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Rep. Joe Sestak out of Pennsylvania's Senate primary with a job offer.
Nothing wrong with that, the White House said. Oh yes there was, Republicans countered.
The administration admission — it said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked the former president to call Sestak — left many questions unanswered, and it seemed unlikely the issue had been put to rest. For Obama, the revelations called into question his repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals. And for Sestak, they raised questions why he ever brought up the offer — a 60-second conversation, he said Friday — in the first place.
"I wasn't interested, and that was the bottom line," Sestak said on the steps of the Capitol.
Seeking to quiet the clamor over a possible political trade, the White House released a report describing the offer that was intended to clear a path for Sen. Arlen Specter to win the Democratic nomination. Sestak stayed in the race and eventually defeated Specter to become the Democratic nominee, ending Specter's 30-year Senate tenure.
After a week of silence, Sestak answered reporters' questions on last summer's offer.
He said he cut Clinton short after hearing only a few words about a possible post on a presidential board and said the former president immediately dropped the subject during a phone call.
"There was nothing wrong that was done," Sestak said.
White House Counsel Robert Bauer rendered his own verdict in a two-page report that said there was no improper conduct in the offer. No one in the administration discussed the offer with Sestak, Bauer said. The report did not say what, if any, contacts or promises the White House had with Specter on the matter. It also did not reveal whether Obama was aware of Clinton's role.
The report didn't impress Republicans.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House oversight committee who unsuccessfully had sought a Department of Justice investigation, said Obama had become a part of the Washington culture he decried.
"It's pretty clear from the White House statement that they intended to get him out of the race by offering him a position, and that's illegal and it's unethical," Issa said just moments after Sestak spoke.
Said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "The memo frankly raises more questions: What was Bill Clinton authorized to offer? Did President Obama sign off on this conversation before it took place?"
"Now more than ever it is clear that this White House is not capable of policing itself and needs to open itself to an independent investigation."
Sestak, who had said a job was offered but had provided no details, acknowledged Friday that he had had the conversation with Clinton. He said the former president told him he should stay in the U.S. House and perhaps join a presidential board, either involving intelligence or defense matters to use his background as a Navy officer.
Specter declined to comment. Clinton, campaigning in Little Rock, Ark., for Sen. Blanche Lincoln's re-election bid, ignored reporters' shouted questions.
The report said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted Clinton's help as a go-between with Sestak. Clinton agreed to raise the offer of a seat on a presidential advisory board or another executive board if Sestak dropped his bid, "which would avoid a divisive Senate primary," the report said.
Under the proposed arrangement, Sestak would have been able to remain in the House while serving on a board. It was not clear why the White House — which has the power to offer Cabinet posts and sought-after embassy jobs — believed Sestak would be interested in just an advisory position.
Sestak defeated the five-term Specter, who had switched from Republican to Democrat last year at the White House's urging, in the May 18 Democratic primary.
Emanuel and Sestak both worked in the White House when Clinton was president in the 1990s, and both remain close with their former boss. Sestak was a supporter of Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her 2008 presidential bid.
Bauer, in the White House report, argued that previous Democratic and Republican administrations, "motivated by the same goals, discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office." The report said such actions aren't illegal nor unethical.
For weeks, the White House had insisted officials did not behave inappropriately but had declined to elaborate. But after Sestak won the nomination, Republicans renewed their questions of the administration and White House lawyers prepared to release a report they had been compiling for months.
At a White House news conference on Thursday, Obama told reporters a full accounting would be forthcoming.
"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place," he said.
The accounting came Friday, as the public turned its attention to the Memorial Day weekend instead of politics. Both parties often release unfavorable information during times when many Americans are focused elsewhere.
Two top Democrats — party chief Tim Kaine and Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party's second-ranking leader in the Senate — said during the week that the White House and Sestak needed to address the questions. So, too, did Sestak's Republican challenger in Pennsylvania, former Rep. Pat Toomey.
___
Associated Press writers Charles Babington in Washington and Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock contributed to this report.

Rahm Emanuel

Current Position: Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama (since November 2008)

Boss: President Barack Obama

Credit: Melina Mara/TWP

Table of Contents

1. Why He Matters³
2. At a Glance⁴
3. Path to Power⁵
1. 3.1. Clinton White House⁶
2. 3.2. 2002 House Election⁷
3. 3.3. House Democratic Leadership⁸
4. 3.4. Blagojevich Controversy⁹
4. The Issues¹⁰
1. 4.1. The Economy¹¹
2. 4.2. Health Care¹²
5. The Network¹³
6. Footnotes
7. Tags
8. Links
9. Key Associates
10. News

Why He Matters

This is Emanuel’s return trip to the White House. In between, the man known as “Rahmbo” amassed a reputation as a shrewd party operative, millionaire investment banker and congressional leader.
A skilled campaigner and fundraiser, Emanuel was one of the architects behind the Democrats’ 2006 House takeover. After being elected to represent Illinois’ 5th district in 2002, he quickly became a top player on Capitol Hill, joining the House Ways and Means Committee in his second term and rising to chair the House Democratic Caucus in his third.
But his first year in the White House was rocky. Faced with an ambitious agenda and a struggling economy, Emanuel was criticized by progressives for compromising too many of their principles on things like health-care reform, and some liberals even called for his ouster. Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010⁽¹⁾Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010
But Emanuel is a surviver, and he will likely maintain his perch atop the Washington food chain as long as he wants it.Milbank, Dana, The Washington Post, "Why Obama Needs Rahm at the Top," Feb. 21, 2010 ⁽²⁾Milbank, Dana, The Washington Post, "Why Obama Needs Rahm at the Top," Feb. 21, 2010 The enactment of historic health-care reform, which he pushed relentlessly, certainly won't hurt.

At a Glance

Current Position: Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama (since January 2009)
Career History: U.S. Representative (2003 to 2008); Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair (2005 to 2007); Investment banker at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (1999 to 2002); Aide to President Bill Clinton (1993 to 1999)
Birthday: Nov. 29, 1959
Hometown: Chicago, Ill.
Alma Mater: Sarah Lawrence College, B.A. (liberal arts), 1981; Northwestern University, M.A. (speech and communication), 1985
Spouse: Amy
Religion: Jewish
DC Office: N/A

Email N/A
Web site

Path to Power

The son of an Israeli immigrant, Emanuel grew up north of Chicago, and began his career at Illinois Public Action, a consumer rights group. He got an early start in politics when ex-Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) recruited him to join the DCCC in the 1980s, and he went on to work for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D).

Clinton White House

In 1991, after volunteering on an Israeli army supply base during the Persian Gulf War, he joined Bill Clinton’s campaign for president, and worked vigorously as a fundraiser.Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999⁽³⁾Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999 When Clinton won, Emanuel became a top aide in his White House, working on welfare reform, gun control and children’s’ health care, an issue he would embrace in Congress as well.Pierre, Robert E., “From Front Line to Front Stoop; Clinton Ex-Aide Pounds Pavement in Bid for House Seat,” The Washington Post, March 22, 2002⁽⁴⁾Pierre, Robert E., “From Front Line to Front Stoop; Clinton Ex-Aide Pounds Pavement in Bid for House Seat,” The Washington Post, March 22, 2002
As White House political director, his aggressive tactics rubbed some people the wrong way and he was demoted to manager of special legislative efforts. He once sent a rotting fish to a pollster he didn’t like (Alan Secrest), and he was known for yelling at Democrats he thought were disloyal to the party.Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999⁽⁵⁾Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999
Despite his tactics, he worked his way back up the Clinton ladder to become a senior adviser again when George Stephanopoulos left the administration in 1996. Emanuel left in 1999 and worked as an investment banker for a couple years, making millions. Roll Call estimated his wealth at $5.02 million, making him the 50th richest member of Congress."Roll Call’s 50 Richest," Roll Call, Sept. 22, 2008⁽⁶⁾"Roll Call’s 50 Richest," Roll Call, Sept. 22, 2008 Among other skills, he is a classically- trained ballet dancer.

2002 House Election

Emanuel returned to politics in 2002, easily winning the Illinois 5th district seat vacated by future Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.). His opponent in the primary, state Rep. Nancy Kaszak (D), tried to paint Emanuel as a carpetbagger, but her campaign stumbled in the final weeks. Emanuel’s political clout gave him a huge advantage as well. Already a prolific fundraiser for other candidates with a large rolodex of wealthy Democrats, Emanuel threw a fundraiser at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) house and drew praise from Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe. He was one of the nation’s most prolific congressional fundraisers in his inaugural campaign, raising $1.98 million in the first quarter of 2002. "I wish I had 200 of him running for Congress," McAuliffe said. "He will get in, he will mix it up, he will stand tall for the Democratic Party."Zeleny, Jeff, “Emanuel get boost from ex-boss; Candidate raises funds at Clintons’” Chicago Tribune, June 19, 2002⁽⁷⁾Zeleny, Jeff, “Emanuel get boost from ex-boss; Candidate raises funds at Clintons’” Chicago Tribune, June 19, 2002
Even before he was elected to the House, Emanuel made it known that he wanted a seat on the influential Ways and Means Committee, a statement that rubbed some the wrong way.Huse, Carl, “Clinton aide heads to House, with waves preceding him,” The New York Times, Aug. 23, 2002⁽⁸⁾Huse, Carl, “Clinton aide heads to House, with waves preceding him,” The New York Times, Aug. 23, 2002 He didn’t get the coveted spot in his first term, but he did manage to nab one in his second.

House Democratic Leadership

In January 2005, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appointed Emanuel to chair the DCCC, the committee where he got his political start as a staffer. Emanuel thrived in the role, actively recruiting moderate Democrats to challenge Republicans who were struggling politically because of the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and the Iraq war. He also fought with party Chairman Howard Dean about Dean’s “50-state strategy” that required investing funds even in states where the GOP traditionally ran strong.Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006⁽⁹⁾Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006
Unlike Dean, Emanuel wanted more money dedicated to House candidates and less to the party’s state infrastructure. When he didn’t get as much as he hoped, he encouraged candidates to raise massive sums of money and run ruthless campaigns.Easton, Nina, “Rahm Emanuel, pitbull politician,” Fortune, Sept. 25, 2006⁽¹⁰⁾Easton, Nina, “Rahm Emanuel, pitbull politician,” Fortune, Sept. 25, 2006 His strategy worked, and House Democrats picked up 30 seats in the 2006 midterm elections. "You've got to have a thirst for winning," Emanuel said. "You know what our party thinks? 'We're good people with good ideas. That's just enough, isn't it?' Being tough enough, mean enough and vicious enough is just not what they want. ... They just want to be patted on the back for the noble effort. No."Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006⁽¹¹⁾Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006
The overwhelming election victory had Emanuel’s stock soaring in November 2006, and he briefly thought about running for House majority whip. But he decided Clyburn’s support was too strong, especially in the Congressional Black Caucus. Instead, Emanuel was unanimously elected chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, where he presided over the election of a stream of socially moderate Democrats that has broadened, and challenged, his party.Bresnahan, John, “What does Rahm want?,” Politico, July 16, 2008 ⁽¹²⁾Bresnahan, John, “What does Rahm want?,” Politico, July 16, 2008 Biographical and career data taken from Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition⁽¹³⁾Biographical and career data taken from Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition

Blagojevich Controversy

In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 elections, Emanuel's name surfaced during the investigation of Blagojevich for attempting to sell the Senate seat vacated by Obama. Emanuel was allegedly instructed by Obama to approach the governor's aides to talk about candidates Obama supported for the seat. But Emanuel was not accused of discussing a quid pro quo for the seat.Weisman, Jonathan, Bendavid, Naftali and Simpson, Cam, "Emanuel, Blagojevich aides discussed Senate seat," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2008⁽¹⁴⁾Weisman, Jonathan, Bendavid, Naftali and Simpson, Cam, "Emanuel, Blagojevich aides discussed Senate seat," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2008
According to the April 2009 indictment of Blagojevich, Emanuel, referred to as 'Congressman A,' was allegedly the target of 2006 extortion by Blagojevich. The indictment said Blagojevich tried to withhold money requested by Emanuel for a school unless Emanuel's brother held a fundraiser for the governor. The fundraiser never happened, and the indictment doesn't say whether Emanuel ever actually learned about the request.McCormich, John, "'Congressman A': Rahm Emanuel," Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2009⁽¹⁵⁾McCormich, John, "'Congressman A': Rahm Emanuel," Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2009

The Issues

As White House chief of staff, Emanuel has followed his pragmatic political instincts, which have often put him at odds with his party's more liberal wing. He got into hot water when he called progressives "[expletive] retarded" for threatening to run ads against centrist Democrats who disagreed with the president's health-care reform push. Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010 ⁽¹⁶⁾Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010
While in the House, the Illinois Democrat was a member of the moderate, pro-growth New Democrat Coalition, and in his 2006 book, "The Plan," he outlined his ideas for revising the tax code, including making it easier to understand and lowering rates for the middle class. He told The Washington Post that Americans prefer governing from the center “and not polarization.”Haygood, Wil, “Democratic ‘Golden Boy’ rahm Emanuel, Basking in the glow of victory,” The Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2006 ⁽¹⁷⁾Haygood, Wil, “Democratic ‘Golden Boy’ rahm Emanuel, Basking in the glow of victory,” The Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2006
As the DCCC chairman, Emanuel recruited a large number of centrist Democrats to run for traditionally GOP districts. And even though he is pro-abortion rights and pro-gun control, he often recruited candidates who were not, saying he wanted candidates who would win.Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006⁽¹⁸⁾Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006
But he has also been a strong Democratic Party loyalist, supporting Speaker Pelosi in her “100 hours” agenda at the start of the 110th Congress.Zahn, Paula, Interview with Rahm Emanuel and Mark Foley, CNN ⁽¹⁹⁾Zahn, Paula, Interview with Rahm Emanuel and Mark Foley, CNN

The Economy

A former investment banker who spent time on the board at Freddie Mac, Emanuel was a key figure in negotiating the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street in October 2008. He warned of more turmoil when Bear Sterns went under in March 2008, and worked tirelessly with then-White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to negotiate the bailout. He held six Democratic Caucus meetings in just a few days to help explain the deal to Democrats, and helped rally support for the deal among both parties.Tankersley, Jim, “Dogged bailout backer; Rahm Emanuel takes lead role for Democrats,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 3, 2008 ⁽²⁰⁾Tankersley, Jim, “Dogged bailout backer; Rahm Emanuel takes lead role for Democrats,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 3, 2008 “It was hard for a lot of members to get their arms around the depth and the dimension of this crisis," Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) said. "He was able to put that in perspective for people."

Health Care

Emanuel has led the push for President Obama's landmark health-care reform bill. Progressives criticized him (some even calling for his resignation) for not being bold enough and abandoning their beloved public option, but Emanuel's supporters argued that he was simply being realistic.Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010 ⁽²¹⁾Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010
After more than a year of legislative wrangling, the House passed the Senate version of health-care reform on March 21, 2010, clearing the way for the Senate to approve a package of amendments insisted on by the lower chamber with a simple majority (using a process known as reconciliation).
The $940 billion bill requires most Americans to carry health insurance and require that insurance companies cover them, regardless of pre-existing conditions. It establishes a national insurance exchange allowing Americans to compare and purchase insurance plans. The bill will be paid for by increasing taxes on well-off Medicare recipients and by taxing premium insurance plans. By the end of the bill’s 10-year roll-out, 32 million uninsured Americans will have health coverage and the deficit will be $138 billion lower, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. Murray, Shailagh and Lori Montgomery, The Washington Post, "House Passes Health-Care Reform Bill without Republican Votes," March 22, 2010⁽²²⁾Murray, Shailagh and Lori Montgomery, The Washington Post, "House Passes Health-Care Reform Bill without Republican Votes," March 22, 2010
As a senior aide in the Clinton White House, Emanuel worked on expanding health insurance to those who didn’t have it, especially children.
He sponsored a bill to extend the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, though Democrats couldn’t gain enough support to override a veto from President Bush.Babington, Charles, “House votes to expand insurance for kids,” Associated Press via USA Today, Sept. 26, 2007⁽²³⁾Babington, Charles, “House votes to expand insurance for kids,” Associated Press via USA Today, Sept. 26, 2007 As a freshman congressman, he teamed with then-Rep. Cal Dooley (D-Calif.) to introduce a drug benefit plan under Medicare, breaking with his party’s leadership early in his Congressional tenure.Pear, Robert, “Medicare drug benefit plan is proposed by 2 Democrats,” The New York Times, April 2, 2003⁽²⁴⁾Pear, Robert, “Medicare drug benefit plan is proposed by 2 Democrats,” The New York Times, April 2, 2003 The bill was designed to extend Medicare drug benefits to elderly and low-income people.

