My Friend Cynthia is a Bad Ass

I met Cynthia in the Hall of Languages at Syracuse University during my Freshman year while waiting for a music appreciation class in which we were both enrolled. Despite my complete lack of "game," I struck up a conversation with the tall, attractive Asian woman and was completely floored when she started speaking with this very upper crust, very proper British accent. We carried on conversations before and after class and somehow I got her phone number and a suggestion of a movie or dinner.

I called her up and set up the date. She wanted to see "Pretty Woman"; I wanted to see "Drugstore Cowboy" (did I mention that I had no game - nothing says great first date than a movie about junkies who rob drug stores which has as a main actor the author and notorious junkie William S. Burroughs). I reluctantly agreed on "Pretty Woman."

I arrived at her off campus house and was greeted at the door by one of her roommates who was clad in what I can best describe as a black negligee which struck me as a little odd. Before we left, Cynthia sat down and had what I took as a very odd look on her face. She said she needed to talk with me before we left. The conversation went something like this:

CYNTHIA: I need to talk to you about something.

ME: OK

CYNTHIA: You know, this is a very gay house?

ME: Um, OK. I thought your roommate was interesting, but um, OK.

CYNTHIA: Yeah, there's only one straight person who lives here, do you know who that is?

ME: Wild guess, you?

CYNTHIA: No.

ME: Oh.

CYNTHIA: Do you still want to go to the movie?

ME: Sure. Talk about no pressure on a date!

The movie pretty much sucked, but we had fun. Although I did not get a girlfriend, I did get a great friendship with someone who would become one of my best friends throughout college.

They say that friends help you move and best friends help you move the body. Well, there were no bodies, but I did help Cynthia move on three occasions. So, she was a pretty big deal to me, obviously.

The first of these moves was from the house where I met her to another apartment a little further off campus. She offered to let me be her roommate, and part of me really wishes that I had accepted, but I had already agreed to move to another house nearby and I didn't want to break my word. It's probably for the best, since I was not a very good roommate (hell I was barely housebroken) and it probably would have done severe damage to our friendship had I moved in.

After making what seemed to be endless trips back and forth between the two locations and moving a very large and very uncomfortable couch up a windy flight of stairs, Cynthia offered to treat me to pizza and beer as my reward for helping her move. It was here that I learned that my friend was in fact a bad ass.

We picked up some pizza from the local pizzeria. We then went to the nearby Wegman's supermarket and she bought a six pack of Sopporro Dry (which actually is pretty damn good beer). Since I was the innocent age of 19, I sat by the door of the supermarket while Cynthia made the purchase. I noticed a commotion between Cynthia and the cashier and inquired as to what was going on.

Here's how it transpired. Cynthia, a native of Hong Kong, produced her Hong Kong drivers' license, which did not for some reason contain a photo. She supplemented this with her Student ID which did contain a photograph. The cashier stated politely that he could not accept the Hong Kong drivers' license as it did not have her photograph and the SU ID did not have a birth date. Cynthia became outraged. How dare this little man who was nothing but a glorified bag boy not accept what was a legal document simply because it came from another country? She demanded in no uncertain terms to see the manager of the establishment. The manager came out, inspected the documents, noted the outrage and offense of my friend and not only allowed her to purchase the six pack, but apologized profusely for the store's mistake and gave her the beer without charge.

As we were leaving I noticed a bit of a sly smile on Cynthia's face. I commiserated with her as to how outrageous the incident was and that I couldn't believe that the cashier wouldn't accept her drivers' license. It was then that Cynthia told me that the drivers' license was fake and that she was actually only 20.

I was dumbfounded. I mean seriously, how many of us when confronted with the situation where we were in fact busted would not only not accept that fact, but would up the ante so much that not only would we escape the situation, but escape the situation not only with the beer in hand, but the beer in hand for free! I was in complete and utter awe.

Like I said - 100% BAD ASS!!!!!!!!!

We Are All Well and Truly F***ed

Yeah, sorry to rain on your Christmas parade, but I simply couldn't ignore the ongoing war against our rights and liberties which is being waged by our Congress which was elected ostensibly to protect those same rights. This began in earnest following 9/11 (of course there have always been those in power that are threatened by the rights recognized by our Founders, but it has gone into overdrive since then) first with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Safety Administration and the Patriot Act. Little by little, the rights grab by the government has grown larger and larger and larger.

We really didn't notice as our rights were nibbled away. We were willing to take our shoes off or consent to searches with no reasonable suspicion because we were in shock following the attacks of the WTC and the Pentagon. But this, of course, was just the beginning. The Patriot Act's authorization of warrantless searches and seizures, the extra-judicial detention of "enemy combatants", the prosecution of two undeclared wars, the use of tactics such as "extraordinary rendition" whereby suspected terrorists were swept off the streets and shipped to other countries wherein they were tortured and held indefinitely, the use of torture by our own government -- all of this was seen by us as necessary for the prosecution of terrorists, for the defense of the Homeland, for all of our safety.

With the election of Barack Obama, many of us looked forward to a return of the rule of law and the re-establishment of our Constitution as a guide for our actions. However, the Obama administration has doubled down on the previous administration's erosion of our rights in the name of security. The use of assassination, including that of American citizens in foreign territories, the use of unmanned drones to carry out our wars, the expansion of the goals and boundaries of our military forays, the re-institution, expansion and re-authorization of the Patriot Act have all led  to a continuation of the deterioration of our rights and freedoms as American citizens.

Now, the battle is coming home.

The United States Senate, in a completely bi-partisan effort, has passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. You can read the act here. For the most part, this is a purely mundane bill which funds our military and its various missions throughout the world. It is in essence the military's budget for the Fiscal Year 2012.

However, the bill contains provisions, co-sponsored by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) which authorize the detention by the U.S. Military of any "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." (emphasis added)

What this provision does is give the United States military the ability to detain any American citizen that it deems to be a "terrorist" indefinitely without charge and without trial even if they are on American soil and every act they have allegedly committed has occurred on American soil.

Now, many may argue that this only deals with people that are actively carrying out the mission of Al Qaeda and are therefore enemies of the State and not entitled to the protections of our Constitution. To that, I ask, "Who decides that?" Under this law, the decision would be made by the President and the Military. Period. No review. No attorney. No judge. No jury. We whisk you away and that is it.

These are the things we used to read about in Banana Republics in Central and South America who had death squads and dictators. We heard about the marches of the Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina or the victims of the brutal Pinochet regime in Chile. Tales were told of African juntas who would just sweep their enemies off the street never to be heard from again.

The Tea Party was right. Our  freedoms are under assault by the very government that was elected to uphold those freedoms. Now, we may disagree on the level of imposition or legality that the Health Care law's requirement of purchasing of health insurance, but I would hope that we agree that the detaining of U.S. citizens without charge or trial based on the decision ultimately of one individual that they are a "terrorist" or have "committed a belligerent act" in aid of a terrorist is beyond the powers proscribed to the Federal government by our Constitution.

There was an amendment offered by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens under the Act. It was defeated garnering only 38 votes. A later amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was passed 99-1 but all this amendment stated was that "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This amendment passed because a majority of Senators believe that the President already has the power to detain U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil indefinitely without charge or trial.

There is a passage in the law which has been quoted by many who claim that the Act doesn't apply to U.S. Citizens or legal resident aliens. Section 1032(b)(1) of the law states "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Section 1032(b)(2) contains similar language in regard to Lawful Resident Aliens for actions committed within the United States. However, this language only applies to the requirement that those held under this act be held in Military custody. Section 1032(a) requires that any non-Citizen be held in military custody. The language in 1032(b) only says that Military custody is not required for U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens, it in no way forbids it. In fact, the clear language of the Act endorses the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge by the military, even for acts committed within the United States.

The bill ultimately passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7. The only Senators who ultimately stood against this greatest power grab by the Federal Government imaginable and voted against this grossly unconstitutional bill were the following: Tom Harkin (D-IA); Rand Paul (R-KY); Tom Coburn (R-OK); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Bernie Sanders (I-VT); and Mike Lee (R-UT). I give immense credit to the three Tea Party stalwarts in the Republican party, Rand Paul, Tom Coburn and Mike Lee who had the courage to vote against re-authorizing funds for our military over this language. They deserve a lot of credit for this and have shown that they are men of principal when it comes to standing up for the values on which they campaigned.

There are many noted Tea Partiers who despite their assertions that they are against the expanding power of the Federal government and claim support of the Constitution who voted in favor of the bill, namely: Jim DeMint (R-SC); Kelly Ayotte (R-NH); Scott Brown (R-MA); Charles Grassley (R-IA); and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Along with these, you can throw in EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR OTHER THAN THE THREE MENTIONED ABOVE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT! Is there any wonder that I refuse to call myself a Democrat and am growing increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party in general?

Ultimately this issue will end up being resolved by the Courts, and I have little faith left that our Courts will do the right thing by our Constitution. However, there are several Constitutional arguments which would show that this Act is ultimately unconstitutional and I would like to look at those briefly.

