My Blog

You can find me here from now on -

shawnfassett — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:19:47 GMT

http://www.facebook.com/people/Shawn-Fassett/678335125

'AIG disclosed on Sunday that European banks...were among the biggest beneficiaries of the taxpayer bailout...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:42:13 GMT

From Reuters - AIG disclosed on Sunday that European banks including Deutsche Bank and France's Societe Generale were among the biggest beneficiaries of the taxpayer bailout of the insurer. --- From Michael Parenti - "...it should be the government making direct investments. The government should go directly into production. It should be the government that’s building housing. It should be the government that gives healthcare."

'Many of Bhutto's friends and backers have distanced themselves from the actions of the government, which in recent days has arrested opponents...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:25:32 GMT

From the LA Times - Pakistani authorities today placed opposition leader Nawaz Sharif under house arrest, a day after putting the armed forces on alert amid an escalating power struggle with former allies. U.S. diplomatic efforts to defuse the political crisis intensified as the Pakistani government pledged anew to block a massive opposition rally in the capital on Monday. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton separately telephoned President Asif Ali Zardari and Sharif on Saturday, urging both sides to show restraint, according to spokesmen for the two camps. Zardari's office said Clinton promised U.S. support for democracy in Pakistan. Word of Sharif's house arrest came from a spokesman, Pervez Rashid, who said hundreds of police surrounded the party leader's residence at dawn, hours after he delivered a trademark fiery speech to supporters in Lahore. Pakistani television reports said Sharif's politician brother, Shahbaz, had also been confined in the city of Rawalpindi, adjacent to Islamabad. In a sign of the disarray within Zardari's government, a key aide, Information Minister Sherry Rehman, was in seclusion after reports that she had tendered her resignation. Rehman was a close associate of Zardari's late wife, ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Many of Bhutto's friends and backers have distanced themselves from the actions of the government, which in recent days has arrested opponents and placed restrictions on political rallies. The Obama administration is also keeping a wary eye on the seeming ascendancy of Sharif, who has less of a pro-Western bent than Zardari, as well as tighter links with Islamist parties. An angry backlash against the Supreme Court ruling by supporters of the popular Sharif coincided with plans by a nationwide lawyers movement to stage protests demanding the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who was fired by Musharraf. Now the two causes have in effect merged. Most of the dozens of judges fired by Musharraf have been returned to the bench, and Zardari promised to reinstate the remainder but has not done so. The president is widely believed to fear that Chaudhry would reinstate corruption cases against him. Zardari has also delayed giving up extraordinary powers that Musharraf accorded himself as president, including the ability to dissolve parliament.

'So why is the Middle East Policy Council any more intellectually corrupt than AEI or WINEP?'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:21:23 GMT

From Ken Silverstein - One of the most common charges hurled by the opponents of Charles Freeman Jr., who yesterday withdrew as chair of the Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council, was that he “headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington.” I’ve written about the influence of money on think tanks and think it’s a valid point of concern, but let’s put this assertion in perspective. Freeman headed the Middle East Policy Council. I’m not sure how much Saudi money flows to the think tank, but it can’t be much. I checked the firm’s non-profit disclosure form for 2007 and its total receipts for the year were $731,000, and it had assets of $1.3 million. Freeman was paid $87,000 that year. Compare that to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank that is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel and whose board includes Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig and Martin Peretz. Its receipts for 2007 came to $11.9 million, and it had $26.5 million in assets. Robert Satloff, the institute’s executive director, was paid $307,000. Dennis Ross, now the Obama administration’s special adviser on Iran, was paid $208,000 for duties as a “Distinguished Fellow.” Then there’s the equally pro-Israel American Enterprise Institute, from where a number of prominent Bush Administration employees came. It had assets of $77 million in 2006 (the last year for which I could find its disclosure form at the Foundation Center), and receipts of $56 million. None of these groups list funders on their websites, nor are they required to list them on disclosure reports. (AEI says it doesn’t disclose donors; the Washington Institute’s press contact was out today.) The Israeli government doesn’t (as far as I know) back AEI or WINEP, but conservative foundations do and it’s hard to imagine that pro-Israeli organizations and individuals aren’t kicking in large sums as well. So why is the Middle East Policy Council any more intellectually corrupt than AEI or WINEP? And why is employment at the former a bar to government employment, but a job at the last two is not?

