So, Why Should I Care About Interest Rates?

I could have subtitled this post "Or...Where the hell is my damn pitchfork?!?!?!?!"

You might wonder why I am complaining that interest rates are at zero percent at least through 2014 if we are to believe the FOMC (and there is no reason not to). Let's face it, there are lots of benefits to low interest rates for consumers -- cheap credit, lower car payments, lower mortgage payments, etc. So why in the world would I be arguing for interest rates to increase?

The simple answer is that it encourages economic responsibility in that higher interest rates encourage saving and right now savers are getting royally screwed in favor of speculators.

But if we look at what led to the economic collapse of 2008 and beyond, we see what real destructive effects debt and low interest rates have had on our economy as a whole and if you really start to understand what is going on, you too will be looking for your own pitchfork (or an arsenal of high powered assault rifles).

I will focus on one scenario here. One of the biggest investors in bond markets are pensions. I'm sure that you've heard all sorts of stories about the trouble that large pensions, especially public employees pensions and unionized manufacturers like automobile companies have had since the collapse in 2008. Often, especially over the last two years this has been used as an excuse for right wing politicians to attack unions and in some cases such as Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere to actually attempt to eliminate the right of public employees to bargain collectively. It is the wasteful, overpaid union employees that lead to the unaffordable pensions.

This is nonsense of course, and hopefully you'll see why once you've finished.

Pensions focus on bonds because they are historically the safest investments around. Bonds generally have a guaranteed rate of return at a specific date. Bonds do not have a high rate of return, but they also do not pose much of a risk. However, the rate of return on a bond is effected by the interest rate which is set by the Federal Reserve. When interest rates are high, bonds are a better investment as they have a higher rate of return. However, when interest rates are low, the rate of return on those investments is lower making them a worse investment.

During the 2000s, the FOMC set interest rates at historically low levels. Many times this was in response to huge economic emergencies such as the 9/11 attacks. But as a general rule the decade saw the lowest interest rates overall in recent history, holding for long periods below 2% and spending most of the decade well below 5%.

Because of this, pensions found themselves getting less and less of a return on their usual investments in bonds. This is the major reason that large bond investors such as government and large corporate pension funds started looking elsewhere for places to invest their money. The Trustees of these funds had a duty to maintain a certain level of return for their beneficiaries and the bond market was simply not providing them an avenue in which to find these returns.

Wall Street banks offered a solution to this in the form of derivatives. Derivatives of course are the complex financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps which played the largest role in the economic collapse and were responsible for the annihilation of trillions of dollars of wealth in 2008 after the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and the rest of the large Wall Street financial institutions.

What derivatives such as CDOs were in their simplest form were securities that were made up of other debts or financial instruments. Say bank A makes 1,000 loans to consumers and then sells those loans to Investment Bank B who then carves up the 1,000 loans into a security. The best loans are Pool 1, the middle loans somewhat riskier are Pool 2 and the worst of the loans which are the most likely to default are Pool 3. These are then sold to investors with a price and return that is equal to the risk that each pool's individual risks.

As long as everyone played by the rules, these were pretty basic, pretty vanilla investments. Sure, they were sexier than your run of the mill bonds like T-Bills, since they would provide a slightly better rate of return since they involved slightly more risk, but they weren't any kind of economic succubus which would devour the entire economy either. The problem was, that as long as interest rates remained relatively normal (5%-7% or higher), there really wasn't a huge market for these types of investments among large pension funds, since the risk simply wasn't worth the slightly higher return.

When interest rates tanked and large investors like pension funds started looking for new ways to satisfy their duties to their beneficiaries is when everyone stopped playing by the rules.

Faced with this huge market of new potential investors, the banks started aggressively marketing these investments which up until that point had been seen as exotic creatures that were far beyond the pale of anything that a wise principled conservative investor like a pension fund would invest in. However, seeing the opportunity to make boatloads of money, these investments were marketed as virtually risk-free investments much like Treasury bonds but with a much higher rate of return.

Once the pension funds (along with other traditionally conservative investors such as life insurance companies, nonprofits, hospitals and the like) were hooked, this is when things went horribly awry. With a sudden increase in demand for CDOs which were mostly based on residential mortgages, there was a need for more product. As a result, there was greater and greater pressure placed on lenders to make more and more mortgages. Inevitably, standards for mortgages dropped. Traditional requirements for a mortgage like having 20% equity as a down payment, a certain level of income, or stability in employment were quickly abandoned, as the goal for many lenders simply became to lend so that the mortgages could be sold to investment banks who would securitize the mortgages into CDOs.