The Network

The 2008 Democratic primary tore Emanuel between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y), whose husband he served as a senior aide, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — and Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod, one of Emanuel’s closest friends.
Emanuel did not endorse in the contest until after Obama had claimed a majority of pledged delegates. After years in both the Clinton White House and Chicago politics, Emanuel is also close to the family of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Other friends include Clinton White House alumnus and Obama co-transition chair John Podesta. On the Hill, he’s close to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.); he lived in the basement of the home DeLauro shares with her husband Stan Greenberg, a prominent pollster who worked in the Clinton White House.
Emanuel also has some Republican friends, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), with whom the Democrat negotiated the terms of the 2008 presidential debates. Graham praised Emanuel’s selection as White House chief of staff.
Meanwhile, one of Emanuel’s brothers, Ezekiel, is an adviser to the Office of Management and Budget, and another brother, Ari, is the model for the Hollywood agent Ari Gold on HBO’s Entourage.The National Institutes of Health and the Los Angeles Times⁽²⁵⁾The National Institutes of Health and the Los Angeles Times

Endnotes

¹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House/COS
² http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama
³ #Why_He_Matters
⁴ #At_a_Glance
⁵ #Path_to_Power
⁶ #Clinton_White_House
⁷ #2002_House_Election
⁸ #House_Democratic_Leadership
⁹ #Blagojevich_Controversy
¹⁰ #The_Issues
¹¹ #The_Economy
¹² #Health_Care
¹³ #The_Network
¹⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House_Organizational_Chart
¹⁵ http://www.whorunsgov.com/US_States/Illinois
¹⁶ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines#printMode
¹⁷ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021904298.html
¹⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House/COS
¹⁹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama
²⁰ http://www.whitehouse.gov
²¹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/William_J._Clinton
²² http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0DD1038F930A35751C0A96F958260
²³ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House
²⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Congress
²⁵ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0DD1038F930A35751C0A96F958260
²⁶ http://www.whorunsgov.com/US_States/Illinois
²⁷ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Rod_Blagojevich
²⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
²⁹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Terry_McAuliffe
³⁰ http://www.whorunsgov.com/congress/house_of_representatives_A_to_H
³¹ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E5D6143CF930A1575BC0A9649C8B63
³² http://www.whorunsgov.com/@api/deki/files/1514/=Barack_Obama_and_Rahm_Emanuel.jpg
³³ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Nancy_Pelosi
³⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/George_W._Bush
³⁵ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Howard_Dean
³⁶ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611120215nov12,0,5515151.story
³⁷ http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/17/magazines/fortune/politics.fortune/index.htm
³⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Congress/House_of_representatives/Democrats
³⁹ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611120215nov12,0,5515151.story
⁴⁰ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/James_E._Clyburn
⁴¹ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11782_Page2.html
⁴² http://www.whorunsgov.com/Congress/Senate_A_to_H
⁴³ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122926660096904673.html
⁴⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/governors
⁴⁵ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-emanuel-03-apr03,0,7058632.story
⁴⁶ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House/COS
⁴⁷ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines#printMode
⁴⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/congress/house_of_representatives_A_to_H
⁴⁹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/US_States/Illinois
⁵⁰ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html
⁵¹ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611120215nov12,0,5515151.story?page=5
⁵² http://www.whorunsgov.com/@api/deki/files/1274/=Rahm_Emanuel_in_Oval_Office_c_WH.jpg
⁵³ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Nancy_Pelosi
⁵⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Congress
⁵⁵ http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/24/se.09.html
⁵⁶ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-fri-bailout-emanuel-oct03,0,7768143.story
⁵⁷ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Melissa_Bean
⁵⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama
⁵⁹ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines#printMode
⁶⁰ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html
⁶¹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/former_bill_clinton_administration_officials
⁶² http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/George_W._Bush
⁶³ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-25-3822004767_x.htm
⁶⁴ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E6DB1139F931A35757C0A9659C8B63
⁶⁵ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
⁶⁶ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama
⁶⁷ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/David_Axelrod
⁶⁸ http://www.whorunsgov.com/@api/deki/files/1403/=Rahm%252c_Messina%252c_Schiliro%252c_Gibbs%252c_Rouse.jpg
⁶⁹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/former_bill_clinton_administration_officials
⁷⁰ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/John_D._Podesta
⁷¹ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Rosa_DeLauro
⁷² http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Lindsey_O._Graham
⁷³ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/John_McCain
⁷⁴ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House/COS
⁷⁵ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Ezekiel_Emanuel
⁷⁶ http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/White_House/COS/OMB
⁷⁷ http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/people/emanuel-bio.shtml,
⁷⁸ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/06/entourages-ari.html

Footnotes

1.Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010

2.Milbank, Dana, The Washington Post, "Why Obama Needs Rahm at the Top," Feb. 21, 2010

3.Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999

4.Pierre, Robert E., “From Front Line to Front Stoop; Clinton Ex-Aide Pounds Pavement in Bid for House Seat,” The Washington Post, March 22, 2002

5.Loson, Laura M., “White House externs; Two turns of the revolving door,” The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1999

6."Roll Call’s 50 Richest," Roll Call, Sept. 22, 2008

7.Zeleny, Jeff, “Emanuel get boost from ex-boss; Candidate raises funds at Clintons’” Chicago Tribune, June 19, 2002

8.Huse, Carl, “Clinton aide heads to House, with waves preceding him,” The New York Times, Aug. 23, 2002

9.Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006

10.Easton, Nina, “Rahm Emanuel, pitbull politician,” Fortune, Sept. 25, 2006

11.Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006

12.Bresnahan, John, “What does Rahm want?,” Politico, July 16, 2008

13.Biographical and career data taken from Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition

14.Weisman, Jonathan, Bendavid, Naftali and Simpson, Cam, "Emanuel, Blagojevich aides discussed Senate seat," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2008

15.McCormich, John, "'Congressman A': Rahm Emanuel," Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2009

16.Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010

17.Haygood, Wil, “Democratic ‘Golden Boy’ rahm Emanuel, Basking in the glow of victory,” The Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2006

18.Bendavid, Naftali, “The House that Rahm built,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 2006

19.Zahn, Paula, Interview with Rahm Emanuel and Mark Foley, CNN

20.Tankersley, Jim, “Dogged bailout backer; Rahm Emanuel takes lead role for Democrats,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 3, 2008

21.Wallsten, Peter, Wall Street Journal, "Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters," Jan. 26, 2010

22.Murray, Shailagh and Lori Montgomery, The Washington Post, "House Passes Health-Care Reform Bill without Republican Votes," March 22, 2010

23.Babington, Charles, “House votes to expand insurance for kids,” Associated Press via USA Today, Sept. 26, 2007

24.Pear, Robert, “Medicare drug benefit plan is proposed by 2 Democrats,” The New York Times, April 2, 2003

25.The National Institutes of Health and the Los Angeles Times

Progressives’ anger grows against White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

By Jon Ward - The Daily Caller | Published: 01/26/10 at 3:34 AM | Updated: 01/27/10 at 4:18 AM

A remarkable thing is happening to Rahm Emanuel: he is losing his aura of invincibility.
A year ago, Emanuel was the untouchable attack dog for a president on top of the world.
Now, according to some liberal critics, he is “a cowardly, petty, small-minded thug.”
Discontent among liberal progressives against President Obama’s chief of staff has been bubbling for some time. It’s now nearing a boiling point.
And the narrative emerging from those who hate Emanuel is far different from the one that has been built up over the last few years about the political knife fighter from Chicago.
“The beltway crowd thinks of him as rough and tumble,” said a well-placed leader in the netroots community.
“Progressives see him as weak-kneed because they don’t think he’s fighting for them on anything really.”
Few in the Obama administration appeared more formidable than Emanuel did a year ago as the new president entered the White House. He was recruited out of his congressional leadership position by Obama, who wanted only Emanuel to run his White House.
He was regarded as a fearsome political force, the enforcer and implementer of the Obama agenda, as “Rahmbo.” Profiles were written conveying that though Emanuel had matured somewhat since his somewhat wilder days in the Clinton White House, he still had the edge that made him so feared by many.
The story of Emanuel in 1992, after Bill Clinton was elected president, driving a steak knife into a table and shouting, “Dead!” over and over as he named off political enemies, was told again and again.
That story is now being reinterpreted by the ascendant liberal grassroots, which has grown disillusioned with the Obama White House.
“You’re not a tough guy if your first thought upon assuming the power of the presidency is to take it and use it to punish your enemies. You’re a cowardly, petty, small-minded thug,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake, a liberal blog that has been one of the most vocal critics of the health-care bill.
“I’m sure Rahm spreads it around to promote the myth of himself as a rebel and a fighter, but most people experience ‘that guy’ as a brown-nose for power willing to bully on behalf of the status quo,” Hamsher said in an e-mail to the Daily Caller.
Progressives blame Emanuel for most of the compromises they most detest: deals with drug and insurance companies on health-care reform, the continuation of many Bush-era counterterrorism measures, pushing many issues most important to the gay rights community to the back burner and working closely with Wall Street to keep large firms from failing.
A senior White House official defended Emanuel in an e-mail: “He has led this administration in accomplishing a series of important progressive achievements that languished for years before President Obama was elected: expanding SCHIP, tobacco regulation, credit card reforms, banning torture, the Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.”
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who took the reins of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from Emanuel in 2008, also defended his former House leadership colleague.
“Rahm Emanuel’s blend of policy smarts and political acumen helped Democrats win the House in 2006,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “It is important to have a seasoned hand on deck to assist the President in navigating choppy political waters.”
The White House official added: “Rahm is not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist.”
That is exactly why many on the left don’t like Rahm. They think he does not care much, if at all, for their ideological and policy goals. He is, they say, driven by one thing: power.
“People see Rahm as somebody who just wants to get something done, he’s willing to get something done at any cost,” said a senior Democratic political operative.
And progressives feel that Rahm has disrespected them and taken their support for granted.
“He comes from the Clinton school of fighting, which is scream at liberals, deal with Republicans,” said a netroots think tanker.
Most disconcerting for many on the left is their concern that Emanuel’s behavior may, in fact, be supported by the president they helped elect.
“The tough question for people like us is to what extent is he reflecting the preferences of his boss.”

enough already

2010-05-28T16:07:00.003-05:00

Glenn Beck smears Obama's 11-year-old daughter

May 28, 2010 11:13 am ET by Simon Maloy

Glenn Beck, who repeatedly and angrily tells his alleged persecutors to "leave the families alone," spent a good chunk of his radio program this morning mocking and attacking the intelligence of President Obama's 11-year-old daughter, Malia.
Obama remarked yesterday during his press conference that Malia asked him of the Gulf oil spill: "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" Beck, taking off on this, mockingly affected Malia's voice, asking "Daddy" why he "hates black people so much." Then Beck attacked Malia's intelligence, saying: "That's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to Daddy and saying, 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' "
This routine continued for several minutes, as Beck and his co-hosts touched on a variety of topics and laughed the entire time, all of it at the expense of an 11-year-old girl.

UPDATE: Glenn Beck apologizes:

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.

Transcript below the jump:
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy? Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet? Daddy?
PAT GRAY (co-host): (imitating Obama) No I didn't, honey.
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy, I know you're better than [unintelligible]
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Mm-hmm, big country.
BECK: (imitating Malia) And I was wondering if you've plugged that hole yet.
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Honey, not yet.
BECK: (imitating Malia) Why not, daddy? But daddy--
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not time yet, honey. Hasn't done enough damage.
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not enough damage yet, honey.
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah?
BECK: (imitating Malia) Why do you hate black people so much?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) I'm part white, honey.
BECK: (imitating Malia) What?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) What?
BECK: (imitating Malia) What'd you say?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Excuse me?
BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter-- (imitating Malia) Daddy?
GRAY: It's so stupid.
BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?
GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, thirteen, one's eleven, or something.
BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yes, I was doing some deep-sea diving yesterday, and--
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, I was doing--
BECK: (imitating Malia) Why--
GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, honey, I'm--
BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are -- Daddy, why don't you just put her in some sort of a camp

Your request is being processed...

Hannity Guest Compares Obama Administration Policies To Nazism (VIDEO)

First Posted: 08-24-09 11:36 PM | Updated: 09-24-09 05:12 AM

A guest on Sean Hannity's show on Monday night compared Obama administration policies to Nazism.
Ironically, disabled Marine veteran David Hedrick, who attended a town hall held by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), was on the show to discuss his anger that the congressman compared unruly town hall protesters to "brown shirts"
So, Hedrick threw out his own charge against the White House, despite the fact that the administration itself has not used such language to describe protesters:

"National Socialism is very much what we see today in this administration, it's a policy almost line for line. It's the same economic policy, it's the same political policy. And so if they want to talk about Nazis, they better be careful about that conversation because they might find that the swastika is on their own arm."

Hannity responded, "OK," and continued to ask Hedrick about his experience at the town hall, where the veteran claims that Baird refused to apologize to him.
WATCH:

okay, if bush could get phil donahue fired for opposing the iraq war, and dan rather fired for questioning his air national guard record and ted kopple fired for wanting to name the dead in the iraq war, why can't we, as liberals get rush limbaugh, glenn beck and sean hannity muzzled?

Phil Donahue on his 2003 MSNBC firing: "We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals." October 29, 2004 12:36 pm ET On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, "he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC." SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC? DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals. HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals. DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck [sic: Joe] Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me. HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated? DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number -- HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network. DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave. — Copyright © 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

NEW YORK, Sept. 20, 2004

Dan Rather Statement On Memos

Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

(CBS) Below is the text of CBS News Anchor Dan Rather's statement on the documents purportedly written by President Bush's National Guard commander: Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. ©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Sinclair Broadcast Group refuses to broadcast Nightline episode on fallen soldiers

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

On Friday, April 30, 2004, ABC News extended Ted Koppel's 'Nightline' program to 40 minutes to air The Fallen, during which Koppel read the names of "more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in action" in Operation Iraqi Freedom. [1] The following is an overview regarding the media control which was exercised by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. in boycotting the airing of Koppel's The Fallen on its affiliates.

[hide]

The Controversy: Nightline's The Fallen

"ABC newsman Ted Koppel's plan to devote [the Friday, April 30th] 'Nightline' to reading the names of the more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq has stirred anger and praise, and prompted one media company to bar its stations from airing the program.

"Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group said Thursday that the unique program is politically motivated and ordered its seven ABC affiliates ... not to air it." Hartford Courant, April 29, 2004.

Sinclair Broadcasting Group Statement: "ABC Nightline Pre-emption," April 29, 2004:

"The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of 'Nightline' will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.

"There is no organization that holds the members of our military and those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in service of our country in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support an honest effort to honor the memory of these brave soldiers, we do not believe that is what 'Nightline' is doing. Rather, Mr. Koppel and 'Nightline' are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq. Based on published reports, we are aware of the spouse of one soldier who died in Iraq who opposes the reading of her husband's name to oppose our military action. We suspect she is not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of 'Nightline' this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.

"We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair's News Central news organization to comment on this Friday's program."

ABC News' Statement, April 29, 2004:

"We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt Nightline's tribute to America's fallen soldiers which will air this Friday, April 30. The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country. ABC News is dedicated to thoughtful and balanced coverage and reports on the events shaping our world with neither fear nor favor -- as our audience expects, deserves, and rightly demands. Contrary to the statement issued by Sinclair, which takes issue with our level of coverage of the effects of terrorism on our citizens, ABC News and all of our broadcasts, including 'Nightline', have reported hundreds of stories on 9-11. Indeed, on the first anniversary of 9-11, ABC News broadcast the names of the victims of that horrific attack. In sum, we are particularly proud of the journalism and award winning coverage ABC News has produced since September 11, 2001. ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades."

"ABC 'Nightline' host Ted Koppel says he's 'surprised' anyone would think his special, The Fallen, is a ratings ploy or a political statement of some sort." "Protein Wisdom Interview," April 30, 2004.

The list of the names of the "servicemen and women who will be honored on Friday's 'Nightline' ... organized alphabetically by state and includes those whose names have been released by the Pentagon since March 19, 2003. Names released between now and Friday April 30, will be added to the broadcast." Also "'Nightline' reading list of fallen troops," Chicago Sun-Times, April 30, 2004.

Blatant Partisan Politics

"LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles Times reports that a broadcast group has ordered its TV stations around the country to air an anti-John Kerry film days before the election."

"Sinclair Broadcast Group owns or programs content for stations in 62 markets, including several swing states."

"The Times says it has ordered stations to run "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." The documentary features former P-O-Ws blaming Kerry's anti-Vietnam War efforts for prolonging their plight."

"Sinclair gained attention in April when it refused to air a "Nightline" segment on seven stations. In the segment, Ted Koppel read the names of U-S soldiers killed in Iraq. Sinclair called it a political statement disguised as news." Broadcast group to air anti-Kerry film on eve of election

BBC News - 11 October 2004 - Anti-Kerry film ignites new row:

"The Sinclair TV Group, whose executives have given tens of thousands of dollars to President George W Bush's re-election campaign, have revealed plans to show the film later this month, followed by a panel discussion to which they say Senator Kerry will be invited."

About Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., web page; Contact Info: 10706 Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley, MD 21030; Telephone: (410) 568-1500 / Fax: (410) 568-1533 / Email: webmaster@sbgi.net. The CEO's name is David D. Smith.
"Donor: Sinclair Broadcast / Recipient: George W. Bush / Cycle(s) selected: 2004, 2002, 2000: $16,550, Open Secrets.

Commentary

Wes Vernon, "Sinclair, The Next Fox, 'Fair and Balanced'," NewsMax, January 29, 2004.
William Hughes, "Sinclair TV: 'Good News' Stories About Iraq?," Baltimore Chronicle, April 17, 2004.
Paul Schmelzer, "The Death of Local News," AlterNet, April 23, 2004.
Al Tompkins, "Inside the Decision to Feature 'The Fallen'," Poynter Online, April 27, 2004; updated April 29, 2004.
Richard Huff, "Ted taps war's toll. A 'Nightline' devoted to Iraq dead," New York Daily News, April 28, 2004.
Bill Carter, "'Nightline' to Read Off Iraq War Dead," New York Times, April 28, 2004.
"TV roll-call of US dead in Iraq," BBC/UK, April 28, 2004.
Al Tompkins, "Koppel Defends 'The Fallen'. 'Nightline' anchor expresses his surprise at the reaction to Friday's show and explains its genesis and purpose. Friday evening update: ABC breaks the boycott in at least five Sinclair cities," Poynter Online, April 29, 2004.
Danny Schechter, "Is Nightline Taking The Right Line?," Media Channel, April 29, 2004.
Russ Rizzo, "Local ABC affiliate pulls plug on 'Nightline' special," News Record, April 29, 2004.
Liz Halloran, "`Nightline' divides audience," Hartford Courant, April 29, 2004.
Timothy Karr, "Broadcaster's Own 'Political Agenda' Plays Part in Nightline Snub," Media Channel, April 29, 2004.
Paul Waldman, "Putting the Kibosh on Koppel," The Gadflyer, April 29, 2004.
"The protein wisdom interview: Ted Koppel," celluloid-wisdom.com, April 30, 2004.
Harry Jaffe, "ABC Makes End Run Around Conservative Blackout of Nightline," The Washingtonian, April 30, 2004.
Lisa de Moraes, "Stations to Boycott 'Nightline's' List of the Fallen," Washington Post, April 30, 2004.
Al Tompkins, "ABC Breaks Through Nightline Blackout," Poynter Online, April 30, 2004.
"'Nightline' To Air On ONN," Ohio News Network, April 30, 2004.
Dan Gillmor, "Right-Leaning Media Barons Black Out ABC's Airing of War Dead," Silicon Valley .com, April 30, 2004.
Bill Carter, "Some Stations to Block 'Nightline' War Tribute," New York Times, April 30, 2004.
David Folkenflik, "Sinclair stations won't air 'Nightline'," Baltimore Sun, April 30, 2004.
Patrick Barrett, "US TV blackout hits litany of war dead," Guardian/UK, April 30, 2004.
Ted Koppel, Letter to Washington Post: "Not a Ratings Stunt," April 30, 2004, in response to Lisa de Moraes' "On 'Nightline,' a Grim Sweeps Roll Call," Washington Post, April 28, 2004.
Lynn Elber, "'Nightline' War Dead List Causes Uproar," AP, April 30, 2004.
Paul Waldman, "More on Sinclair Broadcasting," The Gadflyer, April 30, 2004.
"Sinclair's Cynical Agenda," Center for American Progress, April 30, 2004.
Action Alert: "What Sinclair Doesn't Want You to See on Nightline," FAIR, April 30, 2004.
"Uproar over 'Nightline' war casualties list grows. McCain chastises TV station group for not airing show," AP, April 30, 2004.
Keven Drum, "War Deaths," Political Animal, April 30, 2004.
Josh Grossberg, "The 'Nightline' Photo Flap," E Online, April 30, 2004.
"McCain rebukes Sinclair 'Nightline' decision. Station owner orders affiliates not to air program," CNN, April 30, 2004.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ):

McCain quote: "McCain Calls 'Nightline' Pre-Emption 'Unpatriotic'," tvweek.com, April 30, 2004.
"McCain to Sinclair: I protest your decision," poynter.org, April 30, 2004.
U.S. Senator John McCain Press Release: "McCain Letter to Sinclair Broadcast on Preemption of Nightline," April 30, 2004.
David D. Smith, Letter: "Sinclair Responds to Senator McCain," sbgi.net, April 30, 2004.