'He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:13:48 GMT

From the Nation - Rush Limbaugh offers Democrats an irresistible target as the de facto leader of the Republican Party, but for my money, Rick Scott is the man who best embodies the spirit of the current conservative opposition. The name may not exactly be a household word, or it may ring a faint bell, but Politico recently reported that the millionaire Republican would be heading up Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), a new group that plans to spend around $20 million to kill President Obama's efforts at healthcare reform. Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. You see, the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the man who will be delivering what Politico called the "pro-free-market message." A Texas lawyer who shared a business partner with George W. Bush, Scott started his health company, Columbia Hospital Corporation, in 1987. Its growth was meteoric, expanding from just a few hospitals to more than 1,000 facilities in thirty-eight states and three other countries in 1997. As his firm gobbled up chains, like the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), it became the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals. He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business and touted his company's single-minded pursuit of profit as a model for the nation's entire healthcare system. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he told the New York Times in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the marketplace." The press portrayed Scott as a guru to be admired and feared, "a private capitalist dictator," in the words of one Princeton health economist. "Other hospitals were intimidated," recalls John Schilling, who worked for Columbia/HCA in the 1990s. Scott was "like the bully that would come into town and if you didn't sell to him or partner with him, he would open up shop across the street from you and put you out of business." Not long after joining the company in 1993 as the supervisor of reimbursement for the Fort Myers, Florida, office, Schilling noticed things weren't quite kosher. "They were looking for ways to maximize reimbursement...which ultimately would improve the bottom line." One way they did this was to fudge the costs on their Medicare expense reports. They were "basically keeping two sets of books," says Schilling. The company would maintain an internal expense report, what it called a "reserve" report, which accurately tallied its expenses. "And then they would have a second report, which...they would file with the government, which was more aggressive." That report would "include inflated costs and expenses they knew weren't allowable or reimbursable. The one they filed with government might claim $5 million and the reserve would claim $4.5." Columbia/HCA would pocket the difference. It wasn't just happening in Florida, and it wasn't just fraudulent Medicare expense reports. Around the country, dozens of whistle-blowers like Schilling stepped forward to file lawsuits under the False Claims Act, charging the company with sundry forms of chicanery: kickbacks to doctors in exchange for referrals, illegal deals with homecare agencies and filing false data about the use of hospital space. By 1997 the FBI was investigating Columbia/HCA. Days after agents raided company facilities armed with search warrants, Scott was forced to resign. In 2000 the company pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to pay the government $840 million. Other civil settlements would follow, ultimately totaling a staggering $1.7 billion, making it the largest fraud case in American history. But in Washington there's no such thing as permanent disgrace, and as the healthcare debate heats up, Scott has established himself as a go-to source for reporters looking to hear from the opposition. He's been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He's been on Fox, of course, railing against President Obama's efforts to control healthcare costs. He appeared on CNN, where (as Media Matters noted) host Jessica Yellin never saw fit to notify viewers that the man she introduced as running "a media campaign to limit government's role in the healthcare system" once ran a company that profited mightily from ripping off that government.

'...the commanders see little benefit from negotiations with the Taliban right now, despite Obama's support for such an overture.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:55:09 GMT