This erosion of traditional standards of lending led to riskier and riskier mortgages making up the CDOs that were being sold as risk-free investments. However, the ratings agencies, who were being paid by the very investment banks whose instruments they were supposed to be scrutinizing, went along for the ride, abandoning their own underwriting standards and continuing to give these increasingly risky investments the highly sought after AAA rating.

As time went on, many of the firms began slicing up these pools of investments even further to create as if out of thin air new AAA investments. In many cases what they would do is take the worst investments of one CDO (Pool 3 for instance) and then slice that up further to create a new CDO with three new levels with the new Pool 1 receiving a AAA rating, even though it was previously considered the lowest level of the prior CDO in which it was included.

The worst offenders (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase are among this group and have paid civil fines in the billions of dollars to settle charges of this without acknowledging wrongdoing) would intentionally create CDOs that were made out of complete junk (the notorious "shitty deals" referred to in Senate hearings on the subject), sell them as AAA risk-free investments to institutional investors and then bet against them, making billions upon billions of dollars as the investments acting exactly as they were designed to, with all of the loans that made up the CDOs defaulting and the value of the investment going to zero.

We know what eventually happened. Plain simple logic would dictate that this type of scheme could not last forever, and the cracks in the foundations started being seen in 2007 and then imploding completely in 2008. The large banks which were responsible for most of what led to the implosion were bailed out and essentially absolved of their wrongdoing with a waive of the hand of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke.

Although there has been some reform in lending institutions (for instance, the ridiculous interest-only loans and adjustable rate mortgages have been for the most part abandoned and many equity requirements have been reintroduced) the underlying problem that led in great part to the collapse has not only not been remedied, but has become worse. Interest rates have been at 0% for more than three years and the FOMC has said that they will remain there at least through 2014. This policy encourages increases in both institutional and consumer debt as well as discouraging savings. Large investors are still faced with taking on greater and greater risk in order to satisfy their requirements on return. Conservative investors are being squeezed out of the market altogether as there is simply no incentive to save or invest in low risk, low return instruments.

This is how bubbles are created. This is how economies are ruined. This is how nations are destroyed.

What I have presented here is a very bare-bones example of the effect of the FOMC's policies over the last couple of decades. The realities are obviously more complex and more difficult to understand. However, what I have set forth is no less true. The more we pay attention to these machinations, the more we learn how the cards are being stacked against ordinary Americans by our own government and financial institutions. The more we pay attention, the less likely we are to stand by and say nothing or believe the talking heads on CNBC who say "it's all a part of the market and there's nothing we can do about it." The more we pay attention, the more likely we are to demand change.

Are you looking for your pitchfork yet?

Why MLK Still Matters

On this day on which we celebrate the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I am always reminded of why it is that we must continue to be vigilant in continuing his fight for justice and equality.

It would surprise many, as it does me, that Dr. King can still inspire controversy. He has become such an accepted part of the American narrative that you would think that these objections would have gone the way if those old segregationist dinosaurs like Jesse Helms who fought so hard against this holiday.

It is especially surprising when we look at the sanitized version of Dr. King that has become that celebrated standard. We hear the "I Have A Dream" speech and we go to the mountaintop with him. We see the marches in Alabama and the police dogs and brick throwers. We don't hear his words speaking out against the injustices of the Vietnam War or see his speeches railing against poverty and calling for revolutionary change in our economic reality.

But much to my amazement even the sanitized King is too much for some.

When I first came to North Carolina to attend law school at Wake Forest University I was quite surprised that the school did not honor the Dr. King holiday by canceling classes for the day.

My view was shared by others in the law school community. My first year the National Lawyers Guild, an association to which I proudly belonged, wrote an open letter to the Dean asking for the faculty to take up the issue and take action to have Dr. King's holiday as a day off to honor his work and his life. The second year, we presented a petition signed by a large number of the students.

Both attempts at encouraging change at the law school were basically ignored. The school would continue to honor the day by holding a discussion on issues of race so that we would celebrate the day appropriately. The paternalism of the then all white administration and nearly all white faculty (my how things have changed) was not lost on those of us pushing for change. What was especially disconcerting to us was the fact that we always had the Monday before MLK Day off, starting the semester on a Tuesday. This "Mystery Monday" made the solution to our demands so easy to accomplish that it seemed that the administration was simply being intractable just to show they wouldn't be pushed into any decision.