Photographs for Ted Koppel's 'Nightline' program "The Fallen" were supplied by "Military City .com".
'Nightline' Feedback form.
Lots more links and info at Atrios blog site: "About Sinclair" and "Republican Values."

Fallout

"Take Back the Media" Action Alert: "Boycott Any and All Sponsors of Sinclair."
"Hiding the Toll of War AGAIN: Iraq War Casualty Families Call for Immediate Reversal of Sinclair Decision to Block Airing of Nightline Program Military Families Available for Interview," Military Families Speak Out, April 29, 2004.
Deborah Zabarenko, "Iraq Torture Images Vie with Photos of U.S. War Dead," Reuters, April 30, 2004: "Images of naked Iraqi prisoners, piled in a pyramid before grinning U.S. soldiers, shocked the world but they were supplanted in American media on Friday by pictures of military casualties at the end of the war's deadliest month."
Kevin Diaz, "Senator seeks probe of broadcaster who won't air 'Nightline'," Beaufort Gazette, April 30, 2004: "In a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said Sinclair's action 'highlights the growing danger of media consolidation in this country.'"
Robert Cox, "Ted Koppel Excuses Wear Thin," The National Debate, April 30, 2004.
Steve Gorman, "ABC Spars with Broadcast Group Over 'The Fallen'," Reuters, April 30, 2004: "Fighting back against a seven-city boycott of its "Nightline" roll call of U.S. war dead in Iraq, ABC News said on Friday it would make a special feed of its tribute available to radio and TV stations in markets where the program is being preempted."
"Conan on Sinclair," The Hamster, May 1, 2004: "Conan O'Brien just aired a short skit criticizing Sinclair Media for not airing the Nightline episode. The announcer, Joel Goddard, read the names of some of the shows Sinclair media stations DID broadcast, including smutty Maury Povich and Jerry Springer episodes."
Lynn Elber, "'Nightline' War Dead List Causes Uproar," AP, May 1, 2004.
"Row over TV list of US Iraq dead," BBC/UK, May 1, 2004.
"Controversy Rages as TV Show Lists U.S. War Dead," Reuters, May 1, 2004.
Bill Carter, "Debate Over 'Nightline' Tribute to War Dead Grows, as McCain Weighs In," New York Times, May 1, 2004.

SourceWatch Resources

media reform

External links

Stop Sinclair Broadcasting
Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting
Boycott Sinclair Advertisers
Sinclair Media Watch
SinclairWatch
"U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq."
"Iraq Body Count Data Base."
"Quagmire in Iraq: U.S. Casualties Up To 11,700," Democracy Now!, April 2, 2004.
Schema-root.org: Sinclair Broadcast Group - current news feed for Sinclair Broadcast Group

Ted Koppel on Bidding 'Nightline', ABC Goodbye

November 12, 2005

Listen

Weekend Edition Saturday

text size A A A

November 12, 2005

NPR's Scott Simon talks with Ted Koppel, who, after more than 25 years hosting ABC's Nightline, is leaving the anchor chair -- and ABC News.

SCOTT SIMON, host:

The end of "Nightline" as we now know it is approaching. Ted Koppel will host his last broadcast of the show on November 22nd and will step down from the program he helped invent more than 25 years ago.

(Soundbite of "ABC News Nightline")

Announcer: This is "ABC News Nightline." Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.

Mr. TED KOPPEL (Host): Good evening. This is a new broadcast in the sense that it is permanent and will continue after the Iran crisis is over.

SIMON: Since its beginning, Ted Koppel has won scores of the most prestigious awards in broadcasting and delayed bedtime for millions of Americans who've come to consider "Nightline" to be a kind of national stage and town hall, shedding light and often striking sparks with Mr. Koppel's signature interviews and what can only be called his moral authority. He's been both gracious and pugnacious, sympathetic and exacting, friendly but unflappable and sometimes unforgiving.

(Soundbite of "Nightline")

Mr. KOPPEL: I understand.

Unidentified Man: Well, let me just speak...

Mr. KOPPEL: I understand the rationale.

Mr. GEORGE BUSH (Former Vice President): ...what I think I'm entitled--but you just don't like my answer.

Mr. KOPPEL: No, what I'm saying is I find your answer to the question...

Mr. BUSH: You ask the question, but you don't like the answer. What do you want me to say?

Mr. KOPPEL: I find the answer inconsistent with the evidence, is what I'm saying.

Mr. BUSH: Well, that's your opinion. Dan, I'll take all the credit, all the blame for that if you...

Mr. KOPPEL: No, Dan--Dan--Dan's the other--Dan's the other fella.

Mr. BUSH: I mean Ted.

SIMON: That's then Vice President George Bush getting Koppelted over the Iran-Contra affair. We sat down with Ted Koppel over at ABC this week. He remembered that in November of 1979 when he was first called in to host a late-night news special about the taking of US hostages at the embassy in Tehran, he thought the story just wouldn't last.

Mr. KOPPEL: I didn't for two reasons. The selfish one was that it was a Sunday morning and I really didn't want to go in to work. The more cerebral answer was that there had been a similar incident just a few months previous and the then US ambassador had come out, had spoken to the students and they had given up after just a couple of hours. And I said, `This thing isn't going to last and it'll be over in a matter of hours.' And they said, `Well, come in anyway.' So I did, and it wasn't, and that was the beginning of "Nightline."

SIMON: How much did the technology that was just coming into use then contribute to making a show that was lively and could be topical and where you could actually have people talk to each other directly?

Mr. KOPPEL: Huge, because we discovered, more by accident than anything else, that it was possible to have one person sitting in Tehran and another in Moscow and another in Washington and since they could all hear each other, it simply remained for me, as the host of the tea party, to say, `Well, foreign minister, why don't you respond to what the defense minister here just said?' And before you knew it, you had people, who under normal circumstances wouldn't talk to each other, engaging in the most extraordinary free-wheeling conversations. We had Iranians talking to Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War. We had Israelis talking to Palestinians. We had Irish Protestants talking to Irish Catholics. And we were able to maintain the mythology that they weren't really talking to each other because they were talking through me.

(Soundbite of "Nightline")

Mr. KOPPEL: And it perhaps symbolic of the delicacy with which the negotiations proceeded just to bring this panel together and to bring this audience together, but it has been suggested to me that we need a symbolic divider between our Israeli guests on the one hand and our Palestinian guests on the other. I must tell you that it has been so difficult to arrange this broadcast that that was one small price that we were prepared to pay. So here it is. I will try and spend as much time on one side as on the other. Let me, in fact, as I move across our fence right now, let me go immediately to one of our panelists and I'm going to be introducing...

(End of soundbite)

Mr. KOPPEL: And it would be `Well, Ted,' and then the other guy would come back. And as long as you said, `Well, Ted,' before he gave his response they weren't really talking to each other.

SIMON: Your first interview with Nelson Mandela, what was that like?

Mr. KOPPEL: Well, it was--I wasn't alone. I mean, Dan Rather was there, and I forget who the hell was there for NBC, but there were a lot of--you know, there were a lot of people there and we were all, in effect, as smoothly as possible trying to elbow each other out of the way to get the first interview. I mean, it didn't really make any difference. We all got it for our programs that night.

(Soundbite of "Nightline")

Mr. KOPPEL: Take me back to Robben Island for a moment. Explain--pretend for a moment that one of your grandchildren is here. To someone who has no idea what Robin Island was like. Do you remember the first day or the first night when you were taken there?

Mr. NELSON MANDELA (Nobel Prize Recipient): Oh, yes. I was at the back with another comrade and there were two others in front. And they were very harsh. And then I whispered to my colleagues that, `Look, we must fight right from the beginning. They must know what type of men we are right from the beginning.'

(End of soundbite)

Mr. KOPPEL: You know, it's rare--I don't know about you but over the years I tend to--I tend to become--Lily Tomlin has a wonderful line. She says `No matter how cynical I get, I can never keep up.' And I tend to feel that way about most public figures that I have met. Very few of them live up to the expectations. Nelson Mandela did...

SIMON: Yeah.

Mr. KOPPEL: ...and does.

SIMON: Do you think the growth of the show and the way with--among a great many Americans it seemed to be a way of announcing that an issue was important, is something you've been able to take advantage of and move the viewing public along, issues that you've taken on?

Mr. KOPPEL: I don't think so. I'm afraid there is just too much of us, Scott, too much media. I sometimes think we have become so obsessed with the means of communication that have been developed that we have lost all contact with the message that is being conveyed. And part of the problem is that because, at least at our end of the microphone in commercial broadcasting, we have to worry about selling product. More emphasis is placed now on trying to tailor the news and tailor the stories that we cover to the perceived interests of our favored commercial customers rather than newsmen and women doing what I've always believed we should do and that is tell people what is important, try to make it as interesting as we possibly can, but focus on the importance of the issues rather than focusing simply on what it is they think they want to hear and see.

SIMON: Is there some lesson in "Nightline," though, that you can do an outstanding program and tens of millions of Americans will watch it? And somebody ought to be able to make a lot of money doing that.

Mr. KOPPEL: Yeah, and--look, let's face it. Over the years first Paramount and then Cap Cities and more recently Disney has made quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have compensated me handsomely for being in some small measure responsible for their making all that money. And it is only fair--and I have no complaint with the system, it has served me very, very well--that as we make less money and as I made more money over the years with each passing contract, that my importance to the company diminished rather than rose. In other words, I cost more, I'm bringing in less, therefore, it's time to bring in a new group who cost less and who, one will hope, bring in more of an audience and, therefore, more money.

SIMON: Just this, bluntly, what are your feelings toward ABC at this point?

Mr. KOPPEL: Wonderful.

SIMON: Mm-hmm.

Mr. KOPPEL: I've had--I've had a--look, I was 23 when I came here. I'm 65 now and it's been a joy. I cannot imagine any other profession that would have given me as much satisfaction, as much pleasure and as much comfort in the final analysis as this one has, and that's been ABC. I joined ABC when ABC was fifth in a three-network race and lived to see the day Peter--Peter Jennings and I, you know, dreamed when we were in our early 20s that we would somehow be party to making ABC a network that would rival NBC and CBS. And we did, and that's a source of great, great pleasure.

SIMON: Ted Koppel, thanks very much.

Mr. KOPPEL: Thank you.

SIMON: Ted Koppel will host his last "Nightline" on November 22nd. "Nightline" will continue with new anchors and a new format. Ted Koppel will keep on going, too.

(Soundbite of "Nightline")

Mr. KOPPEL: That's our report for tonight. For all of us...

Here at ABC News...

This is Ted Koppel in Mogadishu...

Lipowalk(ph)...

Wilmington, Delaware...

Moscow.

We'll be back in Washington next week.

I'm Ted Koppel in Ramallah. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.

(Soundbite of "Nightline" theme)

SIMON: This is WEEKEND EDITION. I'm Scott Simon.

2010-05-12T21:16:00.006-05:00

Six Dolphins Wash Up on Gulf Coast after BP Oil Spill

May 12, 2010 09:41 PM EDT

The BP oil spill has its first casualities, and people couldn't be more distressed. Six dolphins washed ashore on the shores of Louisana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Wildlife officials are relatively sure the cause of the dolphins death is oil spill related.
Officials are running tests to be sure of the cause of the animals' death. It is three weeks since the oil disaster, and it looks like wildlife and the ecological system are being affected.
BP has tried to cap the oil leak with a concrete dome which did not succeed, and now they are trying a new smaller dome. The smaller box weighs about 2 tons. The previous bigger box weighed about 100 tons but failed due to ice crystals meeting the oil.
The dolphins continue to wash up on shore. They started to appear on May 2, 2010. This is distressing to everyone but particularly fisherman, and dolphin lovers like me.

Source

May 12, 2010, 9:09 pm

The Gulf Oil (and Gas) Gusher Up Close

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Just in case you were wondering if it was appropriate to use the phrase “oil spill” to describe the unrelenting seabed gusher in the Macondo prospect 50 miles off the Gulf coast, have a look at the video shot on Tuesday and released today:

There’s more background on the images on The Lede blog, including an explanation of the light and dark variations (resulting from the mix of natural gas and oil).
The video below was shot as the response team lowered the giant containment structure on the main leak. I’ve set the clip to play starting near the end, where you can see the oil boiling up from beneath the walls of the device. In the end, a slush of methane and seawater, called hydrates, clogged the container, putting this idea on the growing scrap heap of solutions.

On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and other government officials were briefed at length by BP engineers and officials and Chu said things were “looking up.”

Gulf oil spill: Rep. Stupak says blowout preventer was modified [Updated]

May 12, 2010 | 10:25 am

In the ongoing hearing looking into the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) focused on the so-called blowout preventer, an apparatus of valves, rams and other devices that is supposed to seal off a well and prevent uncontrolled flow of oil and gas.
The device, Stupak said, was "modified in unexpected ways."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said committee members learned from the manufacturer of the blowout preventer -- Houston-based oil and gas services company Cameron -- that it had a leak in a key hydraulic system.
Stupak, who heads the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, said, "This leak was found in the hydraulic system that provides emergency power to the shear rams, which are supposed to cut the drill pipe and seal the well."
Stupak said the manufacturer told committee investigators it did not believe the leak was caused by the blowout. Of the significance of the leak, Stupak said, "If the leak deprived the shear rams of sufficient power, they might not succeed in cutting through the drill pipe and sealing the well."
Stupak said congressional investigators also have learned that the emergency controls on the blowout preventer "may have failed."
A representative of Transocean, owner of the drill rig, told the committee that any modification of the blowout preventer would have been done at BP's request. So far, there has been no response from BP on the allegation.
[Updated at 11:03 a.m.: In Tuesday's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Lamar McKay, president and chairman of BP America, said: "We do have reason to believe that it was modified. I don't know the extent of those modifications."]
Jack Moore, chief executive officer of Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout preventers, told the committee:

Since the BOPs [blowout preventers] were still in place in this circumstance, they may have been activated during this event and may have restricted the flow to some extent. At
this point, we cannot be certain. But we have no reason to believe that they were
not operational – they were jointly tested by BP and Transocean personnel as
specified on April 10 and 17 and found to be functional.

We also do not know whether the BOPs were damaged by the surge that emanated from the well beneath or whether the surge may have blown debris (e.g., cement, casing) into the BOPs, thereby preventing them from squeezing, crushing or shearing the pipe.

-- Richard Simon
Photo: Rep. Bart Stupak. Credit: Susan Walsh / Associated Press

BP greenwashing preceded monumental Gulf disaster

By Billie Greenwood

Morgan City : MS : USA | May 11, 2010

Videos

Images

Video #1: 2008 Greenpeace Emerald Paintbrush to BP
Posted by: BorderExplorer
Video #2: Satire of BP commercial
Posted by: BorderExplorer

revised "flower-like" BP logo
Posted by: BorderExplorer
BP's 2008 public relations campaign was termed "greenwashing" by critics ...

See All Videos

The oil that is currently spewing directly from a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico is vastly more toxic than oil spilled in previous tanker-leaked oil disasters. However, BP has historically spun its corporate image to convince the consuming public that it prioritizes ecological interests. That practice --termed "greenwashing" -involves making misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product or company. But the Gulf disaster brings ecological toxicity to unprecedented levels.

Radio Netherlands reports that the environmental disaster in the Gulf is unprecedented, not only for the volume of oil being released but also because this oil contains substances that are normally removed from oil in tanker transport. The Gulf leak contains PAKs, substances similar to the black smut found on barbeques that are carcinogenic and dissolve in water. The leaking oil also contains lethal "volatile substances like toluene and benzene that kill fish, plankton and mussels."

The report calls it "a disaster the like of which has never been seen before." The monumental ecological disaster in the Gulf, unprecedented in human history, flows in the wake of BP greenwashing and even as a greenwashing by-product.

In July of 2000 British Petroleum launched a high-profile, $200 million public relations ad campaign portraying the company as environmentally-friendly. It introduced a new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum," and changed its traditional logo to a new green and yellow flower-like sunburst.

"BP is still trying to greenwash its image. Its Web pages are filled with bogus statements, like "We try to work in ways that will benefit the communities and habitats where we do business -- and earn the world's respect," says Anne Landmann on PRWatch.org.

So when, on December 22, 2008, Greenpeace announced the first winner of their new annual Emerald Paintbrush award "for greenwashing above and beyond the call of duty," they awarded it to BP.

Perhaps the first disaster was swallowing BP's public relations spin.

___________
ABOUT THE VIDEOS
Video #1: Greenpeace awards BP its Emerald Paintbrush award in 2008, recording the moment in this mini mocumentary. BP is underwhelmed at the distinction.

Video #2: Satire of a BP public relations commercial, believed to originally have aired on the CBC show This Hour Has 22 MinutesThis Hour Has 22 Minutes. It illustrates the public relations twists that "whitewash" environmentally questionable companies, painting them as "green."

VIDEO: As House Opens Hearing To Investigate Oil Spill Disaster, House GOP Gathers At Oil Industry Fundraiser

This morning, executives including BP’s chairman Lamar McKay, Transocean CEO Steve Newman, and Halliburton’s Timothy Probert appeared before a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to dodge responsibility for their respective roles in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast oil spill. About an hour before the investigation began, however, House Republicans gathered a few blocks away for an “oil and gas breakfast” fundraiser with the oil and gas industry to benefit Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX). View a screenshot of the invitation from the Political Party Time blog below:

ThinkProgress reported from the fundraiser and spoke with several lawmakers as they went in and out of the building. We asked Brady, who praised the environmental record of the oil industry shortly after the spill, if he still believed that oil drilling still has a “very positive” record. He replied, “you know, I do.”
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) — the chairman of the Republican committee tasked with raising funds to elect more House Republicans — told us that he saw no conflict with his members raising money from the oil industry just about an hour before BP was scheduled to appear for questioning:

TP: Do you think that on the morning that the House is going to talk to these BP and other oil executives, it’s good that your caucus is meeting with the oil and gas industry for a fundraiser?
SESSIONS: You know what I think is really good is that Barack Obama wants oil prices to skyrocket, consumers to pay five dollar gasoline, and to continue his drive to lose ten million American jobs.
TP: I saw that Frank Luntz went into the fundraiser. Did he give you that talking point?
SESSION: No, you see, I put them on the floor of the House every day.

Watch it:

While Republican lawmakers have quietly backed away from their robust pro-oil industry chants of “drill, baby drill,” they have not backed away from their unequivocal

Gulf oil spill: Rep. Henry Waxman focuses on Halliburton cementing job

May 12, 2010 | 9:39 am

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) started his inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Wednesday with sharp words for BP, the well owner; Transocean, which owned the drilling rig; and Halliburton, which cemented the well:

"This catastrophe appears to have been caused by a calamitous series of equipment and operational failures. If the largest oil and oil services companies in the world had been more careful, 11 lives might have been saved and our coastlines protected."