From Rajiv Chandrasekaran - MAYWAND, Afghanistan -- Lt. Col. Daniel Hurlbut rolled into this dusty Taliban stronghold in September with a battalion of U.S. Army infantrymen and a detailed, year-long plan to combat the Taliban. The first quarter was to be devoted to reconnaissance. The next three months would involve military operations to root out insurgents. By now, his unit should have been focusing on reconstruction and building up the local government. But the battalion's efforts to pry information about the Taliban from the local population -- by conducting foot patrols, doling out money for mosques to buy new prayer rugs and offering agricultural assistance to subsistence farmers -- have been met with indifference, if not downright hostility. The southern part of the country is now regarded by U.S. and NATO commanders as the central front in the Afghan war. It encompasses the nation's second-largest city, Kandahar, and six provinces where the Taliban has built a significant degree of popular support, in part through intimidation but also by delivering Afghans a degree of security against criminals that the local police and international forces have been unable to provide. The new strategy here involves a major -- but controversial -- push to better coordinate the efforts of NATO troops deployed in the south, a new focus for counternarcotics operations and the allocation of more troops to train Afghan security forces. It also seeks to apply a fundamental tenet of the U.S. Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine: Deploy the troops to create zones of security around population centers instead of mounting in-and-out raids against the insurgents. Unlike in eastern Afghanistan, where the U.S. military had been concentrating its troops since 2002, American units in the south will be forced to work far more closely with other NATO forces. The new U.S. troops will find themselves in a swath of the country that is the epicenter of opium poppy cultivation and where far fewer resources have been devoted to reconstruction and development. And they will be forced to deal with a deep-rooted, indigenous insurgency -- the Taliban got its start in the south -- that has mounted increasingly potent attacks on civilians and security forces. What the new strategy does not seek to do, however, is to borrow a page from the U.S. playbook in Iraq by creating tribal militias to fend off the Taliban. Commanders here said that approach could create even more warlords and new intratribal feuds. And the commanders see little benefit from negotiations with the Taliban right now, despite Obama's support for such an overture. Military officials regard the Taliban, composed largely of ethnic Pashtuns, as both too strong and too fragmented in the south to pursue an effective deal, although they remain open to the possibility in the east, where some tribal leaders who have supported the insurgency could be persuaded to switch sides. When NATO forces were deployed to the south in 2006, the Canadians were assigned the province of Kandahar, the British got Helmand, and the Dutch were sent to Uruzgan. The three nations developed their own battle plans and agendas for development. They established provincial reconstruction teams that report to their capitals, not the NATO regional command at the Kandahar airport. People at the regional command now joke that the three provinces should be renamed Canadahar, Helmandshire and Uruzdam. "It's a totally dysfunctional way of fighting a war," said a U.S. officer in the south. "You've got each of these guys doing their own thing in their provinces with very little coordination." The fractured approach is a result of demands imposed by NATO members as a condition of sending troops to Afghanistan. Each nation wanted its own chunk of the action so it could show off what it had accomplished.

'Until recently, the District's AIDS office lacked a fully staffed surveillance unit to collect, analyze and distribute data.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:47:14 GMT

From the Washington Post - At least 3 percent of District (Washington D.C.) residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow. That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office. "Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." In addition to the epidemiology report, the city is also releasing a study on heterosexual behavior tomorrow. That report, funded by the CDC, was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services. Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex. So urgent is the concern that the HIV/AIDS Administration took the relatively rare step of couching the city's infections in a percentage, harkening to 1992, when San Francisco, around the height of its epidemic, announced that 4 percent of its population was HIV positive. But the report also cautions that "we know that the true number of residents currently infected and living with HIV is certainly higher." The District's report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006, touching every race and sex across population and neighborhoods, with an epidemic level in all but one of the eight wards. Black men, with an infection rate of nearly 7 percent, carry the weight of the disease, according to the report, which also underscores that the District's HIV and AIDS population is aging. Almost 1 in 10 residents between the ages of 40 and 49 has the virus. The report notes that "this growing population will have significant implications on the District's health care system" as residents face chronic medical problems associated with aging and fighting a disease that compromises the immune system. Until recently, the District's AIDS office lacked a fully staffed surveillance unit to collect, analyze and distribute data. Inevitably, the office lost credibility, and although it has received millions in federal and local funds -- $95 million this year -- some care providers questioned whether resources were being properly allocated. Critics also say congressional control over the District had restricted the AIDS office's ability to combat the virus among drug injection users by banning the use of local tax dollars for a needle exchange program. After almost a decade, the ban was lifted last year. Heterosexual sex was the principal mode of transmission for blacks with the disease, 33 percent. Men having sex with men was the chief mode of transmission for white residents, 78 percent; and Latinos, 49 percent. Black women represent more than a quarter of HIV cases in the District, and most, about 58 percent, were infected through heterosexual sex. About a quarter of black women were infected through drug use. There is good news in the AIDS office's report: More people are getting HIV diagnoses early, while they are still healthy, as a result of a policy of routine testing implemented by the city in mid-2006. Publicly supported HIV testing expanded by 70 percent.