First, there is an argument which has been made that this bill amounts to a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited by Article I, section 9, subsection 3 of the Constitution. Bills of Attainder are laws which declare the guilt and punishment of a person or group of persons. This argument certainly does deny access to the courts to contest one's guilt. Whether this act does in fact amount to a Bill of Attainder or not, it is unlikely that the Court will decide the Constitutionality of this bill on this issue.

Second, this bill violates the Constitution's prohibition against suspension of Habeas Corpus. Article I, Section 9, subsection 2 states "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It's hard to see how this bill would not violate this section. The proponents of the bill argue that under the laws of war that the individuals covered under this bill are enemy combatants and therefore can be held without charge. However, holding a citizen of your own nation essentially as a Prisoner of War is not convincing to me and hopefully will not be to our courts. Also, it is hard to see how anything referred to in this bill would amount to a case of rebellion or invasion.

Third, there is the very simple argument that this violates the requirement that all criminal cases be decided by jury. Article III, Section 2, subsection 3 states "The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury." Detaining a citizen without charge on what are obviously allegations of violating criminal activity clearly violates this provision of our Constitution.

Fourth, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states in part "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." To me, this is the clearest violation that is presented by this bill. I can see no argument that could justify the detention of U.S. Citizens without charge and without trial for an indefinite period of time. This is a clear violation of the due process protections afforded in the Fifth Amendment.

Last, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states in part "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." Every part of this amendment is violated by this bill. We don't get to deny the protections of our Constitutions to some citizens because we don't like them, or we don't like their actions.

It disturbs me greatly the way that our elected representatives simply ignore the protections of the citizens who elected them with such nonchalance. There is no question that this law, even if you see it as well meaning and with good intentions to protect us against terrorist attacks as its proponents argue, can easily be expanded to cover any number of individuals who have no ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or its associated forces as related in the bill. Certainly domestic militia forces would be among the first to fall under its web. As it expands further, any group threatening the composition of the government in any way (read here Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) would quickly find its rights being even further restrained, as their acts are deemed belligerent and their members disappear into an unknown detention facility, never to be heard from again. This could quickly be expanded to include any political enemies of the current President or their supporters.

To sum it up, this bill is an open invitation to a totalitarian military state in which the Federal government can and will limit the freedom of anyone with whom it disagrees.

The question is often asked, "Where shall we draw the line?" In his famous dissent in the landmark torts case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Co., Justice Andrews said "It is an uncertain and wavering line we draw, but draw it we must as best we can." I draw the line here. You can not laugh at our rights and liberties any longer any more. This crosses the line I have drawn, and the line that has been drawn for more than two centuries by American citizens who have fought to maintain the dreams of our Founders.

The line has been drawn. Are you with me? Are you willing to fight against those who would cross that line?

There IS An Alternative

Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying "There is no alternative," when she proposed draconian cuts of public spending and privatisation of governmental holdings. Now, we hear this same statement made as we are told that we must impose similarly draconian austerity programs in order to make up for the economic damage caused by risky investments by banks and the inevitable result of an economy which relies on fraud and thievery in order to perpetuate itself.

In the past month, we have seen riots and other extreme civil unrest across Europe, the Middle East and the United States and United Kingdom. We have coups of popularly elected governments in Greece and Italy, having their elected leaders replaced by unelected and autocratic bankers installed by the European troika to implement austerity at any cost. Furthermore, we have seen yet another huge bailout of European banks by six Central Banks including the U.S. Federal reserve. The proponents of neo-Liberal economics with its vast privatisation of public holdings and cruel cuts of public spending done in order to prop up the pro-banking system are winning.

The U.S. is next as the 2012 election will inevitably give us more of the same from either of the nominees of the two party hegemony and drastic cuts in domestic spending (and perhaps military spending, but probably not) are on the horizon for all of us, as called for in the cowardly debt ceiling compromise earlier this year.

We will certainly be told that there is no alternative as this is the mantra of the neo-liberals. But the evidence from around the world shows us that austerity is not only not the only alternative, but that the other alternatives are inevitably better, not only for the welfare of the citizens of these banker-states, but for the economy as well. Iceland and Argentina have eschewed the neo-Liberal austerity model (after being destroyed by its policies) and in doing so have become two of the strongest boom economies in the world.

We will look at each of these economies separately and conclude by looking at what alternatives to austerity should be being pursued by the United States and other hugely indebted European nations.

Iceland

Iceland has often been looked to as an example of what a rejection of both neo-Liberal policies and bailout economics can do positively for a nation, and with good reason. Iceland's popular revolt against bailouts for their failed banks and their rejection of the policies which bankrupted their nation show how prosperity can be achieved without the population having to pay for the mistakes of private bankers and the politicians who encouraged their reckless gambles.

Iceland began implementing neo-liberal economic policies of free trade, privatisation and deregulation of markets in the early 1990s. They lifted trade restrictions in 1994. In 1998, they bagan selling off state-owned assets (this resulted in many state-owned assets, especially banks, being bought up by politically connected individuals below market prices). Thoroughout this period, labor was largely deregulated, investment and commercial banks were merged, mortgage requirements were relaxed and both income taxes and VAT were substantially lowered.

Like in the United States and around the world, these policies led to a huge finance bubble especially in mortgage backed securities. Because the normal leverage restrictions were lifted due to deregulation banks overleveraged themselves creating huge short-term gains but ignoring the substantial risk that such over-leveraging creates.

Despite the fact that along with the enormous growth in the financial sector, the policies led to a tremendous increase in income disparity which by 2007 was on par with that in the United States and a huge increase in both deficits and foreign debt, Iceland was hailed as an example of the tremendous success that following neo-Liberal economic policies can bring. Even as cracks showed in the armor of the financial bubble and banks started showing the losses inevitable from tremendous leverage, consummate neo-Liberal economist Arthur Laffer stated in late 2007 "Iceland should be a model for the world," explaining that fast growth, large trade deficits and balooning foreign debt are signs of a healthy economy.

Because of their huge debt, the newly private Icelandic banks started having trouble raising enough cash to repay their creditors. In order to raise enough cash to keep the party going, the banks turned to the business of Internet Savings accounts. These Internet banks (collectively called Icesave) were established in the UK and The Netherlands and offered much more attractive savings interest rates than other banks. Many individuals along with large institutional entities such as local governments started investing their trusts and pension accounts in these online banks since the return was much more attractive than other investments at the time. The other catch with these banks was that although the banks were private (and therefore so were their profits), Icesave was part of the European Economic Area insurance so any losses that were suffered by the investors would be born by the very small population of Iceland.

The three main Icelandic banks took the profits from this newly found source of funds and used it to further leverage themselves, thus increasing both their short-term profits as well as their risks.

As it did with the rest of the global economy, the party came to a screeching halt in 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. When Lehman went bankrupt, money markets froze giving the overleveraged and for all intents and purposes completely insolvent Icelandic banks no source of funds in order to pay their debts. As a result the banks were nationalized. There was a run on the banks. The Icelandic stock market collapsed and as a result, so did the entire Icelandic economy.

As a result of the losses suffered by UK and Dutch institutions in Icesave, the UK and Dutch governments ended up repaying their citizens' lost deposits, demanding that repayment be made for these expenditures by the Icelandic government (i.e. the citizens). The U.K. even went so far as to freeze Icelandic bank assets in their country under governmental powers contained in post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws.

With their economy in a shambles, a huge foreign debt, crippling deficits and new governmental obligations foisted on it by the collapse of a private bank which swindled its investors, the Icelandic government turned to the IMF for assistance. The IMF agreed to restructure the nation's debt, offering a $2 Billion loan which required severe austerity measures and a repayment of the UK and Dutch bailouts of their Icesave investors.

The citizens of Iceland revolted as a result of these conditions. Large groups of citizens protested the parliament and demanded the resignations of the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. As a result of the overwhelming outcry from the citizenry, the Icelandic government collapsed in January 2009. The resulting elections put a left-leaning coalition in power.

The IMF, however, withheld the loan demanding an agreement to repay the Icesave debt. The parliament despite the unpopularity of the measure acceded to the IMF demands and passed the measure which would require each Icelandic citizen to pay the equivalent of $137 a month over a five-year period, an amount which was approximately 50% of the nation's GDP.

Surprisingly, when the bill went to the President for his signature, something that is essentially required as the President is mostly a figurehead position, the President refused to sign the bill and instead sent the measure to referrendum. The referrendum was defeated overwhelmingly with over 90% of voters voting against the plan.

The terms of the repayment were re-negotiated and a longer repayment was implemented. In April 2011, this more favorable repayment, which would still require the citizens of Iceland to repay the debts of a private entity was again rejected, this time by nearly 60%.

This second rejection of the IMF repayment requirements resulted in the case going to an international court. In October 2011, the court ruled that the UK and Dutch depositers were given priority over other creditors, allowing the UK and Dutch governments to recoup their bailout of depositors directly from the assets of Icesave rather than the citizens of Iceland having to repay the debts.

What Iceland's rejection of austerity and their refusal to bailout their failed banks forcing the losses to fall on the bank shareholders rather than the citizens did was to disprove the neo-Liberal insistance that a recovery after a recession brought about by a collapse in finance be slow, long and painful. Austerity measures, although implemented to a smaller extent than demanded by the IMF, were largely eschewed resulting in a much quicker and less painful recovery than anticipated. Iceland suffered seven quarters of contraction followed by small but positive growth, something that was unimaginable when you take into account that the entire nation went bankrupt and its economy was completely destroyed in 2008.