But Waxman immediately focused on Halliburton's cementing job as the first in a complex chain of events that ended with an explosion and fire April 20 that left 11 men missing and presumed dead and started a spill of 5,000 barrels per day that now threatens the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

“Before, during or after the cement job, an undetected influx of hydrocarbons entered the wellbore,” Waxman said. "What this means is that there was a breach somewhere in well integrity that allowed methane gas and possibly other hydrocarbons to enter the well."

Waxman said the well did not pass a crucial pressure test below the blowout preventer, and that a high pressure reading inside the well likely meant there was an incursion of natural gas.

"According to James Dupree, the BP senior vice president for the Gulf of Mexico, the well did not pass this test. Mr. Dupree told committee staff on Monday that the test result was “not satisfactory” and “inconclusive.” Significant pressure discrepancies were recorded.

As a result, another negative pressure test was conducted. This is described in the fourth bullet: “During this test, 1,400 psi was observed on the drill pipe while 0 psi was observed on the kill and the choke lines.
According to Mr. Dupree, this is also an unsatisfactory test result. The kill and choke lines run from the drill rig 5,000 feet to the blowout preventer at the sea floor. The drill pipe runs from the drill rig through the blowout preventer deep into the well. In the test, the pressures measured at any point from the drill rig to the blowout preventer should be the same in all three lines. But what the test showed was that pressures in the drill pipe were significantly higher. Mr. Dupree explained that the results could signal that an influx of gas was causing pressure to mount inside the wellbore."

But Waxman said attorneys for BP have found that another pressure test hours later was satisfactory, and that work on sealing the well for later production was continued.

"What happened next is murky. Mr. Dupree told the committee staff that he believed the well blew moments after the second pressure test. But lawyers for BP contacted the committee yesterday and provided a different account.
According to BP’s counsel, further investigation has revealed that additional pressure tests were taken, and at 8 p.m., company officials determined that the additional results justified ending the test and proceeding with well operations.
This confusion among BP officials appears to echo confusion on the rig. Information reviewed by the committee describes an internal debate between Transocean and BP personnel about how to proceed.
What we do know is that shortly before 10 p.m. – just two hours after well operations apparently resumed – gas surged from the well up the riser and the rig exploded in a fireball."

Cementing problems have been an early focus of inquiries into the Deepwater Horizon disaster. A UC Berkeley scientist told the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday that BP documents suggest cement could have been contaminated by "hydrates," or methane and related gases that are liquid under pressure.
These hydrates likely gasified and escaped from the cement, entered the well core and expanded as they rose to the rig, where they ignited in the huge fireball that doomed the Deepwater Horizon, according to Robert Bea, who directs UC Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.
Testimony is continuing before the Oversight and Investigation subcommittee, part of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
-- Geoff Mohan, Richard Simon
Photo: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles). Credit: Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press

Artificial Islands Can't Save La. Coast, Say Geologists

Building islands may seem like a simple way to protect Louisiana's shores, but critics say it's too simple.

Louisiana's governor has proposed building up islands off the Mississippi Delta to stop oil and hurricanes.
Experts describe barrier islands not as shields but as "tombstones" of the delta.
This is because the Mississippi Delta area is continually sinking.

An aerial view of the northern Chandeleur barrier islands shows sheens of oil reaching land, May 6, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. Gov. Jindal has proposed building new islands to further protect the shore.
AP Photo/David Quinn

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has a plan to save his state from both the BP oil slick and future hurricanes: Rebuild and reinforce barrier islands to shield the shorelines.
Sites have already been approved for dredging, according to reports, and the plans have been rushed to the federal government for expedited approval.
"It would be so much easier to clean oil off this (dredged) sand than to deal with in our marshes," Jindal said in a recent news conference.
Artificial islands, dikes and other sorts of coastal engineering projects have a long history, and they can help some coastal areas in some ways. Aside from the fact that there may not be the months or years needed to build such barriers before the oil arrives, there are a couple of catches with the sand barriers proposed by Jindal, say independent experts.
First, the project will cost enormous sums of money to implement and maintain. And second, it won't work on the Mississippi delta's rapidly subsiding landscape.
"This is another one of those myths that people have in their minds about Louisiana geology: That the barrier islands are the first line of defense against hurricanes," said Roy Dokka, executive director of the Center for GeoInformatics and a professor at Louisiana State University. "That's just not true."
Unlike along the coast of Florida or the Atlantic seaboard, barrier islands in the Mississippi Delta area are all sinking, just as the delta sinks, Dokka explained. It's the way large river deltas work as sediments pile onto them from the rivers and press down on the crust of the Earth or slowly slump into the sea. That sinking feeling is accentuated by rising sea levels caused by global warming.

WATCH VIDEO: In the hours before the Gulf oil spill hit the Louisiana Coast, James Williams discovered what Gulf Coast experts were most worried about.

Related Links:

Louisiana's barrier islands are all doomed, as were the barrier islands that came before them which are now part of the sea bottom off shore. It's part of a process that has been going on for eons.
"Barrier islands are the tombstones of the delta," said Dokka. The islands were once part of the mainland, then were cut off as the land subsided. "So when you see barrier islands in Louisiana it means its time is almost up."
Trying to rebuild such islands or create new ones, therefore, ignores the basic geological processes of the region. But that hasn't stopped people from already trying.
Take, for instance, the efforts to build up Louisiana's East Timbalier Island, said Dokka. A lot of money was spent dredging and building up the ground. Yet today, just a few years later, that work is under several feet of water. In order to keep such projects from literally losing ground, islands would have to be continually rebuilt.
"You are talking about a public works project that will never end," said Dokka. And so the cost is not in the hundreds of millions, as Jindal has said, but would be incalculable.
The Mississippi delta isn't the only region where geo-engineering is meeting its match. Low-lying places in California's Sacramento River Delta and San Francisco Bay are also facing the reality of sea level rising and exposing new areas to potential flooding.
Even Holland has begun to acknowledge that its dikes are no match for sea level rise, and so people are moving further from the sea, said geologist and coastal hazards researcher Gary Griggs of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
"It's a massive problem and it's a global problem," Griggs told Discovery News. Unfortunately, when there are lots of factions demanding loudly that something be done, as in Louisiana, seemingly simple ideas that have little scientific basis can get a lot of traction.
"For a complicated problem there is always a simple solution that's always wrong," said Griggs.

2010-05-12T16:17:00.000-05:00

US troops executing prisoners in Afghanistan, journalist says

By David Edwards
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 -- 9:16 am
The journalist who helped break the story that detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were being tortured by their US jailers told an audience at a journalism conference last month that American soldiers are now executing prisoners in Afghanistan.
New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh also revealed that the Bush Administration had developed advanced plans for a military strike on Iran.
At the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Geneva, Hersh criticized President Barack Obama, and alleged that US forces are engaged in "battlefield executions."
"I'll tell you right now, one of the great tragedies of my country is that Mr. Obama is looking the other way, because equally horrible things are happening to prisoners, to those we capture in Afghanistan," Hersh said. "They're being executed on the battlefield. It's unbelievable stuff going on there that doesn't necessarily get reported. Things don't change.:
"What they've done in the field now is, they tell the troops, you have to make a determination within a day or two or so whether or not the prisoners you have, the detainees, are Taliban," Hersh added. "You must extract whatever tactical intelligence you can get, as opposed to strategic, long-range intelligence, immediately. And if you cannot conclude they're Taliban, you must turn them free.
"What it means is, and I've been told this anecdotally by five or six different people, battlefield executions are taking place," he continued. "Well, if they can't prove they're Taliban, bam. If we don't do it ourselves, we turn them over to the nearby Afghan troops and by the time we walk three feet the bullets are flying. And that's going on now."
The video of Hersh was uploaded to Michael Moore's YouTube account Tuesday.
Hersh has a long history as an investigative journalist and worked for many years at The New York Times. In 1969, he broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
This video is from YouTube, broadcast May 11, 2010.

2010-05-12T16:08:00.001-05:00

A 'Shanda"--A Shame--on America --Hunger in the 21st Century

Saul Friedman

Columnist, Gray Matters

Posted: May 12, 2010 03:43 PM

My mother, may she rest in peace, would have called this a shanda, the Yiddish word for a shame, something you're not proud of and that you'd rather your neighbor doesn't find out.

So shame is what I thought about and felt when I read the latest survey by academic researchers for the Meals on Wheels Association of America. It found that in 2008, at the beginning of this Great Recession, nearly six percent of Americans over the age of 60, more than 2.7 million, suffered from hunger, not just the lack of enough food but hunger. In the United States of America in the 21st Century.

But the deeper shame was in the 2009 survey, which found that the trend upward was especially discernible between 2001 and 2007, the years of tax cuts for the wealthy and a couple of pointless wars, when the number of older people (especially women) experiencing hunger rose by 700,000 to upwards of 3 million

Now, as a result of the recession, when many programs for the aged and poor were reduced, partly tp pay for those tax cuts, that figure has reached to over 3 million, and with unemployment over 10 percent the figure is still climbing.

The highest concentration of hunger risk among older people are in those states with low or no income taxes and fewer social insurance programs: Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina and Oklahoma. These states, most of them conservative, also have higher concentration people with only a high school education, plus a higher number of blacks and Hispanics and older people living in poverty. The south remains the most ignorant and badly led part of the country.

More definitive studies of hunger in the U/S. are published yearly by the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture. But these studies refer to the problem as "food insecurity," which was begun during the Reagan administration, which named "ketchup" as a food and denied there was hunger in the U.S. Nevertheless food insecurity means not knowing where or when you're getting your next meal.

In its latest study, noted on an inside page of The New York Times last November, the number of Americans who lived in household that lacked access to adequate food rose to nearly 50 million, the highest level since the government began tracking food insecurity 14 years ago. Thus at some time during the year 50 million Americans, including 17 million infants and children and more than 5 million older people went hungry.

According to the Times, about a third of 506,000 households, in which children and older adults faced hunger, they skipped meals, cut portions or tried to make do with food stamps. Now 36 million people have applied for food stamps a 40 percent increase over two years ago. But the benefit is only $133 a month, not very generous for the richest debtor nation on earth.

More than 6.7 million Americans who are described as having "low food security," regularly lack sufficient food to eat. Nearly all reported that the food did not last a month.
These dismal facts have not made much of a dent in the news, for hunger in the U.S., a huge story 50 years ago-when the nation began a war on poverty-has now become a silent epidemic.
But the foreign press, representing nations where hunger is unknown, has made much of America's troubles.

The British Guardian's headline on Nov. 17, was "Record Numbers Go Hungry in The U.S." Another Agriculture Department global study of food security found that percentage of households in Canada classified as "food insecure" was 7 percent compared to 12.6 percent in the U.S., and that was before the recession.

As you might expect, Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation told the Times "Very few of these people are hungry. When they lose jobs, they constrain the kind of food they buy. This is regrettable, but it's a far cry from a hunger crisis."

James Weill, whose department did the study, replied, " Many people are outright hungry, skipping meals. Others say they have enough to eat but only because they're going to food pantries or using food stamps. We describe it as 'households struggling with hunger.'"

Perhaps we should take comfort in the Agriculture Department's overview of food security assessment which found that while there is no such hunger problem in most other industrialized nations with strong social welfare programs, the American problem of food insecurity is far worse in the developing world.

Sliding onto a related subject, the recession and the holes it has torn in retirement savings mean the percentage of people who expect that Social Security will be their major source of income has risen from 27 percent to 34 percent. That's the highest percentage since 2001, according to a Gallup survey. That translates to 54 percent of retirees who said in 2008 that they expected Social Security to be their major source of income.

This comes at a time when older Americans were frightened by what seemed scary news-that for the first time, this year and next and maybe a couple more years, Social Security will be paying out more money that it will take in in payroll taxes. The reason is obvious: high unemployment means millions of jobless workers are not paying payroll taxes. But despitec that frightening news, as economist Dean Baker points out, what SS will pay out will be a minuscule portion of the $2.5 trillion it holds in government bonds.

Some skeptical readers insist these bonds (in a vault in West Virginia ) are just so many IOUs. Well, so are your personal checks and the treasury bonds you hold IOUs. But the SS bonds, which produce about $700 million a year in interest for the Social Security trust fund, are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. It would help SS if the law permitted the agency to get a higher rate of interest, or if Social Security could remove the current cap ($106,000) on taxable earnings.

But SS, with its huge trust fund, is a tempting target for people like billionaire Pete Peterson and other deficit hawks who would love to privatize the system and make all that money available to Wall Street. And the shortfalls for the next years has given them an excuse to focus on Social Security, which is self-sustaining and contributes nothing to the deficit.

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Social Security trust fund wold show a deficit in 2010. "This is not true,,"said Baker, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "The Social Security trust fund is projected to show a surplus of close to $100 billion in 2010...The Journal likely forgot to include interest on the bonds held by the trust fund."

I doubt if the Journal forgot. The Journal did not see the Wall Street crash coming but would now to take advantage of this temporary problem to turn the social insurance on which millions depend over to those who caused the problem. Shame.
Write to saulfriedman@comcast.net Friedman also writes for www. timegoesby.net

now you tell me....

2010-05-10T17:06:00.000-05:00

shit son, we clicked "okay"...

Hacker vows to fight Sony PS3 update, restore Linux support

By Ben Kuchera | Last updated March 30, 2010 9:40 AM

iPhone hacker George Hotz, aka "GeoHot," was able to finally crack the PlayStation 3... three years after the system's release. He praised the hardware for its security, but now that Sony has responded by removing the Linux capabilities of the PlayStation 3 entirely, the hacker has decided to fight back, warning gamers not to update their systems until he finds a way to keep the Other OS option on the PlayStation 3.
The problem for Sony is that GeoHot is now threatening to release custom firmware for the system, which is quite the escalation from what was previously available from the hacking community. "I never intended to touch [custom firmware], but if that's how you want to play..." Hotz wrote on his blog. Sony may have done much more harm than good with its April 1 update.

The hacker speaks

Hotz is skeptical about the reasons for the update. "What security concerns? It's not like the exploit can be run even close to without the users knowledge. You have to open the f**king thing up. How could this harm users?" He points out that the blog post doesn't give users any positive gains from the update, simply threatens what they'll lose if they don't. Urging gamers to wait on the update, he says he's working on a workaround that will allow you to continue to play games online as well as keep your Linux partition.
"The PlayStation 3 is the only product I know that loses features throughout its lifecycle. Software PS2 emulation, SACD playback, and OtherOS support are all just software switches you can flip. It's unbelievable you would go and flip one, not just on new boxes you are shipping, but on tens of millions already in the field."
He points out, one more time, that this isn't about piracy. "Some people seem to think CFW will enable some sort of piracy. It won't. It'll just be a custom version of 3.21 that doesn't lose OtherOS support," he points out. "Hacking isn't about getting what you didn't pay for, it's about making sure you do get what you did."
He then questions the right of companies like Sony to remove advertised features from hardware after it has been sold. He asks what would happen if Apple removed Web browsing from the iPhone if an exploit was found in Safari. "Legally, they may be within their right to do so, but we have to show them it's the wrong move for the future of the product and the company."

This is a fight Sony can't win

The wins Hotz has enjoyed in playing with the system were enough to make Sony nervous, and taking away Linux hasn't made many gamers happy. Catching the interest of someone who clearly has both the time and the knowledge to open the system wider isn't likely to end well for Sony; Hotz may not be interested in piracy, but the more capabilities put into the hands of the cracking community the more likely that outcome is going to be. Sony knows just how damaging piracy can be to a platform—the PSP has suffered from that problem almost since launch—but taking away features and claiming security concerns may have simply given the issue more attention than it deserved.
This is a story we'll be keeping an eye on

Protecting Power.

2010-05-10T16:41:00.002-05:00

Aesop's Fables by Aesop
translated by G.F. Townsend

The Wolf and the Lamb

WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations."

The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

Judge: Torture No Grounds To Dismiss Indictment

by The Associated Press

A Guantanamo Bay detainee brought to the United States for trial on charges he helped the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa while he was an aide to Osama bin Laden cannot use allegations of torture by the CIA to dismiss the indictment, a judge said Monday.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan made the ruling in Manhattan after months of consideration of documents, much of their contents redacted, that were submitted by attorneys for Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani and the government.
Kaplan said that Ghailani might be able to sue the government for civil damages or seek criminal prosecution of those who abused him if he can prove his rights were violated by torture, but that he cannot eliminate an indictment charging him in the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies.
The ruling by Kaplan could set a precedent if other Guantanamo detainees are brought to the United States for trials in the civilian court system. Some of them also allege they were tortured. The judge said there were precedents set by other court cases for his findings.
He said a defendant would have to prove the government could win a conviction only by using information gained through torture for him to win dismissal of the indictment.
The judge noted that 224 people, including 12 Americans, died in the attacks on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in August 1998. Already, four others are serving life sentences after a 2001 U.S. trial.
Ghailani was interrogated at a secret CIA-run camp abroad after his July 2004 arrest. He was later sent to Guantanamo Bay. Last June, he became the first detainee to be brought to the United States for trial in a civilian court.
Steve Zissou, a lawyer for Ghailani, declined to comment.
Ghailani was accused by the government of being a bomb maker, document forger and aide to bin Laden, who is also charged in the indictment. Ghailani has pleaded not guilty and has denied knowing that the TNT and oxygen tanks he delivered would be used to make a bomb.
Ghailani's lawyers have said that after his arrest he was subjected to enhanced interrogation for 14 hours over five days. The CIA, as part of its enhanced interrogation program after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, at one time used 10 harsh methods, including waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.

Blank Slate

There’s a lot we don’t know about Elena Kagan—because she’s never told us.