'Private ownership is so concentrated in some areas that a single electricity company from Spain, Endesa, has bought up 80 percent of the water rights...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:39:41 GMT

From the New York Times - QUILLAGUA, Chile — During the past four decades here in Quillagua, a town in the record books as the driest place on earth, residents have sometimes seen glimpses of raindrops above the foothills in the distance. They never reach the ground, evaporating like a mirage while still in the air. What the town did have was a river, feeding an oasis in the Atacama desert. But mining companies have polluted and bought up so much of the water, residents say, that for months each year the river is little more than a trickle — and an unusable one at that. Quillagua is among many small towns that are being swallowed up in the country’s intensifying water wars. Nowhere is the system for buying and selling water more permissive than here in Chile, experts say, where water rights are private property, not a public resource, and can be traded like commodities with little government oversight or safeguards for the environment. Private ownership is so concentrated in some areas that a single electricity company from Spain, Endesa, has bought up 80 percent of the water rights in a huge region in the south, causing an uproar. In the north, agricultural producers are competing with mining companies to siphon off rivers and tap scarce water supplies, leaving towns like this one bone dry and withering. Some economists have hailed Chile’s water rights trading system, which was established in 1981 during the military dictatorship, as a model of free-market efficiency that allocates water to its highest economic use. But other academics and environmentalists argue that Chile’s system is unsustainable because it promotes speculation, endangers the environment and allows smaller interests to be muscled out by powerful forces, like Chile’s mining industry. Codelco, the world’s largest copper miner, rejects any responsibility. Pablo Orozco, a company spokesman, said that the river water had been bad for years, and that heavy rains around the time of the contamination episodes had briefly swelled it, sweeping sediments and other substances into the water. But the debate is largely academic, because without suitable water to raise crops, many residents saw no reason to continue resisting outside offers to buy the water rights in their town. One mining company, Soquimich, or S.Q.M., ended up buying about 75 percent of the rights in Quillagua. Most residents moved away; those who remain average around 50 years old. “Quillagua cannot resist much longer,” said Alejandro Sanchez, 77, pointing a cane at a parched, grassless field where he once grew corn and alfalfa. In 2007, the national water agency started investigating claims that Soquimich was extracting even more water from the Loa River than it was due. The inquiry is still pending, officials said, though the company says it has never taken more water than it owns rights to. But early last year, the regional water authority started satellite monitoring along the Loa. After recording no water at all in the summer of 2007, Quillagua suddenly received small amounts last year, and again this January. That has made water authorities suspicious that companies had been draining more water than permitted, according to Claudio Lam, a regional director for the Chilean water agency. Even so, the water arriving in the summer is still not enough to produce crops, said Victor Palape, the chief of the Aymara Indians in Quillagua. In a cruel twist, the town survives only because of daily water trucks that are partly financed by Codelco and Soquimich, the two companies that residents blame most for their troubles.

'The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers”...

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:34:45 GMT

From Charlie Savage - But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional. Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements led to fierce controversy. He frequently used them to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a ban on torture and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counterterrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act. Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. The practice became more frequent with the Reagan administration, but it initially drew little attention. That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio. Many of Mr. Bush’s challenges were based on an expansive view of the president’s power, as commander in chief, to take actions he believes necessary, regardless of what Congress says in legislation. The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” and called on Mr. Bush and future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto. The Obama administration portrayed its approach as a major departure from that of Mr. Bush. But Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, disagreed, saying Mr. Obama was “wrong” to embrace the view that signing statements can be constitutionally legitimate. “I think the Constitution is explicit as to how you handle these situations, and if the president thinks something is unconstitutional, then he ought to veto it,” said Mr. Specter, an outspoken critic of Mr. Bush’s signing statements. He called the practice a “dodge” and “a disregard for the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government.”