Problems still exist in Iceland. Unemployment is still high and there has been a huge devaluation of the nation's currency which has left many mortgage holders with impossibly high payments. However, by allowing their banks to actually fail and refusing to privatize gains while socializing losses, Iceland avoided a much worse outcome for their citizens and started on a road to recovery much more quickly than they would have by the adoption of austerity.

Argentina

A much more agressive approach, and one that is looking more attractive each day to the citizens of Greece if not for their occupied government, is the approach to alleviating the devastating effects of neo-Liberal economic policies taken in Argentina. Argentina instead of agreeing to the harsh austerity policies demanded by the IMF instead defaulted on their obligations and instead of the apocalypse that is always predicted by the elites in these situations,the results actually turned out to be favorable economically for Argentina and proved to be the best move they could have taken.

After the 1976 military coup in Argentina, the nation started incurring foreign debt. By 1981, the growing debt, inflation and defeat of the military in the Falkland War led to the economy's collapse and a severe economic depression. In 1983, Raul Alfonsin was elected and began the implementation of neo-Liberal economic policies. The government became responsible for the debt, over half of which was owned by international banks and corporations. Austerity measures were put into place.

In 1989, Carlos Menem was elected ostensibly as a reformer. He was governor of one of the poorest provinces in Argentina and had immense populist support. However, despite his promises of reform of the economic policies of Alfonsin, Menem immediately instituted the same neo-Liberal policies and in fact doubled down on the policies of Alfonsin.

Menem's policies included the "Reform of the State" which was his plan to privatise public entities, which was nothing more than a looting of state enterprises for private profit as the public institutions were sold at ridiculous losses for the government. Menem also privatised public pensions.

He instituted a convertability plan wherin the Argentine peso was tied directly to the value of the dollar (one peso=one dollar). This had an immediate effect on stopping inflation, but left the entire economy vulnerable as it vastly overinflated the value of their currency. Because of this, small businesses couldn't afford to stay in business and shut down, credit became very expensive and income disparity and poverty increased immensely, while banks pillaged the economy. As a result, the Argentine middle class was effectively wiped out.

In 2003, Argentina elected Nestor Kirchner as its president. Kirchner immediately reversed the policies of Menem. He intervened in the economy to stablize the exchange rate. The Kirchner approach focused on the stability of the exchange rate, raising or lowering the value of the peso accordingly, which helped stabilize the economy.

Shortly after his election, Kirchner allowed Argentina to default on its IMF debt. Although this was a significant shock to the Argentine economy, which was already left in a shambles by the previous administration's policies, it resulted in a renegotiation of the nation's debt which wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Because Argentina was willing to default, the IMF was forced to renegotiate the debt resulting in more than two-thirds of its debt to be wiped out. Within two years of the default, Argentina was able to cancel its debt with the IMF offering a one-time single payment.

Other economic polices that were implemented by Nestor Kirchner were an export tax that allowed the government to recoup some of the windfall profits that foreign companies were receiving due to the devaluation of the peso following the economic collapse. He also implemented a financial transactions tax, which further cut down on the pillaging of the economy by international banks and financial institutions as well as further bolstering the Argentine government. He attacked poverty and unemployment by instituting a monthly stipend to the unemployed heads of households.

These policies were continued following the election in 2007 (and re-election in 2011) of Kirchner's wife Cristina to the presidency following Nestor's decision not to run for re-election. The result of the Kirchner's policies are significant to Argentina. Between 2002 and 2011, there has been a 94% growth in Argentine GDP making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Unemployment has dropped by more than fifty percent (18.4% in 2002 compared to 8% in 2011). Income inequality has decreased dramatically and this is due more to increases in income of the poor than to decreases in the incomes of the wealthy. Poverty has dropped dramatically. In 2002 poverty reached a peak of 45.5% of the population of Argentina with 29.2% of the population living in extreme poverty. By 2011 only 14.3% of the nation lived in poverty and 6.6% in extreme poverty, a decrease of more than two-thirds.

Unfortunately, inflation has increased significantly in Argentina as a result of these policies. At one point in 2008 inflation was as high as 31% and was at 27% at the beginning of 2011. However, despite this problem, the effect of the inflation has been dampened by the fact that incomes for most Argeninians have increased along with the inflation resulting in the dramatic decreases in poverty and rises in standards of living.

One of the most significant things to come out of the Kirchner experiment is the way in which Argentina dealt with the IMF. The neo-Liberal policies of previous administrations in Argentina led to a collapse of the Argentinian economy, a run on the banks and significant increases in poverty and income disparity. When faced with the specter of Argentina's inability to pay back the $40billion+ in loans that the IMF had given Argentina, instead of assisting in a renegotiation of the loans, the IMF demanded austerity measures that they are currently implementing throughout Europe (and which will be coming to the U.S. soon enough). Rather than investing in the economy, the IMF was taking money out of Argentina further exacerbating an already dire situation. They worked for the banks against the Argentine people, forcing Argentina to give concessions to the banks and to take on more private debt incurred by financial institutions. They pressured the government to cease programs that were implimented to stop foreclosures and to pay stipends to heads of households in danger of losing their homes. And in a purely Machiavellian move, the IMF forecasted negative growth forecasts on Argentina in an attempt to impede the recovery efforts implemented after the collapse in order to force them to accept the IMF's policies and loans.

These actions on the part of the IMF, working at the behest of the multinational financial institutions which owned the significant part of Argentina's debt and which had looted the Argentinian economy for at least two decades can best be described as economic terrorism. The decision of the Kirchner government to stand up to this terrorism and face it down is not only heroic in nature, but most importantly IT WORKED!!!!!!!!

When faced with actual default, the IMF and its institutions backed down and abandoned its demands of austerity and suspended its salvos against the Argentian economy. The default resulted in a very severe contraction to the Argentinan economy. The quarter following the default showed a 5% contraction in the economy. But this short sharp shock to the system seems to be what the economy needed to be able to reboot. After that one quarter of significant contraction, the Argentine economy started growing, first slowly, but then more and more strongly. Furthermore, it appears that Argentina was able to weather the economic disaster of 2008 much better than most economies (especially Europe and the United States). Following the collapse of Lehman and the crisis of 2008, Argentina suffered just two quarters of very slight economic contraction, followed by rapid growth of more than 8% GDP annually.

Looking at the resounding success of the Kirchner policies in dealing with sovereign debt and demands by the IMF for the implementation of severe austerity measures which would have ended up hurting the citizens of Argentina even more, it would appear that Argentina presents a blueprint to Greece and possibly many other European nations facing significant sovereign debt crises currently. Of course, the decision of Greece and others to default and thereby renegotiate their debt would cause significant short term economic pain in those countries and would result in those nations exiting the Euro. However, the long term ramifications for their citizens not to mention the regaining of their sovereignty would be of much greater benefit than the policies being forced upon them by the unelected "technocratic" regimes that have taken power there now.

Conclusion


Despite the repeated calls for severe austerity measures for Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal by the European Union and the IMF, the examples noted above would show that doing the complete opposite is in the best interests of these nations and their citizens.

Austerity creates a vicious cycle which makes it nearly impossible for nations to escape the economic downturn in which they find themselves. Austerity leads to falling overall revenue, which leads to more austerity, which leads to even more falling revenues, and so on and so on and so on. All of this leads to higher interest rates which sucks more assets out of the country and only serves to fill the coffers of the banks and vulture economists which feed off of these types of policies.

The bottom line for the nations that are subject to the austerity measures is a loss of sovereignty, further destruction of their economy and a falling standard of living and death for its citizens.

Iceland has shown us that actually refusing to bailout the bad decisions of their banks and allowing the banks to fail, be put into bankruptcy and allowing the shareholders of the bank to pay the losses of the banks rather than the government (read citizens) is the best policy. If the United States had followed a similar policy in regard to our financial industries, we would have emerged not only with a stronger, more vigorous economy, but we would have emerged also with a stronger, more vigorous financial sector which no longer had the bad assets on its books which all of the TBTF banks have and were so so large that they were systemically dangerous as the TBTF banks are.

Greece (and probably Ireland and Italy as well) would have best been served by following the example of Argentina and actually defaulting on its sovereign debt. This would have allowed them to renegotiate their debt, while preserving their national sovereignty and the living standards of their citizens.

As it stands now, austerity is the plan du jour. Many still believe the words of Thatcher from decades past that "There is no alternative." However, if our leaders would simply stop and think for just a second, and have the courage to embark on plans such as those implemented by the Icelandic people and the Kirchners in Argentina, they would see that there are indeed alternatives which not only bypass the deprivations demanded by austerity, but result in a stronger and more prosperous economy for their nations.

In short austerity equals death and occupation, while the alternative equals prosperity and freedom. Which do you want? Better make up your mind fast, because the leadership of both parties in the U.S. is putting us on a path to austerity, trying to convince us that no alternative exists.