Paul Campos
May 8, 2010 | 12:00 am

Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know—but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.
This bizarre hypothetical closely resembles the actual campaign to put Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court. (The White House will reportedly announce her nomination on Monday.) Of course, a Supreme Court justice is not a conventional politician in the way a senator is, but being a justice involves making often controversial judgments about the law, and these judgments are unavoidably political. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know what Kagan's views are on most political issues, nor does anyone know what she believes about how judges ought to interpret the Constitution, how much deference courts should give to Congress and state legislatures, and what role the judiciary should play in checking the powers of the executive branch. We don't know because she hasn't told us. Indeed, Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog, describes Kagan as "extraordinarily—almost artistically—careful. I don't know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade."
Consequently, the support for Kagan's nomination has been based not on her legal views, but almost entirely on her character. Many friends and colleagues from various stages of Kagan's career—the University of Chicago (where she received tenure in 1995), the White House (where she was associate counsel to President Clinton), Harvard Law School (which granted her tenure in 2001 and made her dean two years later), and the Department of Justice (President Obama appointed her Solicitor General)—have stepped forward to support her. They insist that, because of the sterling reputation she's earned in her various roles, Kagan will make a great judge. What's more, various groups who respect Kagan personally and professionally have projected their own views onto her "blank slate"; progressives believe she's a liberal, centrists assume she's a moderate, and conservatives say she isn't a bleeding heart.
To be sure, being respected is hardly irrelevant to serving on the Supreme Court. And we do have some very general sense of Kagan’s approach to the law: Because she has worked for two Democratic presidents and opposed Don’t Ask, Don't Tell during debates over ROTC recruitment at Harvard, it's safe to say that Kagan's politics are left-of-center. But there is a lot of intellectual space on the legal left. And, ideally, by now, we would know much more about a likely Supreme Court nominee’s legal philosophy than whether it falls, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

Kagan has published very little: three scholarly articles, two shorter essays, two brief book reviews, and two other minor pieces. Compare this record to those of the three other law professors most commonly mentioned as potential replacements for Justice John Paul Stevens: Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan and Harold Koh, who became Yale Law's dean in 2004, each have more than 100, and Kagan's Harvard colleague Cass Sunstein, who also works for the Obama administration, has several hundred, including more than 20 books. All three have taken stands on numerous legal and political issues, in both the academic and the popular press. All have written extensively on how, in their view, courts should engage in legal interpretation in general and constitutional interpretation in particular.
In contrast, Kagan's opinions on these matters remain unknown. A nominee, even one who has never been a judge, doesn’t have to be a graphomaniac, but Kagan's publications consist largely of cautious descriptions and categorizations of current legal doctrines. And, quite self-consciously, they lack almost any critical component. For example, the thesis of Kagan’s 1996 article “Private Speech, Public Purpose” in the University of Chicago Law Review is that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine “constitutes a highly, but necessarily, complex scheme for ascertaining the governmental purposes underlying regulations of speech.” She flatly refuses to assert whether this scheme correctly interprets the First Amendment or whether it is a good method for regulating speech. “I have never proposed to show,” Kagan notes, “that the most sensible system of free expression would focus on issues of governmental motive to the extent our system does … I leave for another day the question whether our doctrine, in attempting to discover improper motive, has neglected too much else of importance.”
Similarly, Kagan’s 2001 article “Presidential Administration,” published in the Harvard Law Review, describes how presidential oversight of federal administrative agency decision-making increased significantly during both the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Yet the article is focused almost solely on outlines of the administrative process, rather than its substance, thus sidestepping almost all potential political controversy. Kagan reaches the unobjectionable conclusion that vigorous presidential oversight is desirable to the extent that it increases the political accountability of administrative agencies and furthers regulatory effectiveness. (That Kagan's academic writings tell us so little about what we want to know when evaluating a Supreme Court nominee is especially problematic given that she hasn't published for a general audience; we can't find evidence of her views in the mainstream media, either.)
And yet, despite her largely blank record of opinion, Kagan's candidacy for the High Court has provoked almost ecstatic enthusiasm from various current and former colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. She has been praised for her "brilliance," for her "many remarkable qualities," and for being "scrupulously fair-minded" to people of various political views. Yet no one, not even her biggest admirers, can offer any real evidence for what sort of judge she would make, or which side of major legal issues she would fall on.
Recently, I asked a law professor—a former student of Kagan's and a political conservative—what she thought of Kagan's prospective nomination. After expressing warm admiration for Kagan's teaching abilities (and gratitude for the letters of recommendation Kagan wrote for her) the professor opined that, as a justice, Kagan probably “wouldn’t be political.” When I pressed her on what she meant by that, she explained that she believed that, if put on the Supreme Court, Kagan "would be a centrist." (Given the professor's own political inclinations, she clearly meant this as praise). Yet, when I asked about how she had made that judgment, the professor acknowledged that it was based on just a "gut feeling."
On the flip side, liberal law professor Walter Dellinger recently claimed in Slate that Kagan’s views on presidential power are “fundamentally progressive.” Yet the sum total of Dellinger’s evidence consists of the “Presidential Administration” article and a 2007 commencement speech in which Kagan criticized John Yoo’s torture memos. Given the uncontroversial nature of the Harvard Law Review article and the fact that the torture memos have been repudiated by the Bush administration’s own lawyers, this is pretty thin evidence for Kagan’s supposedly “progressive” inclinations.

The contrasting assumptions about Kagan's views continue to bump up against each other in media coverage of her pending nomination because we lack definitive evidence of what she really believes. Perhaps her views will become clearer during her confirmation process in the Senate, and perhaps, if confirmed, she will make an excellent justice.
But, for a president to appoint someone to a lifetime position, wouldn’t it be preferable to know what she believes on the biggest issues of the day—and how she arrived at those conclusions? If Obama does nominate Kagan, as he likely will, he will be taking a very big risk.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.

Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/blank-slate


Kagan's record on executive privilege By: David Fontana May 10, 2010 03:40 PM EDT
President Barack Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is sure to be front page news tomorrow. But its significance may be appreciated only after reading today’s stories about Obama’s desire for new legislation permitting federal investigators to question terrorism suspects without issuing a Miranda warning. Given Kagan’s record on executive power—and the Miranda news as the latest example of executive power claimed by this administration— we might now begin to conclude that, even with a Democrat in the White House, there will be no broad-scale limitations on presidential power anytime soon. It is time to realize that broad presidential power is a structural issue—not a Bush Republican or Obama Democratic one. If confirmed, Kagan will probably not play a role in scaling back presidential power in any meaningful way. It is certainly true that she probably won’t be as solicitous of presidential power as the Bush administration. In a speech at West Point in 2007, for example, Kagan was critical of the views of executive power expressed by the lawyers in the Bush Justice Department. But there is no indication in her background that she desires significant constraints on presidential power. And there are at least some reasons to think that things might head in the other direction. Kagan, after all, is to replace John Paul Stevens, the justice who wrote perhaps the two leading opinions —one a majority opinion, one a dissenting — calling for the limitation of executive power during the Bush administration. By far her most significant academic article is a pre-9/11 robust defense of presidential power. The article summary indicates that Kagan’s views of executive power were “broad though not unlimited.” During her confirmation hearings to be solicitor general, Kagan said that the president could indefinitely detain someone suspected of offering financial support to Al Qaeda. Given her experience in the executive branch during the Clinton administration, Kagan is likely to follow in the footsteps of past nominees with significant experience in the federal executive branch — like Justice Antonin Scalia or Chief Justice John Roberts — and be deferential to claims of presidential power. If the Kagan nomination means that the Supreme Court will not be limiting presidential power anytime soon, Obama’s recent actions suggest that he will not be limiting presidential power anytime soon either. While the administration has scaled back in substance and in rhetoric from many of the Bush administration’s more extreme positions, it has also embraced many robust claims of broad executive power. The administration has announced a modified state-secrets privilege, though it still permits the Justice Department to ask courts to dismiss many private lawsuits because they might endanger national security. The administration has advocated changes in the military commission system, but still supports using these commissions in some cases. The administration has also argued that detainees being held at the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan have no habeas rights to petition for their release. The Kagan nomination, combined with the administration’s record on presidential power, could mean that the executive branch is likely to continue to increase in power – if in far smaller increments than during the Bush administration. But rather than continuing to hope for a presidential knight in shining armor to restore balance to the separation of powers, perhaps these events will now force us to consider that we should not depend on a president—or the justices a president nominates—to limit the power of the executive branch. David Fontana is associate professor of law at George Washington University Law School.

2010-05-06T18:51:00.001-05:00

2010-05-02T12:16:00.000-05:00

Healthcare Q&A: How taxpayers may be affected

Whose taxes will increase because of the new law? How do the tax penalties work? Will the IRS be involved? What is the 'Cadillac tax'?....

2010-05-02T12:11:00.001-05:00

Fox News Calls Mr. Rogers An Evil Man

by government_employee on April 29, 2010

Download:

FLV MP4 3GP

Little did I know, Mr. Rogers was an evil man. By telling children they’re special just for being who they are, he helped create this generation of worthless, lazy socialists who think they’re entitled to health care… at least according to Fox News.
They actually use the word “evil” to describe Mr. Rogers and criticize him for his “optimistic message where everyone was special even if they didn’t deserve it”, which is “ruining kids with a sense of entitlement.” Then one of them starts babbling about how children should go back to churning butter and making their own sweaters. Fox’s Brian Kilmeade said “that man unintentionally did a whole generation or two a disservice.” Only on Fox could a man who spent his life dedicated to public service and education be blamed for ruining generations of Americans.
And if you are interested in the ’study’ done by the LSU professor, it’s available at the Wall Street Journal: Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled.
If anyone can find or provide a full transcript of the segment, I would really appreciate it. Email it to me at pbhnetwork@gmail.com

2010-04-30T19:48:00.002-05:00

Frank Luntz Rolls Out His New Talking Point for Republicans: 'Checkbook Tax' | Video Cafe

Senate Forecast Update: Little Chance of GOP Takeover, but Dem Position Remains Precarious

2010-04-29T15:12:00.000-05:00

Senate Forecast Update: Little Chance of GOP Takeover, but Dem Position Remains Precarious

2010-04-29T14:30:00.002-05:00

Posted: April 29, 2010

How Goldman ruined your neighborhood

BY BRIAN DICKERSON
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Carl Levin is a genuine Washington heavyweight, one of a handful of senators -- Arizona's John McCain, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Massachusetts' John Kerry round out the list -- whose celebrity runs coast-to-coast.

So Michigan's senior senator is used to the national news media paying attention when he has something to say. And media outlets such as CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were hanging on his every word this week when Levin and Lloyd Blankfein, head kahuna of Goldman Sachs, went mano a mano on Goldman's role in the 2008 financial meltdown.

When Michigan met Wall St.

But Levin also is an elected official from a particular state, and one of his prime objectives as chairman of the subcommittee investigating the origins of the worldwide financial crisis has been to connect the dots between the chicanery on Wall Street and Michigan's foreclosure crisis.
So far, though, he's had more success stirring up the political and financial establishments back east than rousing the folks back home to righteous indignation.
Tuesday's showdown with Blankfein and other Goldman Sachs execs, which led the Wednesday editions of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, received far less prominent play in Michigan newspapers. Much of the in-state coverage focused on Levin's uncharacteristic use of profanity -- he repeatedly quoted a Goldman employee's e-mail describing one of the mortgage-backed bonds the firm marketed as "a shitty deal" -- while ignoring Levin's larger point that Goldman's aggressive marketing of such bonds had exacerbated the collapse of home values here and elsewhere.
For the record, Levin's theory about the nexus between what banks like Goldman did and what happened to housing values in your neighborhood is becoming conventional wisdom among economists.
The invention of the mortgage bond market, in which large investors bought and sold claims on the pooled monthly mortgage payments of thousands of homeowners, gave Goldman and other big Wall Street firms their first direct stake in the debts of ordinary consumers.
It worked out well as long as the bundled mortgages were sound ones guaranteed by the government. But when Goldman and its rivals began selling bonds tied to the performance of much riskier mortgages, the system grew unstable.

Sophisticated sales resistance

Levin argues that Goldman's willingness to package and sell loans its employees knew were increasingly, um, substandard allowed unscrupulous lenders to keep writing mortgages for borrowers who were less and less creditworthy, fueling the run-up in home prices and assuring that a large percentage of those mortgages would go sour.
Goldman argues that it was merely meeting its sophisticated clients' demand for riskier (and thus more potentially profitable) pieces of mortgage market action.
But Fabrice Tourre, the young Goldman executive at the center of a fraud suit brought by the government, wrote in an e-mail obtained by Levin's investigators that sophisticated investors were the firm's worst customers ("they know exactly how things work"). He urged Goldman's sales force to target "ratings-based buyers" who would be impressed by the AAA reviews craven rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's gave to Goldman's crummy deals.
Even CEO Blankfein conceded that Goldman's bad business decisions contributed to the financial crisis, and allowed that tighter government regulation of mortgage-backed securities would help prevent a repeat of 2008's housing market collapse.
He's confident Goldman and its rivals can continue to be profitable in a more regulated environment.
And really, who would bet against him?
BRIAN DICKERSON is deputy editorial page editor of the Free Press. Contact him at bdickerson@freepress.com

GOP Drops Filibuster After Dems Roll Over On Bailout Fund

By Susie Madrak Thursday Apr 29, 2010 8:00am

Charlie Brown, will you never learn? You really thought Democrats were actually standing up to the Republicans on financial reform, huh? From Huffington Post:

Threatened with the prospect of having to spend the entire night sleeping on a cot inside the white sepulchre known as the United States Capitol, Senate Republicans have apparently assented to allowing a debate on the financial regulatory reform bill. Victory for Main Street! Unless, of course, Senate Democrats decided to back down on a strong(ish) bill so that the seeds of bipartisanship could be sown. In which case: Victory for David Broder!
No one exactly knows what is happening [C&L note: The Washington Post now confirms the deal], buthere's what the New York Times is reporting:

Republicans insisted that they had won some crucial concessions from Democrats, including the elimination of a proposed $50 billion fund that would be paid for by big financial companies and would be used to help pay for putting failed banks out of business.
The Obama administration also had expressed opposition to the fund, out of concern that it would complicate efforts to deal with more costly failures of financial companies. And the Democrats already had expressed a willingness to remove the fund from the bill.
Oh, well, that's just great! You know, it seems like only a week ago, Republicans were calling that provision the "permanent bailout fund" because that was the precise lie that Frank Luntz coached them to tell, over and over again. Incensed Democrats complained about this falsehood, over and over again, and actually did pretty well in getting the media on their side. But now, it's just one more thing that nobody really liked anyway, whatever -- hope you enjoyed the Kabuki theater.
Of course, we now have the benefit of viewing Senator Christopher Dodd's FinReg bill alongside the one put forth by the GOP, and can appreciate the ways in which they parted company. (TheWashington Independent's Annie Lowrey has a great comparative analysis of which you can avail yourself.)
Significantly, the two proposals aren't exactly worlds apart. But one way in which they part company dramatically is in the area of consumer protection. Per Matt Yglesias:

The ugly part of the bill is what it does to consumer protection. On the one hand, it seemingly weakens the independence of the consumer regulator. On the other hand, it has the consumer regulator preempt any and all state regulations. This is a helpful reminder that nobody on the right actually gives a damn about federalism except as a tool to advance conservative substantive policy--federal preemption of strong state regulation is always welcome.

Spill, Baby, SPILL!

2010-04-29T14:22:00.000-05:00

Oil spill, Gulf of Mexico: This April 25 satellite photo shows a portion of the Gulf oil spill from the 42,000 gallon-a-day leak from a well in the Gulf of Mexico following the April 20 oil rig explosion at the Deepwater Horizon platform.

AP/via NASA

Gulf spill: Worse than Exxon Valdez?

Some say environmental impact could surpass '89 disaster

By James Eng

msnbc.com

updated 1:12 p.m. CT, Thurs., April 29, 2010

The oil leak triggered by a deadly rig blast off the coast of Louisiana has the potential to cause more environmental damage than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, one of the largest ecological disasters ever recorded, some observers say.

"As it is now, it's already looking like this could be the worst oil spill since the Valdez," John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace USA, told msnbc.com on Thursday.

"It’s quite possible this will end up being worse than the Valdez in terms of environmental impact since it seems like BP will be unable to cap the spill for months. In terms of total quantity of oil released, it seems this will probably fall short of Exxon Valdez. But because of the habitat, the environmental impact will be worse."

"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told the BBC World Service.

"The Exxon Valdez is going to pale in comparison to this as it goes on."

The spill was triggered by an explosion last week off the Louisiana coast that sank an oil rig operated by BP. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.

So far the leak from a blown-out well 5,000 feet under the sea is not nearly as big as the Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled about 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound 21 years ago. BP's well is spewing about 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the ocean, the Coast Guard estimates.

But if the leak is not capped, millions of gallons of oil could spill into the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental impact could be disastrous if the oil reaches the ecologically fragile U.S. coastline.

Potential for catastrophe"If we lose the integrity of that wellhead, it could be a catastrophic spill,'' Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, which is directing efforts to contain the spreading spill, told The Miami Herald's editorial board Wednesday.

Greenpeace's Hocevar said he's particularly concerned about the impact to critically endangered bluefin tuna. "It's their spawning season and bluefin larvae in this part of their life-cycle would be near the surface of water," Hocevar said.

The oil could also harm sea turtles, which are approaching nesting season; fin whales; menhaden, a fish species harvested mostly for fish meal and fish oil; bottom-feeding oysters; and numerous species of birds, Hocevar said.

Experts said the spill could also destroy the livelihood of commercial fishermen and shrimp catchers and impact recreational fishermen. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state’s fishing industry is worth $265 billion at dockside and has a total economic impact of $2.3 trillion.

Tourism also could take a blow if beaches are fouled.

Already, a federal class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of two commercial shrimpers from Louisiana seeking at least $5 million in compensatory damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages against Transocean, BP and other companies linked to the rig blast.

Louisiana opened a special shrimp season along parts of the coast to allow shrimpers to harvest the profitable white shrimp before the spill reaches the area.

Which way the wind blowsAlaska's Exxon Valdez spill contaminated more than 1,200 miles of shoreline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals. More than $2 billion has been spent on cleanup and recovery, and Exxon has paid at least $1 billion in damages.

Jeffrey Short, science director for the Oceana conservation group based in Juneau, Alaska, and a former chemist and environmental expert for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told USA Today the latest spill is "basically déjà vu all over again."

"The time scale for the Exxon Valdez, having lived through it, it took days and weeks to unfold and for us to really realize the nature of it. We're still in early days here. So far the trajectory of events has been pretty foreseeable."

James Opaluch, a professor of natural-resource economics at the University of Rhode Island, has studied more than a dozen oil spills, including the Exxon Valdez. He said the severity of the environmental consequences of the gulf spill depends largely on how much oil reaches shore.

At this point, Opaluch told msnbc.com by e-mail, the most comparable spill is the Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979, caused by a blowout and subsequent fire from a drilling rig in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico. By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980, an estimated 140 million galons of oil had spilled — more than 10 times larger than Exxon Valdez. Most of the oil stayed offshore for a long time, and at least some oil eventually came onshore on Texas beaches. "Damages from Ixtoc were relatively modest, certainly much less than Exxon Valdez as far as we can tell," Opaluch said.

"I think the most important issues for the present spill are, one, how long the spill continues for, therefore how much is spilled; two, whether the spill comes ashore, and three, if it does come ashore, where it comes ashore," he said.

"The best-case scenario is for all of the oil to go into the deep waters in the gulf. The worst-case scenario is for much of the oil to come ashore in wetlands. An intermediate case is if the oil comes ashore primarily on rocky shorelines or sandy beaches."

Hocevar said he's still hopeful officials will find a way to plug the well leak, but he said a lot of environmental damage has already been done.

"This is the real cost of oil," Hocevar said. "The gulf may be the one place where we are best prepared to deal with an oil spill. This is a stark reminder of what little you can do once a spill happens."

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36850248/from/RSS/

MSN Privacy . Legal

Published on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 by the Guardian/UK

Barack Obama Reverses Campaign Promise and Approves Offshore Drilling

President allows oil and gas exploration off several coastal areas to horsetrade with Republicans over climate change bills

by Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Barack Obama took the Republican slogan "drill, baby, drill" as his own today, opening up over 500,000 square miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years.