Not Getting It

shawnfassett — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:31:00 GMT

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/3/13/10946/0471/227/784

Stewart v. Cramer

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:27:15 GMT

From Glenn Greenwald - Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

'...Italy’s highest court ruled Wednesday that Italian prosecutors had violated state secrecy in their case against American and Italian intelligence operatives.'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:53:38 GMT

From the New York Times - MADRID — In a decision that seriously weakened the most high-profile prosecution in Europe involving the seizure of terrorism suspects, Italy’s highest court ruled Wednesday that Italian prosecutors had violated state secrecy in their case against American and Italian intelligence operatives. The decision by the Constitutional Court was a blow to a case of extreme political delicacy between Italy and the United States, in which 25 operatives from the Central Intelligence Agency, an American Air Force colonel and several Italian intelligence officials are charged with the seizure of an Egyptian terrorism suspect in 2003. The ruling did not throw out the original indictments, but it deemed inadmissible much of the evidence on which the case had been built, including material seized from Italian and American intelligence operatives. The suspect, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, an imam known as Abu Omar, was seized on the streets of Milan in an instance of what has become known as extraordinary rendition, in which terrorism suspects are sent for interrogation to other countries, some of which use torture. Prosecutors contend that the defendants, who include the former head of Italian military intelligence, kidnapped Mr. Nasr, took him to American military bases in Italy and Germany, and eventually to Egypt. Among the unanswered questions is who in the Italian government made the decision to cooperate with American intelligence operatives. According to lawyers for the prosecution, the court deemed inadmissible files that had been seized from the Rome apartment of an Italian intelligence operative, the Italian news media reported. The court also threw out some testimony from an Italian police officer who said he had participated in Mr. Nasr’s seizure at the request of Robert Seldon Lady, who was then the Central Intelligence Agency’s station chief in Milan. But the ruling appeared to admit evidence gathered from wiretaps of intelligence operatives, which the Italian government had filed motions to dismiss.

'...CBS News named Jeff Ballabon, a New York Republican activist, to serve as the Senior Vice President of Communications.'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:47:23 GMT

From Ira Forman - Today, I learned that CBS News named Jeff Ballabon, a New York Republican activist, to serve as the Senior Vice President of Communications. A decade ago, I debated Ballabon in New York. I represented the Democratic Jewish community while he spoke on behalf of Republican Jews. During the debate, Ballabon claimed that, after his most recent job in Washington, he became convinced that Democrats are inherently bad people and Republicans are fundamentally good people. In fact, it is not atypical of Ballabon to use this kind of extreme partisan rhetoric. During the 2008 election, Ballabon said, "Obama is incredibly dangerous." During the 2004 elections, JTA reported, "AIPAC has touted this election [in 2004] as a 'win-win' proposition, noting Bush's strong support for Israel and Kerry's 100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate." In response, Ballabon wrote, "Bush and Kerry 'win-win?' Republicans and Democrats indistinguishable? It would be funny if Jews weren't being killed."

'...each paid $195 so Vondran and Brodetsky can teach them a fresh way to make money off of other people's debt.'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:45:05 GMT

From Salon - Some 40 mortgage brokers and real-estate agents are gathered at the Long Beach Hyatt on a balmy Friday in January to attend a seminar conducted by broker Allen Brodetsky and local real-estate attorney Steve Vondran. The mortgage business might have collapsed, but those assembled in the glittering ballroom have each paid $195 so Vondran and Brodetsky can teach them a fresh way to make money off of other people's debt. The new product is a loan modification. When borrowers are unable to pay their monthly mortgage bills, a frequent occurrence in this era of self-destructing subprime loans, loan modifications allow the borrowers to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages. They pay a lower monthly charge and keep their houses, and the broker earns a paycheck for arranging the new deal. Besides doing so-called loan mods themselves, Vondran and the San Fernando Valley-based Brodetsky help others get started in the business. Vondran also has another niche within the field: Brokers hire him to eyeball borrowers' mortgage papers to see if their original lenders committed improprieties in making the loan. Many of the lenders did, and loan mod brokers who can promise their clients a legal review have an edge on the competition. Pitching his services to the room, Vondran works up a lather against predatory lending, which he denounces, quite accurately, as "an unlawful attack on home equity." Brodetsky then shows the group at the Hyatt a redacted photocopy of a loan modification he recently secured. It cuts the borrower's monthly payment to about $1,500 -- half of what it would have been if he or she had to pay the full amount owed. Unfortunately for the borrower, however, is that the remaining debt doesn't vanish. Those unpaid tens of thousands are waiting there to be reckoned with down the road, plus years of additional interest. "Isn't that predatory lending?" gasps one of the attendees at the Hyatt. Vondran and Brodetsky change the subject. But the biggest winners in the government's $275 billion homeowner bailout just might be the mortgage brokers who were largely responsible for creating the disaster in the first place. Many are now reinventing themselves as heroes of the mortgage crisis by offering loan modification services.