Black and Blue Christmas

I apologize to my loyal followers (all nine or so of you) for my lack of writing lately. Besides being busy with work and family and you know those things, I have been working on a rather lengthy and guaranteed to bore you to tears piece on the various economic alternatives to austerity that have been employed successfully world-wide. That is turning into a small book rather than a blog post, but it should be done sometime this century (actually probably later this week).

Until that is done, though, since 'tis the Season, I will turn back to musicality and run down some of my all time favorite depressing Christmas songs. Christmas usually somewhat brings out the melancholy in me. Perhaps it's the shorter days, the extra time to reflect on the past year and all its foibles, or pehaps the stress of planning excursions and trips, but I tend to gravitate toward the sadder Christmas music rather than the Radio City Music Hall, Hooray For Everything kind of music.

Here's a List of my favorites that I have actually compiled on a CD.  Enjoy.

"Christmas Time Is Here," Charlie Brown Christmas - There's nothing really sad about this song that opens what is probably the best Christmas television special of all time, but the tone of the song is actually quite sad. It goes along with one of the themes in the special, that Charlie Brown gets depressed around Christmas time and is saddened further by all of the commercialization of the Season (for me, however, the commercialization creates one of the best entertainments of the Season making it somewhat bearable). There have actually been some great covers of this, most especially by Diana Krall, but the original makes the top of my list of sad Christmas songs.

"Christmas In Prison," John Prine - There are very few American songwriters that have both the musical and literary talent of John Prine. Some of his songs, of course, are classics such as "Hello In There," but his style of writing songs with protagonists drawn from the down and out heartland of America lends itself perfectly to the type of Christmas song I like. "Christmas in Prison" is obviously written from the point of view of a prisoner spending another long Christmas alone thinking of his love who he may never see again in this lifetime. The first verse captures the mood perfectly: "It was Christmas in prison and the food was real good/We had turkeys and pistols carved out of wood/And I dream of her always even when I don't dream/Her name's on my tongue and her blood's in my stream."

"Merry Christmas From the Family," Robert Earl Keen - This is the ultimate redneck Christmas song. It's been covered by many other acts, even recently. But the covers seem to make fun of the people in the song, whereas Keen's more low key treatment on the original, although funny as hell, actually leaves the listener with a very warm feeling about the song's subject. The song starts out understandably enough with a lot of drinking "Mom got drunk and Dad got drunk at our Christmas party/We were drinking champagne punch and homemade eggnog/Little sister brought her new boyfriend/He was a Mexican/We didn't know what to think of him until he sang Felis Navidad, Felis Navidad." And of course you have to love any song that mentions tampons not once, but twice. Hallelujah everybody say "Cheese" it's Merry Christmas from the family."

"Please Daddy Don't Get Drunk This Christmas," John Denver - You would think this was a comedy song from its title, but after hearing the first line, you see that it's not. "Please Daddy don't get drunk this Christmas, I don't want to see my Momma cry". Yup, this song comes from a dark, dark place. The song is through the eyes of a seven-year-old relating the memory of his father coming home Christmas Eve drunk, falling down under the Christmas tree and Mommy telling the child he better get upstairs as Daddy yells "Merry Christmas" and he sees his mother trying to hide her tears. If you relate to this song, I am very, very sorry.

"Slippers With Wings," - The New Hinkle Family Singers - This is a traditional song that has been done by many artists, but this version was the only one I could find for free and I would simply not spend money on what may be the most depressing Christmas song of all time. I first heard this song on the WNCW bluegrass/old timey music show "This Old Porch" one Christmas Eve. The dude on "This Old Porch" likes Christmas songs that make mine seem downright cheerful. This one put me over the edge. It is about a family who adopts a crippled child at age 3. The child is never well but keeps a positive attitude and tells her puppy dog about these slippers with wings that will allow her to play with all the other children. She asks for them for Christmas but isn't disappointed when they don't come. Then one Christmas Eve, SHE DIES! But of course, it's ok, because now Jesus gives her slippers with wings in heaven. I'm sorry. Excuse my while I go slit my wrists in the egg nog bowl.

"Father Christmas," The Kinks - This is one of the classic rock n roll Christmas songs. It's about a bunch of young punks in London who essentially mug Santa Claus. The chorus: "Father Christmas give us some money/Don't mess around with your silly toys/We'll beat you up if you don't hand it over/We want your bread so don't make us annoyed/Give all the toys to the little rich boys."

"I Believe In Father Christmas," Greg Lake - This is a beautiful song. Really. It is. But it's also really depressing. Greg Lake, the lead singer of Emerson, Lake and Palmer, wrote this little ditty about an adult reflecting on his childhood innocence while at the same time finding that that innocence has been lost. "They sold me a tale of Christmas/They sold me a Silent Night/They sold me a fairy story/Til I believed in the Israelite". It ends ultimately with the trueism "Hallelujah Noel be it Heaven or Hell/The Christmas we get we deserve."
"Happy Christmas (War Is Over)," John Lennon - You hear this one more and more on the radio each year. I even hear it in department stores. I don't think that it really fits in with Frosty and Rudolph though, even though it seems to get the same treatment. Lennon in usual fashion attacks the materialism and corporatism that Christmas seems to have come to represent. "And so this is Christmas/And what have you done?/Another year over/A new one just begun." Again, I don't think Wal-Mart really understands what they are playing in their stores when you look at the line "And so this is Christmas/For weak and for strong/For rich and the poor ones/The world is so wrong/And so happy Christmas/For black and for white/For yellow and red ones/Let's stop all the fight." The best part of the song of course is the children's choir singing along with Yoko Ono "War is over if you want it." A more appropriate song there couldn't be for our times.

"The Christians and the Pagans," Dar Williams - This may have become my favorite Christmas song. I just love everything about it so much. The song is about two friends (I've always pictured them as a Lesbian couple although it's not perfectly clear in the song) who are celebrating Solstice and one of them calls their uncle to see if they can come spend some time with the family. The uncle says in reply "It's Christmas Eve, I know our life is not your style,"/She said "Christmas is like Solstice, and we miss you and it's been a while." This goes into the chorus "So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table/Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able." There are some hilarious parts of this song that are inevitable in the unexpected visit of your Pagan lesbian niece and her lover on Christmas Eve. Ultimately the song is one that is absolutely beautiful and in many ways shows exactly what Christmas (and Solstice for that matter) is all about. It's a rare song that leaves me both smiling and in tears when I hear it. This is one of them.

"Christmas Wrapping," The Waitresses - The Waitresses are best known for their early 80s flirty trashy hit "I Know What Boys Like," but their Christmas song has remained popular over the years as well. It has taken on a rather sad note after the passing of their lead singer some years back from cancer. But the song fits into our motif well in that it is about simply being too busy for Christmas since all of 1981 has been a blur and she simply hasn't got time to prepare and celebrate even though Christmas is her favorite holiday. "Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas/ But I think I'll miss this one this year." Eventually by the end of the song, she finds solace in a kindred soul and celebrates after all "Merry Christmas Merry Christmas/I couldn't miss this one this year."

"Hannukah Song," Adam Sandler - Not many songs about Hannukah. But Adam Sandler delivered a classic in this one listing a great series of awesome Jews that celebrate Hannukah. OJ Simpson isn't a Jew, but guess who is? Hall of Famer Rod Carew (he converted).

"On Christmas I Got Nothing," Chuck Brodsky - I've actually heard people criticise this song for being anti-Semitic. Really? Dude, the songwriter is Jewish for crying out loud. Chuck Brodsky is one of my favorite songwriters and is local as well, now living in the Asheville area. He is best known for his baseball songs such as "Letters in the Dirt," or "Doc Ellis, No-no." But this Christmas song about how he got nothing on Christmas because "We were jews" is both hilarious and a great song as well. It also is a little sad as you feel for the kid who is surrounded by Christians who are getting all sorts of great stuff for no apparent reason other than they are Christians and he is stuck getting nothing. It does end with a jab (and really an inside self-depricating joke) when one of his friends gets a shiny new horn to which Brodsky replies "Horns, oy, I already got some..."

"Fairytale of New York," The Pogues and Kirsty MacColl - The ultimate Irish drunken Christmas song. Nothing says Christmas Cheer like hearing Shane MacGowen prattle on semi-itelligibly about, well, your guess is as good as mine. Well, that is unless you combine it with Kirsty MacColl spitting insults back at him. It starts out in classic Pogues fashion "It was Christmas Eve babe/In the drunk tank/An old man said to me won't see another one." The lovers get into an insult match at one point "You're a bum/You're a punk/You're an old slut on junk/Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed/You scumbag, you maggot/You cheap lousy faggot/Happy Christmas your arse/I pray God it's our last." This is followed up with the chorus "The boys of the NYPD choir were singing "Galway Bay"/As the bells were ringing out on Christmas Day." Just another happy family get together at the pub on the corner in NYC.

"Christmas in Cooperstown," Dana "Short Order" Cooke - This was on a collection of Baseball songs I once owned. It's a great song by a singer of whom I had never heard even though he hails from my hometown of Syracuse. The gist of the song is that if anybody ever tells you that Christmas isn't a big deal, you point out that it's such a big deal they even close the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's melody is sad and again brings out a sort of melancholy feeling that the season brings when you think back on the feelings that Christmas brought when you were young and how far away those feelings sometimes are.