Barack Obama announces offshore drilling plans at a naval base in, Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The move, a reversal of Obama's early campaign promise to retain a ban on offshore exploration, appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans in Congress for new laws to tackle global warming. Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill" slogan [1] was a prominent battle cry in the 2008 elections.The areas opened up are off the Atlantic coast, the northern coast of Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, in a concession to his environmentalist base, Obama did retain protection for Alaska's Bristol Bay, the single largest source of seafood in America and home to endangered species of whale. The Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada is also off-limits.
Obama said the decision to allow oil rigs off the Atlantic coast was a painful one, but that it would help reduce US dependence on imported oil.
"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," the president said. "But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
He said the administration would take steps to protect the environment and areas important to tourism off the Atlantic, as well as sensitive areas in the Arctic, and added: "Drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs, and for the sake of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now."
Interior department officials said the areas opened up today are thought to contain the equivalent of three years' annual US useage of recoverable oil and two years' worth of natural gas.
Under the proposals, a vast swath of Atlantic coast from northern Delaware to central Florida, including about 167m acres of ocean, would be open to drilling. An additional 130m acres of ocean in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska could also open up for drilling following environmental assessment studies. About two-thirds of the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be open for exploration though the plan would bar rigs within 125 miles of the Florida coast.
The state of Virginia could see drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and could issue its first licences as early as next year. However, actual drilling would probably not get underway for years. Drilling would be off-limits throughout the US Pacific coast. Bristol Bay in south-western Alaska would also be off the table until 2017.
Today's speech was widely seen as an attempt by Obama to use last week's epic victory on health reform as a springboard for other items on his agenda. He combined the announcement with a renewed appeal to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass climate change legislation [2]. The laws would be a huge step forward towards a global deal but has encountered fierce domestic opposition.
A small group of Democrats and Republicans are expected to produce proposals to cut the US's mammoth greenhouse gas emissions, in the coming weeks. But the proposals are unlikely to go as far as environmentalists would like.
The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, made a significant declaration today, saying the administration had renounced the concept of carbon cap and trade. This system, seen by many as efficient and effective, sets a gradually reducing limit to emissions and then allows polluters to buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, but opponents argue it would damage the economy. "The term cap and trade is not in the lexicon anymore," Salazar told CNBC television.
The go-ahead for drilling is also a bitter disappointment for environmentalists and Democrats. That could make it even more difficult to stitch together a compromise proposal on climate change in the Senate. Last week, 10 Senators from coastal states, including those now opened up for drilling, issued a letter expressing concern that offshore exploration would hurt fishing and tourism industries.
Maryland's Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a supporter of Obama's climate agenda, said: "We know spills happen with offshore drilling. It happens even with the most responsible drilling." Greenpeace saw the announcement as a betrayal of Obama's campaign promise, with director Phil Radford saying: "This act furthers America's addiction to oil." Oceana called it a "wholesale assault" on the seas.
Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "Today's announcement is unfortunately all too typical of what we have seen so far from President Obama - promises of change, a year of 'deliberation,' and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own."
The disappointment could lift on Thursday, as Obama said his administration would then finalise more rigorous fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The White House will also buy 5,000 new hybrid vehicles for the federal fleet.
Today's drilling decision further consolidates Obama's position in the middle ground between industry and environmentalists. Environmentalists have been disappointed with the president's decisions to restrict - but not ban outright - the highly destructive practice of blowing up mountaintops to mine thin seams of coal [3].
Obama indicated in his state of the union address [4] that he was ready to offer two key concessions to Republicans - lifting the ban on offshore drilling and supporting new nuclear power plants - to try to gain support for climate change and energy legislation in Congress.
He took the first step last month, spurring the first construction of new nuclear plants [5] since the Three Mile Island leak 30 years ago, by announcing $18bn in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had repeatedly attacked his opponent, John McCain, for suggesting drilling would lower gas prices, arguing that it would take several years and billions in investment before those areas became productive. But as the summer of 2008 wore on with prices spiking at the pump, Obama along with other Democrats began moderating their opposition to offshore drilling.
Democrats in Congress did not renew an annual ban on offshore drilling, and Obama began reversing his opposition.

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/31

2010-04-27T11:53:00.001-05:00

The Surprising Reason Why Americans Are So Lonely, and Why Future Prosperity Means Socializing with Your Neighbors

By Bill McKibben, Henry Holt
Posted on April 27, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146623/

Excerpted from the book EAARTH: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet by Bill McKibben. Reprinted by arrangement with Henry Holt and Company, LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2010 by Bill McKibben.
Community may suffer from overuse more sorely than any word in the dictionary. Politicians left and right sprinkle it through their remarks the way a bad Chinese restaurant uses MSG, to mask the lack of wholesome ingredients. But we need to rescue it; we need to make sure that community will become, on this tougher planet, one of the most prosaic terms in the lexicon, like hoe or bicycle or computer. Access to endless amounts of cheap energy made us rich, and wrecked our climate, and it also made us the first people on earth who had no practical need of our neighbors.
In the halcyon days of the final economic booms, everyone on your cul de sac could have died overnight from some mysterious plague, and while you might have been sad, you wouldn't have been inconvenienced. Our economy, unlike any that came before it, is designed to work without the input of your neighbors. Borne on cheap oil, our food arrives as if by magic from a great distance (typically, two thousand miles). If you have a credit card and an Internet connection, you can order most of what you need and have it left anonymously at your door. We've evolved a neighborless lifestyle; on average an American eats half as many meals with family and friends as she did fifty years ago. On average, we have half as many close friends.
I've written extensively, in a book called Deep Economy, about the psychological implications of our hyperindividualism. In short, we're less happy than we used to be, and no wonder -- we are, after all, highly evolved social animals. There aren't enough iPods on earth to compensate for those missing friendships. But I'm determined to be relentlessly practical -- to talk about surviving, not thriving. And so it heartens me that around the world people are starting to purposefully rebuild communities as functioning economic entities, in the hope that they'll be able to buffer some of the effects of peak oil and climate change.
The Transition Town movement began in England and has spread to North America and Asia; in one city after another, people are building barter networks, expanding community gardens. And they've paid equal, or even greater, attention to suburbia; in the developed world, after all, that's where most people live. Though our sprawl is designed for the car, the sunk costs of those tens of millions of houses mean they're not going to disappear just because the price of gas rises. They'll have to change instead. "Suburbia, not as a model for material consumption, but as a legal and social lattice of decentralized and more uniformly distributed production land ownership, has the potential to serve as the foundation for just such a pioneering adaptation," writes Jeff Vail, a widely read economic theorist who envisions "a Resilient Suburbia."
In fact, quite sober economists have begun to insist that even in our seemingly globalized world, our economies are actually far more local than we realize. Despite the "pervasive image of a single U.S. economy," the economists William Barnes and Larry Ledeber write, "local economies -- primarily metropolitan-centered and strongly linked -- are the real economies in the United States." They build, with rich statistical backing, on the original insights of thinkers like Jane Jacobs, who always insisted that the city was the fundamental building block of our economic life. These "Local Economic Regions" comprise the web of transportation and communication links, the chain of educational institutions in a region, and the web of emotional ties. (My Vermont neighbors may not care much how many gold medals the United States captured at the Olympics, but they are deeply involved with how many runs the Red Sox scored last night.)
Those local economies were originally shaped by geography -- a port, a river, a low place in the mountains where you could build a canal. For a while those assets seemed less important; with endless cheap energy, you could always put something on a truck or a plane. But the cities built on those early patterns persisted; they were a sunk cost, too. No one was going to move Buffalo, with its museums and universities and square miles of housing stock, just because the highway had bypassed the Erie Canal. (And now some of those original assets may be returning to prominence. The Erie Canal, for instance, has seen a marked upswing in business as the price of oil rises, because a gallon of diesel pulls a ton of cargo 59 miles by truck, but 514 miles in a barge.) Shanghai is 7,371 miles from New York. It's true that Chinese workers cost you a dollar an hour, but at some point the math shifts.
Even David Ricardo, the nineteenth-century economist who helped kick off globalization with his theory of comparative advantage, never quite imagined the Flat Earth we've lately celebrated.
It was true, he said, that since Britain could make cloth more cheaply, and Portugal wine, each country should specialize. He believed, however, that capital would stay at home, due to "the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profit in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations."
David Ricardo, meet Woody Tasch. A New Mexico-based venture capitalist and the founder of the Slow Money movement, Tasch focuses on finding funds to help local businesses grow a little larger. Not the kind of money that's looking for a 20 percent annual gain; when that happens, everything but return gets pushed aside. What Tasch has in mind is a consistent, sound, 3 or 4 percent return, which at the same time benefits the community where both the investor and the business live.
"These kinds of local businesses are by definition going to be lower risk, because they're embedded in their communities, they're cooperating with each other," he says. They can use those networks to grow, but only up to a certain point -- and you only want to grow to a point. Ben and Jerry's was great when it was a Burlington ice cream shop, and pretty neat when it was a regional brand -- but now it's owned by Unilever. What if your newspaper wasn't owned by some corporate overlord looking for a 20 percent return? What if a small annual profit was enough? Maybe it would still be covering the city council and sending a reporter on the road with the baseball team.
But in our world, it's actually harder than you'd think to stay small. To understand why, visit the Farmers Diner, one of my favorite restaurants but also a place that illustrates just how hard it can be to find the sweet spot. How local is the Farmers Diner? The first thing you see when you walk in the door of their outlet in the Vermont town of Quechee is a jukebox, glinting like any diner jukebox. Some Willie Nelson, some John Cougar Mellencamp. But half the albums are by Vermonters. Phish, sure. But it's Grace Potter and the Nocturnals who get the most play. And they're just the start. You'll find the Starline Rhythm Boys (singing "The Tavern Parking Lot") and Banjo Dan and the Mid-Nite Plowboys ("The Cider Song"). And Patti Casey, of course. Never heard of Patti Casey? Your loss, but that's the point. In an economy where music comes from L.A. or Nashville, she's from here.
The menu, at first glance, looks like any diner menu. Hash and eggs. Liver and onions. Bacon cheeseburger. Pancakes. At diner prices: $5 for a grilled cheese, home fries for $1.75. But look a little closer: almost every item comes with a modest biography. The blue cheese comes from Jasper Hill Farm in Greensboro. The yogurt is from Butterworks Farm up in Westfield, which also supplies wheat flour for the pancakes. In an economy where diner food rolls up on an eighteen-wheeler from the factory farms of the South and Midwest, your Farmers Diner patty melt is like the music on the jukebox: it comes from here.
And it comes with an attitude. One page of the menu is given over to the Kentucky farmer and writer Wendell Berry's magnificent poem "Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front": "So, friends, every day do something / that won't compute...." Another is taken up by Thomas Jefferson's 1803 letter calling for a conversion of the nation's "charitable" institutions into "schools of agriculture" so our citizens may "increase the productions of the nation instead of consuming them." This may be the only diner in the world that comes with a mission statement: "to increase the economic vitality of local agrarian communities." The bumper sticker above the counter says it even more plainly: "Think Globally -- Act Neighborly."
But it also comes with a problem. In the words of the owner, Tod Murphy, "How do you create a company that will take food off the farmer's hands in the easiest way for him, and set it in front of the customers in the easiest way for them, and do it at a price point everyone can live with?" Tailing him for a day as he made the rounds of his suppliers shows both the promise and the difficulty of the idea. You could start the morning in Strafford, say, at Rock Bottom Farm, where Earl Ransom's cows were producing organic milk and cream on the land where he was born. "I had to educate people that cream isn't necessarily white," Murphy recalled. "When the cows went out to pasture in the spring, the half-and-half changed color noticeably, and the waitresses were afraid people would freak."
It doesn't always go so easily, though. Consider, for instance, the pig. When the first Farmers Diner opened in Barre, it needed bacon -- you can't have a diner without bacon. The problem was that no one was producing pork commercially in Vermont. Fifty years ago, sure, every farm had a few hogs growing fat on leftover milk from the dairy herd. But as agriculture became a commodity business -- as dairy producers concentrated on cows, and pork producers on pigs -- that changed. Vermont dairies became fewer in number and much, much bigger; in other parts of the nation the same thing happened with hogs.
According to Brian Halweil in his book Eat Here, there's a hog farm in Utah with 1.5 million pigs. That's absurd -- the pigs produce more solid waste each day than the entire city of Los Angeles. But it's also cheap -- so cheap that it sets the psychological price for a pound of bacon pretty low. So when Murphy wanted to buy pigs for his bacon and sausage, he approached a few farmers to see whether they were interested. One was Maple Wind Farm, a breeder in Huntington raising fifty hogs a year, mostly to sell at farmers' markets. They're fed on grass and organic grains -- the pork tastes absolutely incredible -- and they fetch good money. "We get $7.50 a pound for bacon at the farmers' market, and $8.50 a pound for pork chops," says Beth Whiting, who runs the farm with her husband, Bruce Hennessey. So when Murphy asked them if they could raise him some pigs at eighty-nine cents a pound, "we had to bury our laughter."
And yet eighty-nine cents a pound is more than the upscale national pork producer Niman Ranch pays its contract pig farmers. In essence, it's a Goldilocks problem: somehow Murphy has to find just the right size. What his operation really requires is not huge commodity producers or small, incredibly wonderful gourmet farms. "What I need are 1950s-size farms," he says. Not a million hogs, but not fifty, either -- maybe three or four hundred. Not organic operations necessarily, just family farms. Precisely, in other words, the kinds of farms that have almost all gone out of business in recent decades.
Murphy can still find vegetable growers to fit his scale, for example, someone to plant the five acres of cucumbers he needs for his pickles. But to help rebuild the supply of meat and chicken farmers, he's launching a nonprofit foundation. Named for a character in one of Wendell Berry's novels, the Jack Beecham Foundation will help growers with business plans and marketing strategies. Woody Tasch has been helping.
All this to make a smoked-turkey club. Or, to read from today's specials menu, some poached Vermont eggs with Cabot cheddar cream sauce. Or some maple butternut squash. Or some Cortland apple cobbler topped with local granola, and a scoop of that Strafford ice cream. With some Grace Potter wailing from the jukebox. For change back from a ten-dollar bill, it doesn't get much sweeter than this. It should work. It should spread. If the eaarth is going to support restaurants, they'll need to look like the Farmers Diner.
Across the country communities have begun to transform themselves. They encounter the same kinds of problems that trip up Murphy, but they find solutions, too. Often a farmers' market is the catalyst -- not just because people find that they like local produce, but because they actually meet each other again. This is not sentiment talking; this is data. A team of sociologists recently followed shoppers around supermarkets and then farmers' markets. You know the drill at the Stop'n'Shop: you come in the automatic door, fall into a light fluorescent trance, visit the stations of the cross around the perimeter of the store, exit after a discussion of credit or debit, paper or plastic. But that's not what happens at farmers' markets. On average, the sociologists found, people were having ten times as many conversations per visit. They were starting to rebuild the withered network that we call a community. So it shouldn't surprise us that farmers' markets are the fastest-growing part of our food economy; they are simply the way that humans have always shopped, acquiring gossip and good cheer along with calories.
Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben is the founder of 350.org, an international climate campaign.

rolling blackouts push california toward energy indepenence...should other states follow?

2010-04-27T11:46:00.000-05:00

...California

Though the term did not enter popular use in the U.S. until the California electricity crisis of the early 2000s, outages had indeed occurred previously. The outages were almost always triggered by unusually hot temperatures during the summer, which causes a surge in demand due to heavy use of air conditioning. However, in 2004, taped conversations of Enron traders became public showing that traders were purposely manipulating the supply of electricity, in order to raise energy prices.

On December 13, 2003, shortly before leaving office, Governor Gray Davis officially brought the energy crisis to an end by issuing a proclamation ending the state of emergency he declared on January 17, 2001. The state of emergency allowed the state to buy electricity for the financially strapped utility companies. The emergency authority allowed Davis to order the California Energy Commission to streamline the application process for new power plants. During that time, California issued licenses to 38 new power plants, amounting to 14,365 megawatts of electricity production when completed.

Rolling blackouts were again imposed in late August 2005 in Southern California due to the loss of a key transmission line; the transmission line shut itself off because of a faulty sensor.

Most of California is divided into 14 power grids, each containing approximately 7% of electricity customers in the state, creating a total of 98%. The remaining 2% are placed on a separate grid, where users such as hospitals and police stations are exempt from ever having their power deliberately cut off.

In a Stage 1 emergency only a general call for voluntary conservation is issued, while a Stage 2 emergency results in power being temporarily cut off to certain large users, primarily industrial concerns, who have agreed to this arrangement in exchange for lower rates. When a Stage 3 power emergency is declared, electricity to one of the grids is shut off for a fixed period of time, which can range from 60 minutes to 2½ hours. If after this period of time the Stage 3 emergency still exists, power is restored to this grid but then the next grid in the sequence is blacked out, and so on, until the situation is stabilized — the blackout thus "rolls" from one grid to the next.

In California, each customer's electric bill includes the number of the power grid (from 1 to 14) that customer belongs to; this gives customers at least some advance notice of when their electricity might be turned off in the event of a Stage 3 emergency. The grids are set up in such a manner as to ensure that a large percentage of customers in the same neighborhood would not be blacked out concurrently, which could invite looting and other related problems. Normal electricity customers can fall within the areas reserved for emergency use (if they are near a hospital or other critical infrastructure), in which case their electric bill will indicate a power grid of 99 and they will not be affected by rolling blackouts....

Tapes Show Enron Caused Rolling Blackouts in California

  Tapes Show Enron Arranged Plant Shutdown
  By Timothy Egan
  The New York Times

Friday 04 February 2005

EVERETT, Wash - In the midst of the California energy troubles in early 2001, when power plants were under a federal order to deliver a full output of electricity, the Enron Corporation arranged to take a plant off-line on the same day that California was hit by rolling blackouts, according to audiotapes of company traders released here on Thursday.

The tapes and memorandums were made public by a small public utility north of Seattle that is fighting Enron over a power contract. They also showed that Enron, as early as 1998, was creating artificial energy shortages and running up prices in Canada in advance of California's larger experiment with deregulation.

The tapes provide new details of market manipulation during the California energy crisis that produced blackouts and billions of dollars of surcharges to homes and businesses on the West Coast in 2000 and 2001.

In one January 2001 telephone tape of an Enron trader the public utility identified as Bill Williams and a Las Vegas energy official identified only as Rich, an agreement was made to shut down a power plant providing energy to California. The shutdown was set for an afternoon of peak energy demand.

"This is going to be a word-of-mouth kind of thing," Mr. Williams says on the tape. "We want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to go down." After agreeing to take the plant down, the Nevada official questioned the reason. "O.K., so we're just coming down for some maintenance, like a forced outage type of thing?" Rich asks. "And that's cool?"

"Hopefully," Mr. Williams says, before both men laugh.

The next day, Jan. 17, 2001, as the plant was taken out of service, the State of California called a power emergency, and rolling blackouts hit up to a half-million consumers, according to daily logs of the western power grid.

Officials with the Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington State, which released the tapes, said they believed Enron officials had taken similar measures with other power plants. This tape, they said, was proof of what was going on.

At the time, power plants in the greater West Coast grid were under a federal emergency order to keep their plants running.