'The Senate intelligence committee reached an agreement yesterday on the framework of a wide-ranging review of the CIA's past treatment of terrorism detainees...'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:39:52 GMT

From the Washington Post - The Senate intelligence committee reached an agreement yesterday on the framework of a wide-ranging review of the CIA's past treatment of terrorism detainees, even as members acknowledged that the bulk of the panel's work will be conducted in secret. The committee's Democratic and Republican leaders settled on a blueprint for a year-long probe that will examine the agency's detention and interrogation of about 100 suspected al-Qaeda operatives held in secret overseas prisons between 2002 and 2006. The scope of the bipartisan review will include the CIA's use of harsh interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and whether such methods actually produced significant intelligence, as the Bush administration claimed, the panel said in a prepared statement. But how much of their findings will be made public remained unclear. The Senate inquiry will run parallel to a separate White House review of Bush administration detention and interrogation practices. Neither review is expected to result in recommendations for criminal charges.

'...claims to have evidence of MI5 telegrams sent to the CIA, which he says were used to direct his alleged torture...'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:37:41 GMT

From the Independent - Britain was condemned last night for its complicity in the American programme of rendition and alleged torture of hundreds of terror suspects, in a highly critical United Nations report. The UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin said the US was only able to create its system for moving terror suspects around foreign jails because of the co-operation of allies, naming the UK alongside Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Canada and Georgia. Mr Scheinin's findings follow accusations made by British resident Binyam Mohamed, who claims to have evidence of MI5 telegrams sent to the CIA, which he says were used to direct his alleged torture during his 18-month detention in Morocco, before he was sent to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Along with Romania, Poland, Germany and Italy, Britain is accused of using laws designed to protect national security to "conceal illegal acts from oversight bodies or judicial authorities, or to protect itself from criticism, embarrassment and - most importantly - liability".

'There’s a story making the rounds that former Congressman Curt Weldon will not be charged in a seemingly endless influence-peddling probe that dates back more than two years.'

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:35:04 GMT

From Ken Silverstein - There’s a story making the rounds that former Congressman Curt Weldon will not be charged in a seemingly endless influence-peddling probe that dates back more than two years. “It has been 28 months since FBI agents descended on Delaware County in the midst of a no-holds-barred congressional race, eliminating U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon’s chances of returning to Washington for an 11th term,” the Philadelphia Daily News reported over the weekend. “In October 2006, three days after media reports revealed the existence of an influence-peddling probe involving Weldon, federal agents raided the homes and business of the congressman’s daughter, Karen, and his campaign adviser, Charles Sexton Jr. But more than two years after the raids, neither the Weldons nor Sexton have been charged, and some legal observers say they may not be.” Prosecutors have charged two people in the case: Cecelia Grimes, who is a lobbyist and intimate friend of Weldon’s, was charged with destroying after the feds found that she had tossed her BlackBerry into a dumpster at Arby’s. Russ Caso, Weldon’s former chief of staff, was charged with failing to report $19,000 of his wife’s income on a congressional disclosure report (though the income was reported for tax purposes). According to the News: Cooperating witnesses who strike plea deals are typically not sentenced until after they testify against whomever the government plans to target, according to John Lauro, a defense attorney and former Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York. “You want to keep that issue open and give the sentencing judge the ability to see the extent of the cooperation, which may have included testifying,” Lauro said. The fact that prosecutors want to proceed to sentencing Caso and Grimes “signals to me that charges against anybody else are unlikely,” he said. If the case is dropped at this point, it will certainly be an embarrassment for prosecutors. All they’ve got to show for their work thus far are two guilty pleas from small players, on insignificant charges. (Caso’s “crime” pales in comparison to the actions of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who failed to pay $34,000 in taxes.) As to Weldon, perhaps the feds can’t demonstrate that he belongs in jail (though the congressman and a number of his colleagues have benefited due to the Speech or Debate Clause). One thing is certain, though–he doesn’t belong in Congress. In addition to being a buffoon Weldon indisputably helped steer business to the lobby shop of his twenty-something daughter, who had no political experience; he similarly helped out the lobby business of the similarly inexperienced Grimes, a close personal friend; his children had a tendency to get jobs with his campaign donors and defense firms he helped out; he took his family on a European trip paid for by Russian and Serbian interests; and he used huge sums of campaign money to dine out at restaurants and stay at hotels. The list goes on and on. In short, Weldon used his congressional seat to the great benefit of himself, his family and friends. It’s possible he did nothing illegal, but his conduct was clearly unethical.