"Christmas In the Trenches," John McCutcheon - I also heard this gem on the same "This Old Porch" show that brought me "Slippers With Wings". This is one of the most beautiful Christmas songs I've ever heard. It relates the oft-repeated real event from World War I in which British and German soldiers on opposite sides of a battlefield dug down in their trenches for the Christmas cease fire, played a soccer game and shared a Christmas Eve together sharing photos, songs and celebrations. Anchored musically by the traditional "Minstrel Boy," this song brings goosebumps as it interplays the peace of Christmas with the brutality of war. If you have the chance to hear this song, check it out.

"A Christmas Song," Jethro Tull - Did you know that Jethro Tull had a Christmas album? They did. Most of it is actually traditional Christmas instrumentals featuring lead singer Ian Anderson's incomprable flute playing. This one, however, is possible the most dour and depressing Christmas song of them all. The line "So when your stuffing yourself at the Christmas party/Don't mind me if I say go take a flying leap." Wow, doesn't that just make you feel all warm inside? It ends with Anderson slurring out "Hey Santa, can you pass the bottle?"

"River," Joni Mitchell - I love this song. Really. I love everything about it. I wish I had written it or anything even close to how great it is. This is not a traditional Christmas song, per se, but in other ways it is as it captures that feeling I keep coming back to of longing and melancholy that so often accompanies the holiday season. "It's coming on Christmas/There cutting down trees/They're putting up reindeer/And singing songs of joy and peace/Oh I wish I had a river I could skate away on." (I'm even willing to forego criticism of the dangling preposition - THAT'S HOW GOOD THIS SONG IS!!!!!) This song brings me to long drives home from North Carolina to Syracuse, watching the green fields turn to white somewhere halfway through Virginia and then to grey as you reach New York where the snow is rarely white since it lies on the ground for so long. That feeling of anticipation you get along the way hoping to recapture that long ago feeling of Christmas magic, knowing full well that it will be met with disappointment as that part of you that existed when you were a child has died somewhere along the way. Thank you, Joni Mitchell. Thank you for creating a masterpiece and bottling a feeling as familiar as it is indescribable.

"All I Want For Christmas," Timbuk 3 - Known for their completely misunderstood hit "The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades" in the 80s which was actually adopted as an anthem by the same Wall Street Yuppie fascist scum about whom it was ridiculing, Timbuk 3 also wrote a very politically motivated and ironic (in the true sense, not the Alanis Morisette sense) song about war toys. The verses describe toys lying under a Christmas tree all of which are various shades of super violent "Machine gun eyes, rocket arms and missile toes," surrounding the chorus which says "All I want for Christmas is World Peace."

"Baby It's Cold Outside," Zooey Deschanel and Leon Redbone - OK, this one's not depressing at all, except for the fact that it features Leon Redbone. I got the unexpected chance to see Leon Redbone this year in Shelby. He has long been one of my favorite singers and is possibly the most low-key individual of all time. He was even once the subject of a Far Side cartoon which showed "The Leon Redbone Exercise Tape," with a slight man in a hat, bolo tie and sunglasses sitting on a stool saying "Cross your legs, 2, 3, 4..." A few years back there was an album done by Leon and Dr. John of Christmas songs. I remember Leon being interviewed saying that he preferred the sadder Christmas songs. That's what I love about this song. The intermingling of his voice with the lovely Miss Deschanel's (who I describe as the modern-day Peggy Lee) creates a warm and cozy feeling reminiscent of Christmas's past. The song is found on the soundtrack to the movie "Elf" in which Zooey Deschenel co-stars. As an aside, if you are looking for a great new Christmas album, check out "A Very She and Him Christmas" featuring songs by Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward.
"I'll Be Home For Christmas," Aimee Mann - This has become a traditional Christmas song, but is really one of the saddest holiday songs of all time. Written and released at the height of World War II, the song is written from the perspective of a GI overseas telling his family waiting for him at home that he'll be home for Christmas. The song is full of hope but ultimately full of sadness as its final line says "I'll be home for Christmas if only in my dreams." This version is perfectly delivered by Aimee Mann, whose almost fragile voice perfectly encompasses the longing and sadness of the song. The narrator of the song knows he won't see his family this Christmas and although it's not mentioned, ultimately doesn't know if he will see his family or another Christmas again. Another song as topical today as the day in which it was written.

"Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," Hem - Another traditional song that may not at first strike you as a sad Christmas song, but when you really listen to it, it is clear that it is a song of great sadness and longing. "Have yourself a merry little Christmas/Let your heart be light/From now on our troubles will be out of sight." As with the previous song, this was written during World War II and could represent the distance of family deployed overseas, or as I have always thought of it, a family suffering through the tumult of economic depression. "Here we are as in olden days/Happy golden days of yore/Faithful friends who are dear to us/Gather near to us once more." In this version, the band Hem who you may best know from the use of their songs in Liberty Mutual insurance commericials, lend their dramatic yet understated beauty to the song to perfectly capture what the song has always felt like to me. "Through the years we all will be together/If the fates allow/Hang a shining star upon the highest bow/And have yourself a merry little Christmas now."

Runners up: "Oy to the World" by No Doubt; "Christmas Card From a Hooker in Minneapolis" by Tom Waits; "Christmas in Capetown" by Randy Newman; "You're a Mean One Mr. Grinch"; "2000 Miles" by the Pretenders; "Gabriel's Message" by Sting; "Same Old Lang Syne" by Dan Fogelberg.

A Fine Mess

To say I was shocked this morning to hear the news reports detailing the allegations against Associate Head Basketball Coach Bernie Fine would be one of the greatest understatements of all time. Within moments of hearing the news headline on television I went from a profound sense of dread, to disbelief, to anger.

Unlike the news at Penn State about Jerry Sandusky, this was not an abstract to me. Bernie Fine was somebody with whom I was well acquainted. Not only had I watched him coach on the sidelines for the past 35 years, but I attended his basketball camp for two years in my teens, his wife used to cut my hair (yes I used to have hair), I remember when he got married and what joy he had when his kids were born.

I am not one who came out and defended Fine instinctively and furthermore trashed the accusers as did Jim Boeheim. This isn't because I necessarily believe the allegations, or the denials, but simply because I know through experience that such things are possible. I have never heard someone stand up and state after some pillar of the community is revealed as a horrific, evil, child raping bastard "I have known this man for 40 years and have called him my friend, and I am not at all surprised by these allegations, but in fact always kind of suspected that he was raping children in his basement, I just never had proof." Molesters don't wear signs, they don't act in the open and they don't wear trenchcoats and have straggly beards. More often than not, they are the last person you would expect -- the minister, the Rotarian, the seemingly most moral person in the community.

That being said, I don't know if Bernie Fine did the things that he is accused of doing. I hope, for him, the Syracuse University community that I love, and his family that they are not true. And if they are not true, I hope that justice is somehow served to the accusers. But I am also not willing to state that they could not have happened, because experience has shown me that all too often these seemingly unbelievable allegations are in fact true.

However, what this story does appear to show is that once again the privilege of big time college athletics seems to have skirted around the legal process. Whatever your feelings about Bernie Fine and his accusers, there is no doubt that the several previous investigations of these allegations have at best been botched and at worst have been a cover-up of immense magnitude.

Everything that occurred previously in regard to the allegations of child molestation against Bernie Fine that broke last night on ESPN, whether it be from the Syracuse Police Department, the news media, or Syracuse University could have been completely above board. They could have been honest, hard hitting, exhaustive, unbiased investigations. But the obvious potential biases and the failure to take the necessary precautions and next steps that would have insured an unquestioned investigation and would have indeed helped Bernie Fine were either not identified or were simply ignored.

First, the allegations were apparently reported to the Syracuse Police Department in 2003. Depending on what news report you believe, the department investigated the allegations and found them to be baseless or they simply looked at the complainant and said "Sorry, statute of limitations has run, nothing we can do," and closed the books on the report.

In any case, the actions of the Syracuse Police Department in 2003 because of the individuals and the program involved created the appearance of impropriety and they failed to take the proper actions to address this. At the time of the initial report, the Chief of Police for the SPD was Dennis DuVal. From everything I have ever heard about DuVal, he is a very good human being and was a good police chief. However, he was also a standout forward in the 1970s for the Syracuse University men's basketball program. When an allegation is made against one of the biggest names in that program, the department out of an abundance of caution should have turned that investigation over to someone else. This would have insured an investigation that would have been conclusively and unquestionably credible to any critic. What we are left with is an investigation that raises obvious questions of impropriety and conflicts whether true or not.

Next, the accuser reported the allegations in 2005 to Syracuse University. The university has stated ad nauseum over the past 24 hours that it conducted a four month investigation conducted by the university's law firm which found no credible basis for the accusations. No action was taken by the university.

I have seen first hand the type of cover-up that Syracuse University can conduct under the guise of carrying out a thorough investigation of rape allegations. If these allgations concern someone connected with the athletic program, this cover-up machine goes into overdrive.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Universities are not the proper parties to conduct investigations of felonies. Why they continue to do so simply boggles my mind. I repeated this over and over and over and over again to Syracuse University officials when I was a student there 20 years ago. In 1989 when I arrived on the SU campus as a student, students were told that if they were raped or sexually assaulted to contact campus security, not the police. Rape and other serious felony criminal investigations were handled (and by all indications still are) by a student judicial board made up of minimally trained undergraduates, often either never being reported to law enforcement and sometimes even derailing ongoing law enforcement investigations. There is simply no reason to believe the results of the investigation conducted by the university.