A spokeswoman for Enron, Jennifer Lowney, would not comment on the tapes, citing a blanket policy of the energy trading company, which is operating under bankruptcy protection and facing multiple criminal and civil proceedings. "We continue to cooperate with all ongoing investigations," she said.

Conversations between energy traders and power plants were routinely recorded to give a record of transactions. The tapes were part of a large seizure of evidence by the F.B.I. The Snohomish County utility, which is in a court battle with Enron, obtained them through a legal action.

Previous tapes released by the district last summer showed Enron officials joking about how they were "stealing" more than a $1 million a day from California and fleecing "Grandma Millie" while bringing Enron record profits.

Other tapes released on Thursday showed Enron executives discussing their fear of going to jail for manipulating power markets in Canada and the United States. And memos showed that Enron practiced as early as 1998 to create artificial shortages and run up prices and extend the market manipulation to Canada.

Three former Enron traders have pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges of fraudulently manipulating the West Coast energy market. Enron's former chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, and former president, Jeffrey K. Skilling, are under federal indictment for fraud.

In cooperating with federal officials, West Coast traders have told how they devised schemes named "Death Star" and "Get Shorty" to make billions of dollars out of California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation.

But until the tapes were released on Thursday, there had been few public details of how Enron set in motion the phony power shortages.

Company officials had long denied that they illegally shut down plants to create artificial shortages. In March 2001 - two months after the recording showed how the Nevada plant was shut down- Mr. Lay called any claims of market manipulation "conspiracy theories."

Memos uncovered by Snohomish County also show that Enron rewarded midlevel executives based on their performance in manipulating the West Coast market.

The tapes and memos were filed this week with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as part of a broad investigation into how much money was lost by Enron market manipulation. Snohomish County is seeking to void a $122 million lawsuit by Enron over an energy contract the utility said was based on fraud.

NOVA | The Big Energy Gamble | PBS

2010-04-27T11:36:00.000-05:00

BBC News - Greek bonds rated 'junk' by Standard & Poor

2010-04-27T11:34:00.002-05:00

It Doesn't Matter Whether Goldman Was Long Or Short

9:22 am

April 27, 2010

By Jacob Goldstein
Did Goldman Sachs make money or lose money when the housing market collapsed? There's been a lot of hand waving about this question in the runup to today's Senate hearings on Goldman.
But the question is largely irrelevant.

Carl Levin, who chairs the subcommittee that's holding the hearings, says Goldman made money in 2007 from betting that housing prices would fall.
"Goldman Sachs made billions of dollars from betting against the housing market, and it placed those bets in some cases at the same time it was selling mortgage related securities to its clients," Levin said in a statement.
This overview from Goldman suggests the firm did make money from the housing market in 2007 -- then lost a lot of money in 2008, as the housing market continued to decline.
"During the two years of the financial crisis, while profitable overall, Goldman Sachs lost approximately $1.2 billion from our activities in the residential housing market," Lloyd Blankfein says in his testimony prepared for today's hearing.
It's possible that both men are right -- Goldman may have made a profit on its mortgage bets in 2007, then lost enough in 2008 to wipe out the previous year's profits.
But it doesn't really matter who's right.
Some of Goldman Sachs's clients were betting the housing market would rise in 2007 and 2008. Some were betting it would fall. Goldman itself made some bets that would pay off if the market rose, and others that would pay off if the market fell.
In a sense, a company like Goldman -- which is in the middle of all sorts of transactions, and is also making its own bets on the market -- is always betting in the same direction as some of its clients, and betting in the opposite direction as others.
Somehow, this seems to inspires less ire when Goldman takes a long position -- that is, when it bets that the market will go up. Suppose Goldman had been long the housing market during the entire crisis, and had clearly lost a lot of money. It seems unlikely that anyone would be saying that Goldman improperly "bet against" its clients that were short the housing market at the time.
So the key question isn't whether Goldman was net short or net long the housing market. It's whether the company told its clients everything it should have told them.

The issue of disclosure is at the center of the SEC's fraud lawsuit against Goldman. The SEC says Goldman wrongly failed to tell its clients about the role of a hedge fund that took a short position on a mortgage-related security. Goldman denies the charges.

Beyond the single transaction at issue in the SEC lawsuit, questions about what Goldman told its clients -- whether it told them the truth, and whether it kept secret facts it should have disclosed -- may ultimately be more important than whether the bank was short or long.

Taibbi: The Lunatics Who Made a Religion Out of Greed and Wrecked the Economy

By Matt Taibbi, The Guardian
Posted on April 26, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/

So Goldman Sachs, the world's greatest and smuggest investment bank, has been sued for fraud by the American Securities and Exchange Commission. Legally, the case hangs on a technicality.

Morally, however, the Goldman Sachs case may turn into a final referendum on the greed-is-good ethos that conquered America sometime in the 80s – and in the years since has aped other horrifying American trends such as boybands and reality shows in spreading across the western world like a venereal disease.

When Britain and other countries were engulfed in the flood of defaults and derivative losses that emerged from the collapse of the American housing bubble two years ago, few people understood that the crash had its roots in the lunatic greed-centered objectivist religion, fostered back in the 50s and 60s by ponderous emigre novelist Ayn Rand.

While, outside of America, Russian-born Rand is probably best known for being the unfunniest person western civilisation has seen since maybe Goebbels or Jack the Ripper (63 out of 100 colobus monkeys recently forced to read Atlas Shrugged in a laboratory setting died of boredom-induced aneurysms), in America Rand is upheld as an intellectual giant of limitless wisdom. Here in the States, her ideas are roundly worshipped even by people who've never read her books or even heard of her. The rightwing "Tea Party" movement is just one example of an entire demographic that has been inspired to mass protest by Rand without even knowing it.

Last summer I wrote a brutally negative article about Goldman Sachs for Rolling Stone magazine (I called the bank a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity") that unexpectedly sparked a heated national debate. On one side of the debate were people like me, who believed that Goldman is little better than a criminal enterprise that earns its billions by bilking the market, the government, and even its own clients in a bewildering variety of complex financial scams.

On the other side of the debate were the people who argued Goldman wasn't guilty of anything except being "too smart" and really, really good at making money. This side of the argument was based almost entirely on the Randian belief system, under which the leaders of Goldman Sachs appear not as the cheap swindlers they look like to me, but idealized heroes, the saviors of society.

In the Randian ethos, called objectivism, the only real morality is self-interest, and society is divided into groups who are efficiently self-interested (ie, the rich) and the "parasites" and "moochers" who wish to take their earnings through taxes, which are an unjust use of force in Randian politics. Rand believed government had virtually no natural role in society. She conceded that police were necessary, but was such a fervent believer in laissez-faire capitalism she refused to accept any need for economic regulation – which is a fancy way of saying we only need law enforcement for unsophisticated criminals.

Rand's fingerprints are all over the recent Goldman story. The case in question involves a hedge fund financier, John Paulson, who went to Goldman with the idea of a synthetic derivative package pegged to risky American mortgages, for use in betting against the mortgage market. Paulson would short the package, called Abacus, and Goldman would then sell the deal to suckers who would be told it was a good bet for a long investment. The SEC's contention is that Goldman committed a crime – a "failure to disclose" – when they failed to tell the suckers about the role played by the vulture betting against them on the other side of the deal.

Now, the instruments in question in this deal – collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps – fall into the category of derivatives, which are virtually unregulated in the US thanks in large part to the effort of gremlinish former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who as a young man was close to Rand and remained a staunch Randian his whole life. In the late 90s, Greenspan lobbied hard for the passage of a law that came to be called the Commodity Futures Modernisation Act of 2000, a monster of a bill that among other things deregulated the sort of interest-rate swaps Goldman used in its now-infamous dealings with Greece.

Both the Paulson deal and the Greece deal were examples of Goldman making millions by bending over their own business partners. In the Paulson deal the suckers were European banks such as ABN-Amro and IKB, which were never told that the stuff Goldman was cheerfully selling to them was, in effect, designed to implode; in the Greece deal, Goldman hilariously used exotic swaps to help the country mask its financial problems, then turned right around and bet against the country by shorting Greece's debt.

Now here's the really weird thing. Confronted with the evidence of public outrage over these deals, the leaders of Goldman will often appear to be genuinely confused, scratching their heads and staring quizzically into the camera like they don't know what you're upset about. It's not an act. There have been a lot of greedy financiers and banks in history, but what makes Goldman stand out is its truly bizarre cultist/religious belief in the rightness of what it does.

The point was driven home in England last year, when Goldman's international adviser, sounding exactly like a character in Atlas Shrugged, told an audience at St Paul's Cathedral that "The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest". A few weeks later, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein told the Times that he was doing "God's work".

Even if he stands to make a buck at it, even your average used-car salesman won't sell some working father a car with wobbly brakes, then buy life insurance policies on that customer and his kids. But this is done almost as a matter of routine in the financial services industry, where the attitude after the inevitable pileup would be that that family was dumb for getting into the car in the first place. Caveat emptor, dude!

People have to understand this Randian mindset is now ingrained in the American character. You have to live here to see it. There's a hatred toward "moochers" and "parasites" – the Tea Party movement, which is mainly a bunch of pissed off suburban white people whining about minorities consuming social services, describes the battle as being between "water-carriers" and "water-drinkers". And regulation of any kind is deeply resisted, even after a disaster as sweeping as the 2008 crash.

This debate is going to be crystallised in the Goldman case. Much of America is going to reflexively insist that Goldman's only crime was being smarter and better at making money than IKB and ABN-Amro, and that the intrusive, meddling government (in the American narrative, always the bad guy!) should get off Goldman's Armani-clad back. Another side is going to argue that Goldman winning this case would be a rebuke to the whole idea of civilisation – which, after all, is really just a collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even when we can. It's an important moment in the history of modern global capitalism: whether or not to move forward into a world of greed without limits.

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

The White Stripes- One More Cup of Coffee

2010-04-25T16:50:00.000-05:00

object width 425 height 344 > param NAME movie value http://www.youtube.com/v/DZfVbvSVUbw&hl en_US&fs 1 > /param> param NAME allowFullScreen value true > /param> param NAME allowscriptaccess value always > /param> embed src http://www.youtube.com/v/DZfVbvSVUbw&hl en_US&fs 1 type application/x-shockwave-flash width 425 height 344 allowscriptaccess always allowfullscreen true > /embed> /object>

2010-04-13T14:52:00.002-05:00

Why Working People Are Angry And Why Politicians Should Listen | | AlterNet

April 12, 2010 |

Remarks by AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka at the Institute of Politics, Harvard Kennedy School.

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32906678/looting_main_street

Rollingstone.com

Back to Looting Main Street

Looting Main Street

How the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities with the same predatory deals that brought down Greece

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Mar 31, 2010 8:15 AM

If you want to know what life in the Third World is like, just ask Lisa Pack, an administrative assistant who works in the roads and transportation department in Jefferson County, Alabama. Pack got rudely introduced to life in post-crisis America last August, when word came down that she and 1,000 of her fellow public employees would have to take a little unpaid vacation for a while. The county, it turned out, was more than $5 billion in debt — meaning that courthouses, jails and sheriff's precincts had to be closed so that Wall Street banks could be paid.
As public services in and around Birmingham were stripped to the bone, Pack struggled to support her family on a weekly unemployment check of $260. Nearly a fourth of that went to pay for her health insurance, which the county no longer covered. She also fielded calls from laid-off co-workers who had it even tougher. "I'd be on the phone sometimes until two in the morning," she says. "I had to talk more than one person out of suicide. For some of the men supporting families, it was so hard — foreclosure, bankruptcy. I'd go to bed at night, and I'd be in tears."
Homes stood empty, businesses were boarded up, and parts of already-blighted Birmingham began to take on the feel of a ghost town. There were also a few bills that were unique to the area — like the $64 sewer bill that Pack and her family paid each month. "Yeah, it went up about 400 percent just over the past few years," she says.
The sewer bill, in fact, is what cost Pack and her co-workers their jobs. In 1996, the average monthly sewer bill for a family of four in Birmingham was only $14.71 — but that was before the county decided to build an elaborate new sewer system with the help of out-of-state financial wizards with names like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. The result was a monstrous pile of borrowed money that the county used to build, in essence, the world's grandest toilet — "the Taj Mahal of sewer-treatment plants" is how one county worker put it. What happened here in Jefferson County would turn out to be the perfect metaphor for the peculiar alchemy of modern oligarchical capitalism: A mob of corrupt local officials and morally absent financiers got together to build a giant device that converted human shit into billions of dollars of profit for Wall Street — and misery for people like Lisa Pack.

And once the giant shit machine was built and the note on all that fancy construction started to come due, Wall Street came back to the local politicians and doubled down on the scam. They showed up in droves to help the poor, broke citizens of Jefferson County cut their toilet finance charges using a blizzard of incomprehensible swaps and refinance schemes — schemes that only served to postpone the repayment date a year or two while sinking the county deeper into debt. In the end, every time Jefferson County so much as breathed near one of the banks, it got charged millions in fees. There was so much money to be made bilking these dizzy Southerners that banks like JP Morgan spent millions paying middlemen who bribed — yes, that's right, bribed, criminally bribed — the county commissioners and their buddies just to keep their business. Hell, the money was so good, JP Morgan at one point even paid Goldman Sachs $3 million just to back the fuck off, so they could have the rubes of Jefferson County to fleece all for themselves.
Birmingham became the poster child for a new kind of giant-scale financial fraud, one that would threaten the financial stability not only of cities and counties all across America, but even those of entire countries like Greece. While for many Americans the financial crisis remains an abstraction, a confusing mess of complex transactions that took place on a cloud high above Manhattan sometime in the mid-2000s, in Jefferson County you can actually see the rank criminality of the crisis economy with your own eyes; the monster sticks his head all the way out of the water. Here you can see a trail that leads directly from a billion-dollar predatory swap deal cooked up at the highest levels of America's biggest banks, across a vast fruited plain of bribes and felonies — "the price of doing business," as one JP Morgan banker says on tape — all the way down to Lisa Pack's sewer bill and the mass layoffs in Birmingham.
Once you follow that trail and understand what took place in Jefferson County, there's really no room left for illusions. We live in a gangster state, and our days of laughing at other countries are over. It's our turn to get laughed at. In Birmingham, lots of people have gone to jail for the crime: More than 20 local officials and businessmen have been convicted of corruption in federal court. Last October, right around the time that Lisa Pack went back to work at reduced hours, Birmingham's mayor was convicted of fraud and money-laundering for taking bribes funneled to him by Wall Street bankers — everything from Rolex watches to Ferragamo suits to cash. But those who greenlighted the bribes and profited most from the scam remain largely untouched. "It never gets back to JP Morgan," says Pack.
If you want to get all Glenn Beck about it, you could lay the blame for this entire mess at the feet of weepy, tree-hugging environmentalists. It all started with the Cahaba River, the longest free-flowing river in the state of Alabama. The tributary, which winds its way through Birmingham before turning diagonally to empty out near Selma, is home to more types of fish per mile than any other river in America and shelters 64 rare and imperiled species of plants and animals. It's also the source of one of the worst municipal financial disasters in American history.
Back in the early 1990s, the county's sewer system was so antiquated that it was leaking raw sewage directly into the Cahaba, which also supplies the area with its drinking water. Joined by well — intentioned citizens from the Cahaba River Society, the EPA sued the county to force it to comply with the Clean Water Act. In 1996, county commissioners signed a now-infamous consent decree agreeing not just to fix the leaky pipes but to eliminate all sewer overflows — a near-impossible standard that required the county to build the most elaborate, ecofriendly, expensive sewer system in the history of the universe. It was like ordering a small town in Florida that gets a snowstorm once every five years to build a billion-dollar fleet of snowplows.

The original cost estimates for the new sewer system were as low as $250 million. But in a wondrous demonstration of the possibilities of small-town graft and contract-padding, the price tag quickly swelled to more than $3 billion. County commissioners were literally pocketing wads of cash from builders and engineers and other contractors eager to get in on the project, while the county was forced to borrow obscene sums to pay for the rapidly spiraling costs. Jefferson County, in effect, became one giant, TV-stealing, unemployed drug addict who borrowed a million dollars to buy the mother of all McMansions — and just as it did during the housing bubble, Wall Street made a business of keeping the crook in his house. As one county commissioner put it, "We're like a guy making $50,000 a year with a million-dollar mortgage."
To reassure lenders that the county would pay its mortgage, commissioners gave the finance director — an unelected official appointed by the president of the commission — the power to automatically raise sewer rates to meet payments on the debt. The move brought in billions in financing, but it also painted commissioners into a corner. If costs continued to rise — and with practically every contractor in Alabama sticking his fingers on the scale, they were rising fast — officials would be faced with automatic rate increases that would piss off their voters. (By 2003, annual interest on the sewer deal had reached $90 million.) So the commission reached out to Wall Street, looking for creative financing tools that would allow it to reduce the county's staggering debt payments.
Wall Street was happy to help. First, it employed the same trick it used to fuel the housing crisis: It switched the county from a fixed rate on the bonds it had issued to finance the sewer deal to an adjustable rate. The refinancing meant lower interest payments for a couple of years — followed by the risk of even larger payments down the road. The move enabled county commissioners to postpone the problem for an election season or two, kicking it to a group of future commissioners who would inevitably have to pay the real freight.
But then Wall Street got really creative. Having switched the county to a variable interest rate, it offered commissioners a crazy deal: For an extra fee, the banks said, we'll allow you to keep paying a fixed rate on your debt to us. In return, we'll give you a variable amount each month that you can use to pay off all that variable-rate interest you owe to bondholders.
In financial terms, this is known as a synthetic rate swap — the spidery creature you might have read about playing a role in bringing down places like Greece and Milan. On paper, it made sense: The county got the stability of a fixed rate, while paying Wall Street to assume the risk of the variable rates on its bonds. That's the synthetic part. The trouble lies in the rate swap. The deal only works if the two variable rates — the one you get from the bank, and the one you owe to bondholders — actually match. It's like gambling on the weather. If your bondholders are expecting you to pay an interest rate based on the average temperature in Alabama, you don't do a rate swap with a bank that gives you back a rate pegged to the temperature in Nome, Alaska.
Not unless you're a fucking moron. Or your banker is JP Morgan.
In a small office in a federal building in downtown Birmingham, just blocks from where civil rights demonstrators shut down the city in 1963, Assistant U.S. Attorney George Martin points out the window. He's pointing in the direction of the Tutwiler Hotel, once home to one of the grandest ballrooms in the South but now part of the Hampton Inn chain.
"It was right around the corner here, at the hotel," Martin says. "That's where they met — that's where this all started."