During my third and final year it was determined that bigger actions were needed. The Lawyers Guild and the Black Law Student Association joined forces for a plan to organize a class boycott and noon time rally at the law school. Notices were sent out to all students announcing the events and encouraging everyone to take part and attend. Those of us taking part in the boycott sent notices to our professors explaining we would be absent and encouraging them to cancel classes as well, which many did. Speakers were scheduled, media were notified and the plan was put into place.

I was scheduled as the first speaker at the rally. I spoke about what I felt we as future attorneys were charged by Dr. King to do in our lives. That we would be put into positions where we would come face to face with racism whether it be from a client, a fellow attorney or even a judge or our bosses. Would we have the courage to stand up to this injustice and speak out or would we sit by and remain silent? It would not be easy to speak up and it might even mean suffering hardships along the way. But if we were to live up to the challenge of Dr. King's legacy then that is what we would be called to do. And, of course, any small injustice we might suffer would be inconsequential when compared to those suffered by Dr. King himself and all the other martyrs of that dark time in our nation's history.

The boycott was a success. The next year and ever since Wake Law has had no classes on this day. And hopefully many of my fellow students who attended that rally and listened to my words and the words of the other speakers were emboldened just a bit to have the courage to speak up rather than remain silent.

That was 15 years ago. You would think that we would have seen less and less of a need to speak up as we continue to progress as a society. We have a black President for crying out loud, one who was elected with more votes than any other candidate ever received. There's talk of a post-racial America where people are truly judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

But as always the more progress we see the more the exceptions are brought to the forefront. Anyone who follows politics or even simply reads the comment section of any newspaper website knows that the hatred and injustice of the old guard racism still exists.

Of course it is one thing to hide behind the anonymity provided by a screen name on a message board or chat room and another to shamelessly air your views for all to see.

I came across the latter yesterday. One of my "friends" on Facebook, a person I know but with whom I would otherwise not socialize, posted on her status something to the effect that since she didn't celebrate MLK Day and couldn't understand why anyone would, could she send her kids to school so she could take the day off in peace. I know in her mind her garden variety ignorance and bigotry was an attempt at a joke, albeit a very unfunny one. But what followed was downright alarming. Other of her ignorant and bigoted friends posted various guffaws and agreements. But some went well beyond that. One of her friends posted the following: "I wish they had killed six more so we could have the whole week off."

To the credit of some of her "friends" there were some rebukes made toward the ignorant and the bigoted. But for the most part the others joined in. Of course all of them defended their comments and the comments of the others as not being racist. I bet they even have black friends (although they're probably "colored"). Apparently defining racism is another things they no longer cover in our public schools.

What this little example showed to me is that there still exists plenty of opportunities for us to stand up against bigotry and hatred every day. We still have opportunities to take up Dr. King's challenge and be a voice for justice every day. Apparently my former Facebook friend and her other cohorts were never faced with anyone willing to call them on their prejudice. Pity.

The only question that remains is will we take up this challenge or will we remain a silent co-conspirator? Which will you be? Which will I?

Why Does Tim Tebow Bug Me So Much?

OK. I know this post is going to piss some people off. I'm broaching one of those subjects you're not supposed to discuss in polite company and anything that is the least bit critical of someone who professes their Christianity ad nauseum is looked down upon by the rabidly devotional, so I'm telling you up front, you might not like this post. But that's never stopped me before.

First off, let me say I actually am glad that Tim Tebow is seeing success in his NFL career. I always thought he was a very talented quarterback -- he's the only person in college football history to win the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore, for instance. I like the fact that he is a throwback type of quarterback, one who isn't afraid to run with the ball and take a hit once in a while. He's an actual "back" rather than a snap taker like so many of the wimpy prima donna quarterbacks we've seen over the years. He may not be the most graceful or the most talented athlete, but he has grit and determination and I like that. I also like the fact that he is succeeding when all the "experts" said he would never be able to play at the professional level.

So, what is it that bugs me about Tim Tebow?

You know, it isn't even that he is so expressive about his religion. His over the top reaction to a good play, what has become known as Tebowing, kneeling in prayer with his fist planted against his head, his eyes squinting to show he's praying really, really hard doesn't really bother me. Whatever. To each his own. Not my style, but if this is his way of expressing himself, so be it.