Last, the Onondaga County District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick stated today that at no time during any of these investigations was he or anyone else from the DA's office made aware of the allegations, so they took no part of investigating the allegations. The allegations should have been forwarded to the DA by the Syracuse Police Department in 2003 and should have definitely been forwarded to the District Attorney's office by SU in 2005. As much as the police or private attorneys think they know about felony investigations, the DA is the best judge of whether a case should be brought or not and not reporting these allegations to him, even to simply let him look at it and decide there is no action to be brought, is simply inexcusable.

By failing to take proper actions, the SPD and Syracuse University have done a great disservice to all of those involved in these allegations, and possibly most of all to Bernie Fine. Because of the apparent conflicts of interest and the internal nature of all of these investigations, the prior investigations lack credibility and now have led to an embarassing re-opening of the investigations both by the SPD and the DA. The institutions involved in the prior botched investigations give the appearance of incompetence and of a cover-up whether any such cover-up existed in reality.

In any event, whatever comes of these investigations, the prior actions, or inactions on the part of the university and law enforcement have created a mess which will inevitably leave the university, the basketball program and Bernie Fine with a black eye, which will take a long time to heal, if it ever does.

One last note for the legislators in Albany. YOUR LAWS ARE OUTDATED AND NEED TO BE REFORMED. The simple fact that there is a statute of limitations on these types of crimes in ridiculous. The fact that they are so short (if you are raped under the age of 18 and you don't report it by the time you are 23, you are shit out of luck) is criminal. I don't always think that North Carolina's laws are the best, but the fact that we have no statute of limitations for any felonies is one for which we can hold our heads high. New York needs to immediately and radically change their statutes of limitations as they related to sex offenses and especially child sex offenses. In failing to act on this, the legislature is protecting sick evil criminals and aiding and abetting child rapists.

The Third Servant

24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” Matthew 25:24-30

This one is going to be quite a departure for me.  I am certainly not a person who is overt in religion, nor do I speak of religion very often.  I was raised in a very liberal Catholic parish with a very liberal Catholic family.  I attended Catholic school for twelve years and studied the religion each and every one of those years.  You could say that my religious background and training was probably at least as rigorous, if not more so, than most.

Yet, perhaps in spite of that, or perhaps because of it, I find myself drifting in my faith.  Many of my problems stem from profound and fundamental differences with the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially the teachings both on spiritual and worldly matters coming out of the Vatican of our current Pope.  Other differences are more due to my own understandings of God, the world, the afterlife, which I believe may be more profound, but still in keeping with the teachings of Christian religion, but what many would hear as anything but.

Be that as it may, I find myself in an almost continual process of returning and then once again fleeing from the Church and religion in general.  Sometimes I seriously and deeply miss the Church.  Sometimes I find that my life is perfectly content without it.

But every once in a while I am so struck by something that I hear when attending Mass that it literally overwhelms me, excites me and makes me long for the Church in which I was raised.

Such an event happened this past Sunday.  I was attending Mass with my wife and daughter and my wife's parents at their parish in High Point.  The Gospel reading was the Parable of the Talents.  Many of us have heard this Gospel reading tens if not hundreds of times in our life.  The gist goes like this -- the Master sends out three of his servants (slaves, really) each with a certain number of Talents (a denomination of money) and asks them to be fruitful in their investment of it.  The first two when the return have doubled their money and give their Master the money with interest and are rewarded by sharing in the masters wealth.  The third servant, however, returns with the one Talent he was given and what happens from there is not good for the servant as quoted above at the beginning of the post.

Every time I remember this being read at Mass, the homily that followed was some variation on one of the two following themes: 1) you must be faithful to God when entrusted by Him and if you are you will be rewarded with great happiness in Heaven; 2) using Talents metaphorically, use your talents in the community and spread them throughout and you will be justly rewarded.  In both of these interpretations, it is clear (as it has been taught my whole life) that the first two servants are the ones to emulate if you want happiness.

What always bothered me about this, is that the Master never seemed like a very good person.  First off, he owned slaves.  God was certainly never shown anywhere else that I can recall as a slave master and his disciples were never called slaves.  The other thing was that the master in addition to being a slave master was also a pretty bad guy -- he sows where he does not reap and he gathers where he has not scattered.  In other words, he's a thief.  I also found it disconcerting that he is apparently advising the third servant to invest the money in a bank for interest, which must be a Roman bank, since lending at interest violates Talmudic law -- so on top of everything else, the dude's a bad Jew (or worse yet an occupying foreigner and oppressor).

The priest in my in-laws church stated in his Homily that he also had the same problems with this particular parable.  But, when he was shown a different interpretation by a priest who was an expert in the Gospels and especially the parables, the reading took on a whole new and powerful meaning.  I want to share it with you.

The Third Servant is the good guy.  The Palestine of Christ's day was similar is some ways to the world today in that the vast majority of wealth was kept in the hands of a very few.  The Masters grew their wealth through the means of sending out their minions to increase their wealth in whatever way they could, usually through unethical and illegal means (thus the reaping where he has not sown and gathering where he has not scattered).  What the Third Servant does is refuse to take part in a corrupted and unjust system in order to benefit his Master to the detriment of others.  As a result of refusing to take part in this system, he suffers great personal destruction, being thrown out into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The priest went on to explain that this was a way to prepare his followers for the immense deprivations and attacks they would receive for refusing to take part in the system against which Christ's teachings were standing.  Perhaps he was even preparing them for His own death wherein he was taken from the walls of Jerusalem a mere week after arriving to loud Hosannas and celebrations, to be crucified on a wooden cross.

What is most significant about this interpretation, and I will say that it immediately struck a chord in me to the point where I am convinced that this is the correct interpretation of this story, is that I know there are many who will or who have used this story to justify their own greed or exploitation of others.  I can see Herman Cain quoting this to explain that if you are poor it's because you are lazy just like the Third Servant.  But this interpretation pulls back the curtain on this wrong-headed argument and shows how it is not the Master who should be emulated, but it is the Master who should be condemned by us for his greed, opulence and exploitation.

The parallels to what is going on today are obvious.  Those who are taking a stand against a system which doles out unearned and unjustified riches to the Masters who reap where they have not sown are suffering greatly.  In New York, Oakland, Portland, Chapel Hill and elsewhere in the United States they are paying through arrest, deprivation of rights and sometimes physical injury.  In Damascus, Cairo, Tripoli, Yemen and across other parts of the world they have paid and are paying for it with their lives.

But the fight is the right one.  Will we be like the First two servants going on blithely supporting our Masters and enriching them for our short term gain supporting a system which will inevitably result in our destruction?  Or will we be like the Third Servant suffering the deprivations of ostricisation we will receive by refusing this system, only to achieve greater rewards when our Masters are brought to justice?  The choice is ours.

The Outrageous Incident at Penn State

This past weekend we learned that former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was being charged with multiple counts of child molestation for incidents occurring over several years and involving various levels of child abuse, indecency and rape perpetrated on children as young as 10 years old.  As shocking as this was, what was even more shocking was that the Penn State Athletic Director and a university Vice President were charged with failing to report these incidents several years earlier and perjury for lying to the grand jury about it.

What is most shocking about this incident, however, is not that these horrific actions occurred, but looking at the tendency of university administrators to cover up incidents such as these and stymie law enforcement in their efforts to investigate them, that they ever came to light at all.

Since my years in undergraduate study at Syracuse University I saw incident after incident after incident of rape and sexual assault covered up by university administrators and others in power at the university.  In most cases, this appeared to be for the sole reason that if the facts of these cases were allowed to see the light of day, the university would be seen in a bad light and the University would do everything in their power to cover up these cases or find a way to blame the victim and excuse the behavior of the perpetrator.  Rarely, if ever, were these incidents ever reported to the police or local non-campus legal authorities and rarely, if ever, did the university work with prosecutors once a report made its way through the labyrinthine university process to get attention from the local prosecutor's office.  In fact, more often than not, the university's judicial process worked against the state's prosecutorial case often derailing an ongoing prosecution.

As awful as these incidents were on an everyday basis, the process became even worse when the allegations concerned an offender who was also an athlete or related in any way with the athletic program.  Athletics for a university is big business.  There were many attempts by the university to single out one group or another (usually fraternities and sororities) for discipline and restrictions in the name of greater campus safety and fighting sexual assault, sometimes deserved, often not deserved.  But there was never any action taken to address the epidemic of sexual assault and other sexual violence that involved athletes.  Even when coaches approached my organization, Students Concerned About Rape Education, to address their male athletes and give presentations to them about sexual assault and rape (as I personally know happened on at least one occasion), these plans were very quickly nixed by the higher-ups at the Athletic Department. 