They means Charles LeCroy and Bill Blount, the two principals in what would become the most important of all the corruption cases in Jefferson County. LeCroy was a banker for JP Morgan, serving as managing director of the bank's southeast regional office. Blount was an Alabama wheeler-dealer with close friends on the county commission. For years, when Wall Street banks wanted to do business with municipalities, whether for bond issues or rate swaps, it was standard practice to reach out to a local sleazeball like Blount and pay him a shitload of money to help seal the deal. "Banks would pay some local consultant, and the consultant would then funnel money to the politician making the decision," says Christopher Taylor, the former head of the board that regulates municipal borrowing. Back in the 1990s, Taylor pushed through a ban on such backdoor bribery. He also passed a ban on bankers contributing directly to politicians they do business with — a move that sparked a lawsuit by one aggrieved sleazeball, who argued that halting such legalized graft violated his First Amendment rights. The name of that pissed-off banker? "It was the one and only Bill Blount," Taylor says with a laugh.
Blount is a stocky, stubby-fingered Southerner with glasses and a pale, pinched face — if Norman Rockwell had ever done a painting titled "Small-Town Accountant Taking Enormous Dump," it would look just like Blount. LeCroy, his sugar daddy at JP Morgan, is a tall, bloodless, crisply dressed corporate operator with a shiny bald head and silver side patches — a cross between Skeletor and Michael Stipe.
The scheme they operated went something like this: LeCroy paid Blount millions of dollars, and Blount turned around and used the money to buy lavish gifts for his close friend Larry Langford, the now-convicted Birmingham mayor who at the time had just been elected president of the county commission. (At one point Blount took Langford on a shopping spree in New York, putting $3,290 worth of clothes from Zegna on his credit card.) Langford then signed off on one after another of the deadly swap deals being pushed by LeCroy. Every time the county refinanced its sewer debt, JP Morgan made millions of dollars in fees. Even more lucrative, each of the swap contracts contained clauses that mandated all sorts of penalties and payments in the event that something went wrong with the deal. In the mortgage business, this process is known as churning: You keep coming back over and over to refinance, and they keep "churning" you for more and more fees. "The transactions were complex, but the scheme was simple," said Robert Khuzami, director of enforcement for the SEC. "Senior JP Morgan bankers made unlawful payments to win business and earn fees."
Given the shitload of money to be made on the refinancing deals, JP Morgan was prepared to pay whatever it took to buy off officials in Jefferson County. In 2002, during a conversation recorded in Nixonian fashion by JP Morgan itself, LeCroy bragged that he had agreed to funnel payoff money to a pair of local companies to secure the votes of two county commissioners. "Look," the commissioners told him, "if we support the synthetic refunding, you guys have to take care of our two firms." LeCroy didn't blink. "Whatever you want," he told them. "If that's what you need, that's what you get. Just tell us how much."
Just tell us how much. That sums up the approach that JP Morgan took a few months later, when Langford announced that his good buddy Bill Blount would henceforth be involved with every financing transaction for Jefferson County. From JP Morgan's point of view, the decision to pay off Blount was a no-brainer. But the bank had one small problem: Goldman Sachs had already crawled up Blount's trouser leg, and the broker was advising Langford to pick them as Jefferson County's investment bank.
The solution they came up with was an extraordinary one: JP Morgan cut a separate deal with Goldman, paying the bank $3 million to fuck off, with Blount taking a $300,000 cut of the side deal. Suddenly Goldman was out and JP Morgan was sitting in Langford's lap. In another conversation caught on tape, LeCroy joked that the deal was his "philanthropic work," since the payoff amounted to a "charitable donation to Goldman Sachs" in return for "taking no risk."
That such a blatant violation of anti-trust laws took place and neither JP Morgan nor Goldman have been prosecuted for it is yet another mystery of the current financial crisis. "This is an open-and-shut case of anti-competitive behavior," says Taylor, the former regulator.
With Goldman out of the way, JP Morgan won the right to do a $1.1 billion bond offering — switching Jefferson County out of fixed-rate debt into variable-rate debt — and also did a corresponding $1.1 billion deal for a synthetic rate swap. The very same day the transaction was concluded, in May 2003, LeCroy had dinner with Langford and struck a deal to do yet another bond-and-swap transaction of roughly the same size. This time, the terms of the payoff were spelled out more explicitly. In a hilarious phone call between LeCroy and Douglas MacFaddin, another JP Morgan official, the two bankers groaned aloud about how much it was going to cost to satisfy Blount:

LeCroy: I said, "Commissioner Langford, I'll do that because that's your suggestion, but you gotta help us keep him under control. Because when you give that guy a hand, he takes your arm." You know?
MacFaddin: [Laughing] Yeah, you end up in the wood-chipper.
All told, JP Morgan ended up paying Blount nearly $3 million for "performing no known services," in the words of the SEC. In at least one of the deals, Blount made upward of 15 percent of JP Morgan's entire fee. When I ask Taylor what a legitimate consultant might earn in such a circumstance, he laughs. "What's a 'legitimate consultant' in a case like this? He made this money for doing jack shit."
As the tapes of LeCroy's calls show, even officials at JP Morgan were incredulous at the money being funneled to Blount. "How does he get 15 percent?" one associate at the bank asks LeCroy. "For doing what? For not messing with us?"
"Not messing with us," LeCroy agrees. "It's a lot of money, but in the end, it's worth it on a billion-dollar deal."
That's putting it mildly: The deals wound up being the largest swap agreements in JP Morgan's history. Making matters worse, the payoffs didn't even wind up costing the bank a dime. As the SEC explained in a statement on the scam, JP Morgan "passed on the cost of the unlawful payments by charging the county higher interest rates on the swap transactions." In other words, not only did the bank bribe local politicians to take the sucky deal, they got local taxpayers to pay for the bribes. And because Jefferson County had no idea what kind of deal it was getting on the swaps, JP Morgan could basically charge whatever it wanted. According to an analysis of the swap deals commissioned by the county in 2007, taxpayers had been overcharged at least $93 million on the transactions.
JP Morgan was far from alone in the scam: Virtually everyone doing business in Jefferson County was on the take. Four of the nation's top investment banks, the very cream of American finance, were involved in one way or another with payoffs to Blount in their scramble to do business with the county. In addition to JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns paid Langford's bagman $2.4 million, while Lehman Brothers got off cheap with a $35,000 "arranger's fee." At least a dozen of the county's contractors were also cashing in, along with many of the county commissioners. "If you go into the county courthouse," says Michael Morrison, a planner who works for the county, "there's a gallery of past commissioners on the wall. On the top row, every single one of 'em but two has been investigated, indicted or convicted. It's a joke."
The crazy thing is that such arrangements — where some local scoundrel gets a massive fee for doing nothing but greasing the wheels with elected officials — have been taking place all over the country. In Illinois, during the Upper Volta-esque era of Rod Blagojevich, a Republican political consultant named Robert Kjellander got 10 percent of the entire fee Bear Stearns earned doing a bond sale for the state pension fund. At the start of Obama's term, Bill Richardson's Cabinet appointment was derailed for a similar scheme when he was governor of New Mexico. Indeed, one reason that officials in Jefferson County didn't know that the swaps they were signing off on were shitty was because their adviser on the deals was a firm called CDR Financial Products, which is now accused of conspiring to overcharge dozens of cities in swap transactions. According to a federal antitrust lawsuit, CDR is basically a big-league version of Bill Blount — banks tossed money at the firm, which in turn advised local politicians that they were getting a good deal. "It was basically, you pay CDR, and CDR helps push the deal through," says Taylor.
In the end, though, all this bribery and graft was just the table-setter for the real disaster. In taking all those bribes and signing on to all those swaps, the commissioners in Jefferson County had basically started the clock on a financial time bomb that, sooner or later, had to explode. By continually refinancing to keep the county in its giant McMansion, the commission had managed to push into the future that inevitable day when the real bill would arrive in the mail. But that's where the mortgage analogy ends — because in one key area, a swap deal differs from a home mortgage. Imagine a mortgage that you have to keep on paying even after you sell your house. That's basically how a swap deal works. And Jefferson County had done 23 of them. At one point, they had more outstanding swaps than New York City.

Judgment Day was coming — just like it was for the Delaware River Port Authority, the Pennsylvania school system, the cities of Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Los Angeles, the states of Connecticut and Mississippi, the city of Milan and nearly 500 other municipalities in Italy, the country of Greece, and God knows who else. All of these places are now reeling under the weight of similarly elaborate and ill-advised swaps — and if what happened in Jefferson County is any guide, hoo boy. Because when the shit hit the fan in Birmingham, it really hit the fan.
For Jefferson County, the deal blew up in early 2008, when a dizzying array of penalties and other fine-print poison worked into the swap contracts started to kick in. The trouble began with the housing crash, which took down the insurance companies that had underwritten the county's bonds. That rendered the county's insurance worthless, triggering clauses in its swap contracts that required it to pay off more than $800 million of its debt in only four years, rather than 40. That, in turn, scared off private lenders, who were no longer interested in bidding on the county's bonds. The banks were forced to make up the difference — a service for which they charged enormous penalties. It was as if the county had missed a payment on its credit card and woke up the next morning to find its annual percentage rate jacked up to a million percent. Between 2008 and 2009, the annual payment on Jefferson County's debt jumped from $53 million to a whopping $636 million.
It gets worse. Remember the swap deal that Jefferson County did with JP Morgan, how the variable rates it got from the bank were supposed to match those it owed its bondholders? Well, they didn't. Most of the payments the county was receiving from JP Morgan were based on one set of interest rates (the London Interbank Exchange Rate), while the payments it owed to its bondholders followed a different set of rates (a municipal-bond index). Jefferson County was suddenly getting far less from JP Morgan, and owing tons more to bondholders. In other words, the bank and Bill Blount made tens of millions of dollars selling deals to local politicians that were not only completely defective, but blew the entire county to smithereens.
And here's the kicker. Last year, when Jefferson County, staggered by the weight of its penalties, was unable to make its swap payments to JP Morgan, the bank canceled the deal. That triggered one-time "termination fees" of — yes, you read this right — $647 million. That was money the county would owe no matter what happened with the rest of its debt, even if bondholders decided to forgive and forget every dime the county had borrowed. It was like the herpes simplex of loans — debt that does not go away, ever, for as long as you live. On a sewer project that was originally supposed to cost $250 million, the county now owed a total of $1.28 billion just in interest and fees on the debt. Imagine paying $250,000 a year on a car you purchased for $50,000, and that's roughly where Jefferson County stood at the end of last year.
Last November, the SEC charged JP Morgan with fraud and canceled the $647 million in termination fees. The bank agreed to pay a $25 million fine and fork over $50 million to assist displaced workers in Jefferson County. So far, the county has managed to avoid bankruptcy, but the sewer fiasco had downgraded its credit rating, triggering payments on other outstanding loans and pushing Birmingham toward the status of an African debtor state. For the next generation, the county will be in a constant fight to collect enough taxes just to pay off its debt, which now totals $4,800 per resident.
The city of Birmingham was founded in 1871, at the dawn of the Southern industrial boom, for the express purpose of attracting Northern capital — it was even named after a famous British steel town to burnish its entrepreneurial cred. There's a gruesome irony in it now lying sacked and looted by financial vandals from the North. The destruction of Jefferson County reveals the basic battle plan of these modern barbarians, the way that banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have systematically set out to pillage towns and cities from Pittsburgh to Athens. These guys aren't number-crunching whizzes making smart investments; what they do is find suckers in some municipal-finance department, corner them in complex lose-lose deals and flay them alive. In a complete subversion of free-market principles, they take no risk, score deals based on political influence rather than competition, keep consumers in the dark — and walk away with big money. "It's not high finance," says Taylor, the former bond regulator. "It's low finance." And even if the regulators manage to catch up with them billions of dollars later, the banks just pay a small fine and move on to the next scam. This isn't capitalism. It's nomadic thievery.
[From Issue 1102 — April 15, 2010]
More by Matt Taibbi:

"Tax reform means, 'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'" -- Russell Long

2010-04-13T13:54:00.003-05:00

Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beyond April 15: What You Should Know About Taxes

As you race to get your 2009 federal income tax return in the mail, take a moment to consider the tax landscape. It's changing, especially for senior citizens, and it's not too early to start planning for it.
No matter how you slice it, taxes are probably headed higher, if not this year then next year for certain. The income tax reductions enacted in 2001, often referred to as the "Bush tax cuts," are set to expire at the end of this year. It's possible Congress could vote to extend them for a year or two, but unless the economy slides back into a recession, few analysts expect that.
That means starting next January chances are you will move into a higher tax bracket, even if you're not making any more money. In most cases, you can expect more money to be withheld from each paycheck.
Currently, the top tax brackets are 35 percent and 33 percent. These are the rates paid on income by the wealthiest Americans. When the tax cuts expire, the top tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent.
There are bigger changes farther down the tax table. The tax cut law added two extra tax brackets; a 25 percent bracket and a 10 percent bracket. When the law expires, the 25 percent bracket reverts to 28 percent while the 10 percent bracket moves up to 15 percent - the largest increase of all.
Also set to expire are some reductions in taxes on investment income.

Deduction limits?
In addition, President Obama has floated the idea of limiting some deductions claimed by upper income tax payers. For example, the administration has suggested limiting the value of top earners' itemized deductions to 28 percent.
Even though they would be paying 39.6 cents of every taxable dollar in taxes, deductions would only save 28 percent of every taxable dollar. At the same time the Administration has also suggested limiting the value of the current mortgage interest deduction.
Should you be worried about that? Probably not, at least not right away. Those changes would require action by Congress, which is unlikely in an election year, if at all. Also, the impact falls only on those in the top tax bracket.
Are there any taxes you should plan for in the short term? Yes, if you're a high wage earner. The just-passed health-care bill contained a couple of increases in Medicare payroll taxes for higher-income taxpayers. Analysts at Deloitte say those provisions would cost about $2,250 for a family with income of $500,000.
For retirees, the Medicare Part B premium, which is deducted from Social Security checks, has gone up. The cost this year is $2,652 for a married couple, up almost 17 percent from the $2,270 cost last year. Those in the upper income brackets will pay even more.
If you retired this year, don't forget you'll be taxed on 85 percent of your Social Security benefits. You will likely need to make quarterly estimated payments to avoid owing additional taxes, and possibly penalties, at the end of the year.

Roth conversions
One of the biggest tax changes of 2010 is the ability of all income groups to have a Roth Individual Retirement Account. In the past, upper income groups could not participate.
The difference in a Roth and traditional IRA is simple. In a traditional IRA, contributions are tax deductible each year, the money grows without a yearly tax event, and the account holder then pays taxes as she withdrawals the money.
With a Roth account, the contributions are not tax deductible but withdrawals are. This is a significant advantage if you expect to remain in a high tax bracket during much of your retirement years. However, to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth, the account holder must pay taxes on the current value of the account, which can be a significant hit.
The Estate Tax was repealed for 2010, meaning there is no tax this year on any sized estate. However, the tax is scheduled to return next year, taxing any estate over $1 million in value. The tax rate would also go up significantly. Congress is expected to take action before that happens and may set the limit a bit higher.
In 2007, federal, state and local taxes claimed about $3.8 trillion, or 27 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. That's nearly $13,000 for every American. Two-thirds of tax revenues went to the federal government.
It may sound like a lot, but taxpayers in other developed countries pay even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world's richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than the US. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the US does.
Americans do pay far more in individual income taxes than residents of other wealthy nations. Nearly 37 percent of U.S. tax revenue came from personal income taxes in 2006, about 10 percentage points more, on average, than in other industrialized countries. But Americans pay much less in sales taxes; 17 percent of 2006 U.S. tax receipts were from taxes on goods and services, or about half the 32 percent average for rich countries.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...For 2008, the employee's share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324.00 in tax). For 2009, the employee's share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum tax of $6,621.60).^[6] This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The employee's share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages with no limit. The employer is also liable for separate 6.2% and 1.45% Social Security and Medicare taxes, respectively, making the total Social Security tax 12.4% and the total Medicare tax 2.9% of wages. (Self-employed people are responsible for the entire FICA percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% + 2.9%), since they are both the employer and the employed; however, see the section on self-employed people for more details.)....

...

Social Security regressivity debate
The Social Security component of the FICA tax has been called regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.^[11] The Social Security component is actually a flat tax for wage levels under the Social Security Wage Base (see "Regular" employees above). But since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the tax rate effectively declines as wages increase beyond that limit. In other words, for wage levels above the limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant; since this number (the numerator) remains constant while the wage level (the denominator) increases, the effective tax rate steadily decreases as wage levels increase beyond the Wage Base limit.
FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets.
Some argue that since Social Security benefits are eventually returned to taxpayers, with interest, in the form of Social Security benefits, the regressiveness of the tax is effectively negated—i.e., the taxpayer gets back what he or she put into the Social Security system. Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, argue that the Social Security system as a whole is progressive-- i.e., individuals with lower lifetime average wages receive a larger benefit (as a percentage of their lifetime average wage income) than do individuals with higher lifetime average wages.^[12] ^[13]....

2010-04-13T13:48:00.001-05:00

Report: Palin has raked in $12 million since July | Raw Story

java

back again--jeez things haven't changed much around here, have they?

asset or liability?

Table of contents

Why He Matters

At a Glance

Path to Power

Clinton White House

2002 House Election

House Democratic Leadership

Blagojevich Controversy

The Issues

The Economy

Health Care

The Network

Endnotes

Footnotes

Table of contents

Progressives’ anger grows against White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

enough already

Newsman No Longer Has Confidence In Authenticity Of Bush Guard Documents

From SourceWatch

Contents

The Controversy: Nightline's The Fallen

Blatant Partisan Politics

About Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

Commentary

Fallout

SourceWatch Resources

External links

Image

Building islands may seem like a simple way to protect Louisiana's shores, but critics say it's too simple.

now you tell me....

shit son, we clicked "okay"...

The hacker speaks

This is a fight Sony can't win

Protecting Power.

Related NPR Stories

Blank Slate

Whose taxes will increase because of the new law? How do the tax penalties work? Will the IRS be involved? What is the 'Cadillac tax'?....

Senate Forecast Update: Little Chance of GOP Takeover, but Dem Position Remains Precarious

Posted: April 29, 2010

When Michigan met Wall St.

Sophisticated sales resistance

Spill, Baby, SPILL!

President allows oil and gas exploration off several coastal areas to horsetrade with Republicans over climate change bills

The Surprising Reason Why Americans Are So Lonely, and Why Future Prosperity Means Socializing with Your Neighbors

By Bill McKibben, Henry Holt Posted on April 27, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/146623/

© 2010 Henry Holt All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146623/

rolling blackouts push california toward energy indepenence...should other states follow?

Taibbi: The Lunatics Who Made a Religion Out of Greed and Wrecked the Economy

By Matt Taibbi, The Guardian Posted on April 26, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/

© 2010 The Guardian All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/

The White Stripes- One More Cup of Coffee

Looting Main Street

How the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities with the same predatory deals that brought down Greece

"Tax reform means, 'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'" -- Russell Long

Beyond April 15: What You Should Know About Taxes

Deduction limits?

Roth conversions

Social Security regressivity debate

By Bill McKibben, Henry Holt
Posted on April 27, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146623/

© 2010 Henry Holt All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146623/

By Matt Taibbi, The Guardian
Posted on April 26, 2010, Printed on April 27, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/

© 2010 The Guardian All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/