I think what it is that bugs me so much is the kind of cultish following that his on-field antics (and let's face it, they're antics no different than the Icky Shuffle or jumping into the stands in Green Bay) have received by the more fanatical religious groups in this country. Some fans have taken to wearing Tebow jerseys that have "Jesus" on the back instead of "Tebow." His wins are called "miracles." Religious fanatics have credited his wins on divine intervention. Even last week, just before Tebow embarked on one of the greatest playoff performances of any quarterback in NFL history, there were reports that a "halo" mysteriously appeared over Denver's Mile High Stadium as if God were giving His divine blessing on the Broncos leading them to their win.

Folks, let's get a grip.

Tim Tebow is not Jesus. His wins are not miracles or the result of some higher being intervening on behalf of the Broncos. God, however you see him (or don't see him as the case may be) doesn't care who wins a football game. There are simply bigger issues in the universe to deal with. His win on Sunday had a lot more to do with the Broncos offensive  execution and the failed defensive game plan of the Pittsburgh Steelers than it had to do with which team had more faith.

The fanatical attention that has been brought to Tebow reminds me of what I consider the worst kind of religious discourse. That of religious supremacy. Whatever religion you belong to, I am always turned off by those who use religion as a means to both see themselves as better than someone else and in turn denigrate others. If your religion helps you deal with life's twists and turns, if it helps you be a better person, if it helps you treat others and yourself in a better way, if it helps you find peace in your life, GREAT! And really, I don't even worry if you want to help someone else find those same good things by introducing them to your religion. But if your religious beliefs are such that you simply think that you are better than me or someone else, that you are deserving of preference in society and those who are unlike you are deserving of less because of their beliefs, then I don't want anything to do with you.

Tebow reminds me of those people I have seen over the years going to Mass who make a big spectacle of their worship. Those who flail around or do the various motions of the Catholic Mass (which are pretty understated or at least are supposed to be) in an exaggerated manner, as if to show everyone else who is in attendance just how much more devoted to God they are than everyone else. I usually call these people the "Pharisees" after the religious elite in Christ's time who took such exception to the actions of Jesus because it went against the accept teachings at the time in the Jewish faith.

There's another aspect to this which is a cultural thing that a lot of my friends here in the South simply won't understand. Where I am from, religion is not something you wear on your sleeve. I can't quite explain to you how taken aback I was the first time I was asked by someone shortly after moving to North Carolina where I went to church. This is simply a question you would never ask in the North. I admit that I found the question to be quite offense and it made me deeply uncomfortable, although now I understand that it is simply a standard question that is part of normal conversation in the South and not meant in an intrusive manner, but simply as a way to endear oneself to another and possibly invite the person to your church.

Being a Catholic, although far from a traditional one, I've had fun with this concept over the years. For instance, a neighbor was having a church group over at their house for a social gathering after services one Sunday and mistakenly gave them directions to my house rather than theirs. He came over to inform me of this so I would know where to send them if they came knocking on my door. I told him we'd just take them in, tie them to a chair and convert them and then maybe we'd send them his way.

I've always believed that religion is something that doesn't have to be shouted from the hilltop, but rather would be best shown by your actions. I identify more with the hymn "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love," rather than "Onward Christian Soldiers."

What probably bothers me the most about Tim Tebow is that he appears to be buying into his own hype. His replies to some of the very faint criticism he has received have become more overblown and more aggressive. I'm starting to think that he feels that he actually is playing on behalf of God or that his religion is bestowing on him the success that he is having. This is sad, actually. If there is one constant in sports as in life it is that no one is successful all the time. There will be times when you are up and times that you are down. Just a couple of weeks before Tebow's incredible victory against Pittsburgh, he had a game where he threw more interceptions than completions. Was this God showing disapproval? Did Timmy have one too many swears that week for him to have God on his side? Of course not. Just as his religion had nothing to do with the success he had the next week.

Look, I hope the best for Tim Tebow. Like I said, deep down I'm rooting for him. I just don't buy into all the hype and dislike all the cult like hero worship that his religious antics are causing. I hope he keeps a level head and that he learns to see success and failure as going hand in hand. Keep things in check, my brother, and remember that pride goeth before a great fall.

And no, you won't see me Tebowing any time soon.

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.