The nature of modern college sports has made the situation involving the approach to allegations of sexual assault against athletes, and in the case of Penn State at least coaches, even worse than it was twenty years ago when I was an undergraduate.  There is no doubt that Penn State from what little has been reported about this incident put the reputation of the school and the status of its football program as one of the best and cleanest programs in the country before the welfare of the young boys that were allegedly preyed on by its high profile assistant football coach. 

Athletes and coaches enjoy a privileged status in college towns, one that lends itself to certain advantages especially when it comes to dealing with law enforcement.  It is this culture of privilege and immunity that led to the violations of the public trust in which the administrators of Penn State engaged.  This culture and the actions of the administrators could have taken this predator off the streets decades before he was ultimately arrested and could have saved the lives of countless victims on whom Sandusky forced his evil and sick perversions.

Thank God in this case there were brave prosecutors and law enforcement officers who were not swayed by the enormous pressure that they undoubtedly faced from the huge college sports machine.  I have a feeling that we are not done with this scandal.  I expect that we will see further resignations including the President of the university along with head coach Joe Paterno.  Whether these resignations are deserved or not, I cannot see a situation in which these two and probably several other members of the Penn State community are able to hang onto their jobs.

Hopefully this criminal prosecution will have an effect nationally of tearing down this sports culture in colleges across the nation.  It's good to have sports heroes, and I challenge you to find anyone who roots harder for Syracuse athletic teams than me.  But along with that, we need to remember that these young men and women, and the older men and women in whose trust we place these athletes, need to be held accountable for their actions.  And administrators who cover up their crimes in the name of continued prestige and money need to be held accountable to an even higher degree.

Drop Out Of MSM



Max Keiser

In our never-ending election cycle, we hear repeatedly about the "mainstream media" and how they favor one side or the other.  Tea Party windbag and former part time Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has even cleverly referred to it as the "Lamestream Media" in her incessant television and paid speaking engagements.  Usually it is the conservative politicians who make the most political hay out of this issue stating that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

Fox News claims a right-wing oriented alternative to the mainstream liberal bias.  As if being an arm of the largest international media conglomerate was anything other than mainstream media.  MSNBC takes a left-leaning approach to their editorial segments, positioning themselves as a more progressive minded alternative to the Fox News onslaught (their new slogan is "Lean Forward" something that I've always thought was odd since if you keep leaning forward you will eventually fall on your face).

Most of what we see in the mainstream media is what you generally see on the major networks and CNN which is a reportedly non-biased middle ground which claims to be fair to both sides.  The problem with this is that they report both sides equally without comment no matter how absurd the argument from one side or the other may be.  I could say the earth is round and the sky is blue, and the "reporting" would add that my opponents on the other hand claim that the earth is flat and the sky is green.  This reporting without any insight or commentary is worse than the truly biased reporting of the aforementioned networks.

Recently, several conservative groups went after National Public Radio claiming they had a liberal bias.  This was especially true after their decision to fire commentator Juan Williams for incendiary remarks on Muslims he made on Fox News.  Later, an executive was found to have made negative remarks toward Conservative politicians while trying to raise money from someone claiming to be a wealthy liberal donor.  The upshot of this is that there has been a perceivable shift in the reporting heard on NPR toward more of the equal time approach of CNN and the major networks.  This is unfortunate because NPR's tilt was not necessarily liberal as much as it was non-corporate.

What we see in the mainstream media news reporting of today is a dance that tries to present news stories while at the same time making money for their shareholders and not offend their corporate bosses.  And by corporate bosses, I'm not being metaphorical, I mean literally corporate bosses -- GE, Disney, Time Warner, etc.  The mainstream media has a decidedly pro-corporate bias in their news reporting.  This is why most Americans are simply unwittingly ignorant as to many issues that are incredibly important to their daily lives, such as finance and the economy.  This is why issues such as which Kardashian is divorcing or what Lindsay Lohan did or didn't do at her community service assignment today get more airtime than the implications to the future of the U.S. economy of Greece's decision to put Europe's latest bailout proposal to a referendum.

What I have done over the past several months is to voluntarily and intentionally remove myself from the mainstream media's presentation of news stories as much as possible.  I began this to an extent a few years ago with making my main news source Huffington Post.  However, HuffPo is as mainstream as anyone else.  Sometimes you will see some truly alternative press on HuffPo, but for the most part it is just a Democratic Party spin on the same corporatist news that we get anywhere else.  Or in other words, it's MSNBC.

Although I still read HuffPo, as well as other mainstream news media including major networks, my venture into more alternative sources has educated me on the issues that are important to me as well as allowing me to look at the mainstream media with a much more critical eye.  The more you educate yourself, for instance, on the events that led to the economic collapse of 2008 and subsequent economic bailout, the more you can see how absurd some of the claims being made by the large banking institutions and reported as fact on mainstream news outlets are.

This can, of course, be dangerous to your well being.  For instance yesterday driving home, listening to a WFAE (NPR affiliate in Charlotte) report on debit card fees, I found myself screaming "WHY ARE YOU REPORTING LIES!?!?!?! AND WHY ARE YOU NOT QUESTIONING THEM?!?!?!?!?" when they reported the outright lie that Bank of America and others are putting forth that they have to charge outrageous fees to their customers because they aren't allowed to charge the usurious card swipe fees any more and they are not able to make money on mortgages because interest rates are so low.  This kind of reporting is at best lazy and at worst complicit.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard this line given in the media without a second thought to the fact that the interest rate charged to consumers is based on the interest rate the Federal Reserve charges banks to borrow money from it.  So, in other words, they are getting the same profit because they are charging 4% interest on a mortgage for which they borrowed money at 0% to pay for, whereas before they charged 8% on a mortgage for which they borrowed money at 4% to pay for.

But that is the way that mainstream media works.  In this constant tightrope act to make profit, achieve ratings and not rock the corporate boat, what usually gets lost is the truth.

So where do you turn?  Although the internet is rife with craziness and outright false information, it also contains some of the best journalism out there.  For critical financial reporting, I have found a plethora of sources right at my fingertips. 

The best and most hard hitting financial reporting out there is being done by Max Keiser.  I was first introduced to Keiser's reporting and commentary when he was referred to in a  post by Matt Taibbi in which he linked to a BBC interview where in response to a question about the TARP bailout and the reasons for it Keiser said simply "Well, Goldman Sachs are scum."  His blog can be found at www.maxkeiser.com .  This also contains links to his thrice weekly "Keiser Report" television show on Russia Today network and his once weekly On The Edge with Max Keiser on Press TV out of Iran.

Of course there is also Matt Taibbi.  You can find all of Taibbi's influential reporting on the crimes of Wall Street at www.rollingstone.com , but even more entertaining than his regular Rolling Stone articles is his blog Taibblog located at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog .  The Blog is updated more often than his longer more involved Rolling Stone reports.  It also contains opinions from his Supreme Court of Assholedom which passes judgment on figures in the news as to how much of an asshole they really are.  I'm hoping for one on Herman Cain before too long.

As for financial news in general, one of the absolute best blogs is www.zerohedge.com.  Zero Hedge is out front on most every financial issue there is in the world and is virtually always correct in their analysis.  It is also incredibly voluminous in the sheer amount of information it has.  There is a subscription service for Zero Hedge, but I have found that all of their news and posts are available without subscription.  There is also Reggie Middleton's Boom Bust Blog http://boombustblog.com which contains research and information on stocks, bonds and financial issues.  There is a lot of information on this blog which is only available to subscribers and you have to put up with Middleton's bombastic braggadocio (not to mention his super hero alter-egos), but the information contained even in his non-subscription service is useful as well as often hilarious.

Another great financial news source for general financial news is The Big Picture at www.ritholtz.com/blog.  This is the blog of financial reporter Barry Ritholtz and I have found it to be quite informative.  Along the same lines, though not nearly as regular as  Ritholtz's blogs is Terri Buhl's blog at www.teribuhl.com.  Buhl is a financial investigative reporter whose insightfulness and tenacity uncovers some of the most outrageous financial scandals that you won't find anywhere else.  Another former Wall Street trader who has dedicated herself to uncovering Wall Street's excesses and the scandals that have destroyed our economy is Nomi Prins.  Her site www.nomiprins.com is mainly a site to promote the books she has authored but also contains the best and most complete and ongoing analysis of the Wall Street bailout.  These are contained in the "Reports" section of her blog and these are updated monthly.  Also included are her articles such as her most recent listing the Top 10 reasons not to bank with Bank of America.

Lastly, for general news,opinion and analysis my favorite non-mainstream media website is www.truthdig.com.  This is the home of two of my favorite columnists Chris Hedges and Robert Scheer.  Both of these columnists used to work in the mainstream media but have given it up intentionally because of its corporate bias.  Hedges reports some of the best social criticism out there these days, and Scheer's finance and banking reporting is top notch. 

So, there is plenty out there to expand your view of what is really going on in the world.  The more you look for sources of information outside of the convoluted and quite frankly false world being perpetuated in the MSM, the more you will learn to think more critically of the world around you, not to mention the more you will be able to think for yourself.

I am always open to learning more from many different points of view.  If you have some websites or sources that you suggest, please feel free to post them in the comments section or on my facebook page.  I'll be sure to check them out and might even add them to my list of daily news sources.

More Random Thoughts

My New Flag

Those of you who know me know that I am 1) a flag geek; and 2) a big fan of the Gadsden flag.  The Gadsden flag, of course, is the Revolutionary War flag that is bright yellow with a coiled rattlesnake above the words "Don't Tread On Me" which has been completely usurped by the Tea Party movement.  I used to actually have a huge Gadsden flag on my office wall, but since the Tea Party stole it and it now stands for whackjob right wing conspiracy theories, I had to abandon its use.

Since then, I have looked for a new flag, and last week actually found one that suits my purposes perfectly.  I give you the Veterans Exempt flag!

It combines all the greatness of the Gadsden flag, the Jolly Roger, the other Revolutionary war flags and the Freakin' Oakland Raiders!  Thirteen black stars on a silver field, a coiled rattlesnake beneath the words "Don't Tread on Me" and a skull and crossbones above the phrase "Thy Will Be Done."  Damn!  This would make any Bankster shake in his Gucci loafers.

This is a flag that was used by retired soldiers who fought in reserve in the Battle of Plattsburg during the War of 1812.  It was a late (and rare) U.S. victory in this battle against Britain.  I need a full size version of it because it is the coolest freaking flag ever made!!!!!!

More Class Warfare

Why is it that Class Warfare is a term that is only used in order to criticise arguments in favor of implementing policies which would benefit working class people?  For those of you who haven't noticed, class warfare has been waged against the middle class for the last 30 years to the point where there really isn't any middle class left anymore.  The result of this economic warfare has been that income disparity has widened to record proportions while median incomes have actually dropped during that period.

The latest meme being used by the real class warriors on the right is to point out that 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.  This is an old trick used by the rich to drive wedges between different groups of people who would otherwise find a common purpose (that being that they are continually being screwed by those in power again and again and again) in order to keep them from rising up to overthrow the rich.  It's also a complete and utter lie.

Although it is true that 50% of the poorest Americans do not pay any Federal income tax, they pay a hell of a lot higher percentage of their income in all sorts of other taxes.  These include sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.  These are taxes that everyone pays, but the poor are hurt disproportionately by these taxes because they constitute a much higher percentage of their net income that those who do pay taxes.

Class warfare is real and has been going on for decades.  Now those against whom the war has been waged are fighting back because their very survival depends on it.

My Annual Diatribe Against DST

DST.  It sounds like some kind of carcinogenic chemical that industries are pumping into the food supply that ends up killing babies.  If only.

DST is Daylight Savings Time.  DST was first implemented during World War II in order to help Americans conserve energy for the war campaign.  The theory is that if you switch the clock forward an hour during the warmer months, people will use less energy lighting their homes because it will be light out later eliminating the need to use electric lightbulbs.  Good idea -- when everyone went to bed at dusk! 

Since then, DST has become a permanent fixture in most of the U.S. with the exception of a few holdouts (Arizona and until recently parts of Indiana).  Fine.  It works during the summer.  We get to mow our lawns after work.  Great. 

But over the years the government has lengthened the time that DST remains in effect for way, way too freaking long.  The result is that I feel like absolute crap during the last two weeks of October and now the first week of November.  For crying out loud can we freaking go back to standard time already?!?!?!?!!!  I feel like I'm sleepwalking all the freaking time.  It no longer is serving a purpose and my internal clock is needing a break already!

#OWS and the Need to Keep Up The Fight

There were reports this week that Occupy Wall Street is starting to see fissures as conflict breaks out amongst the leaders as to goals and strategies.  This isn't surprising as I have seen this happen all too often, especially in left leaning organizations.  There seems to come a point where intransigence amongst members in their philosophical views starts to splinter the larger group.  This is what appears to be happening with #OWS.

Hopefully calmer heads will prevail and the members can set their egos aside.  This movement is simply too important to allow this to happen.

One of the things that has been pointed out about the movement is how their biggest obstacle to long-term sustainability may be simply getting beyond the cultural differences between many middle class non-activists and the perceived hippy or intellectually superior attitude of the left.  One of the best ways I can see this happening is to employ military Veterans to help bridge the gap between the protesters and the Tea Party types.  Some of the best media clips to come out of #OWS have come from Vets such as the Iraqi Marine Vet who said Sean Hannity could go F*** himself.  Nobody's going to question the patriotism of someone who just risked his life overseas so that he could shore up the profits of JP Morgan.

Syracuse 49 West Virginia 23

Just had to say it again.  GO ORANGE!!!!!!!!!

Herman Cain Again

It's starting to get too easy to attack Herman Cain.  When faced with criticism over his 9-9-9 plan and how it would disproportionately harm the poorest individuals, Cain introduced a new caveat to the plan.  He would implement Entrepreneurial Zones in inner-city urban areas where the 9% sales tax and business tax would be suspended.  This would come with caveats, though.  Included in these caveats would be the elimination of the minimum wage in these areas and the implementation of school voucher programs.  I'm thinking that next he's going to come up with a catchy slogan for his plan like, oh, I don't know, "Work Makes You Free" or something like that.  Again, how can anyone support this asshole?

Random Thoughts

1. Banks v. Government
I have heard the argument a lot lately that we should be blaming the government not the banks for the economic mess because the government allowed the bailouts and the banks would not have been saved except for the bailouts.  While this is factually true, the argument fails for one reason in particular: it absolves the banks of any responsibility for their practices prior to, during and after the bailouts.  I agree that the government is ultimately responsible for allowing the banks to act recklessly and to save them when their reckless acts kill the economy.  However, we have to realize that the banks are running the government.  These things don't just happen.  Wall Street has hijacked our political process.  Our government is literally bought.  Our Presidents for the past 30 years, Democrat and Republican, have done the bidding of financial institutions.  Our Congress sells their constituents down the river as they bathe in the rivers of campaign cash that flow from Wall Street.  Our Supreme Court has wrapped bribery in the cloak of the Constitution to benefit their well heeled friends.  Yes, it is the government's fault, but we mustn't ignore the source of the corruption and that is the banks.

2. The Charlatan U.S.

The latest on the "People's Candidate" Herman Cain.  It seems old Herman has gotten himself into quite a pickle.  Not only are the affects of his 9-9-9 plan coming under greater and greater criticism from all sides, but it appears that he is enriching himself by running for President.  It came out this week that his campaign has spent campaign contributions to purchase 100,000 copies of Cain's book.  How many of you out there who may have contributed to Cain's campaign figured that your hard earned cash would be going to line Herman's pockets.  I guess he sees the Presidency as another entrepreneurial opportunity.  Of course, it would stand to reason that a former Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Board would know well how to fleece the American taxpayer for his own benefit.

3. The Mess Known As the Big East

No word yet about whether Missouri will bolt the Big XII for the SEC.  However, if they do it will be the last nail in the coffin of the Big East football conference.  The Big XII has made no secret of the fact that if this happens they will be taking two Big East teams (Louisville and either West Virginia or Cincinnati) along with BYU to get back to twelve teams.  This will bring the Big East down to 5 permanent football schools and nix the expansion plans to add 6 teams from C-USA and the Mountain West.  It will also pretty much torpedo any extension of the automatic qualifier for the conference in the BCS beyond 2013 and may in fact end it prior to then.  If the Big East had any pride left at all (which they don't) they would fire their commissioner and vote to end the football conference after this year allowing the remaining hostages to negotiate their own conference alignment and salvage any hope of having a future for football at their respective institutions.

4. More Big East Stupidity

The person who has been put in charge of the Big East's expansion efforts is the Athletic Director at Notre Dame.  Notre Dame, with its independent status in football and their own television contract, has it in their best interest for the Big East to be as weak as possible in football so that they don't compete with Notre Dame.  Who the hell is running this mess?

5. Syracuse 49 West Virginia 23

There's nothing else really to add to this, it just makes me smile.

6. Obama's Empty Promises

I will have more to say about this in an upcoming full length post.  However, expect the Obama campaign through its bought and sold institutional liberal lackeys MoveOn.org and others to try to make a big deal of the fact that he is supposedly removing all troops from Iraq by the end of the year.  Besides the fact that it is 36 months later than he said when he was campaigning and 18 months later than the delayed deadline that he imposed on himself after taking office, this does not mean that Obama has re-found his populist liberal persona that got him elected.  The recent "uncovered plot" involving a ridiculous plan of an Iranian used car dealer to assassinate the Saudi and Israeli Ambassadors to the U.S. indicates that this is just a preliminary to Obama using U.S. forces against Iran.  First off, I don't believe the facts of this story for a minute (if you're going to institute a believable "false flag" terrorist plot, you have to go through with the actual attack, otherwise it just sounds stupid).  Secondly, the vehemence with which the entire Obama foreign policy team went after this story seems to be setting the stage for a move on Iran.

7.  Don't Knock the Use of Drones

There's been a lot of criticism on the left (and some on the right) about the use of U.S. drones to attack those accused by the U.S. of being terrorists.  This criticism has been especially ramped up after the killing of U.S. citizens in Yemen who allegedly acted against the U.S. through terrorist organizations to organize and sponsor attacks against U.S. citizens and interests.  To my friends on the left, open your minds to the implications of this action.  We all know that folks like Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner have been acting as financial terrorists against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.  I'm just sayin'...