Shorting

shawnfassett — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:52:53 GMT

From the AP - Investors are also aware that much of this week’s rebound can be attributed to covering short positions. Traders have been covering short bets by buying stocks, especially after the Securities and Exchange Commission said it was considering reinstating the “Uptick Rule.” The rule, eliminated in 2007, aimed at curbing short-selling by only allowing it when a stock edged higher.

Science!

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:34:52 GMT

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~kotchen/links/DSTpaper.pdf

'The proposed station would not be large enough to accommodate half the passengers expected to be using the system by 2030.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:07:22 GMT

From SF Chronicle - San Francisco's planned high-speed rail station in the new Transbay Terminal would be obsolete within two decades, state transportation officials warn, forcing them to rethink the design. The proposed station would not be large enough to accommodate half the passengers expected to be using the system by 2030. In addition, the current scheme poses engineering challenges for a Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal downtown, officials said. "Three sets of engineers met and they concurred that the design for the station was inadequate and useless for high-speed rail," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. The problems have transportation officials scrambling to find fixes to assure that the rail projects don't miss out on federal stimulus funds. California is the only state with a high-speed rail plan and funding. Heminger has been tapped to mediate the dispute that involves the potentially competing interests of Caltrain, the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the agency overseeing construction of the new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets. The building - described by project sponsors as the Grand Central station of the West Coast, with bus and train service - is envisioned to be the San Francisco home of high-speed rail and the new Caltrain station, extending its service closer to the downtown job center than does the current terminus at Fourth and King streets 1.3 miles away. As it stands, the first phase of the project would be built without a "train box," the skeleton of the underground train station. The idea is to build it later, when funding becomes available. But building the train box in the first phase could shave an estimated $100 million off the $490 million cost. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority board must decide by summer whether to move up building the train box in order to keep on schedule, said Adam Alberti, spokesman for the Transbay Authority. Construction on the new terminal is expected to start in early 2010. But even if Transbay officials put the train box on the fast track, there's still debate over whether the current design - one platform and two tracks for Caltrain and two platforms and four tracks for high-speed rail - would be sufficient. Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, testified before the Metropolitan Transportation Commission governing board last week that it would not withstand the test of time. "We have found out that the current design that was environmentally cleared gives us less than one-half of the capacity we'll need by 2030 to carry all the passengers," Morshed said. The High Speed Rail Authority now believes that the station would have to be able to handle 12 trains an hour, or one every five minutes. Under that scenario, eight to 10 tracks would be required, Alberti said. He said the Transbay team only learned of that three weeks ago. One idea being studied is whether a two-story underground train station would be feasible from engineering and funding standpoints. Separately, Caltrain officials have raised concerns about the design pertaining to, in part, track alignment and slope. The U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to release the rules for the funding competition in about four months, which gives Bay Area and high-speed rail officials some breathing room.

'A former top NASA official has been indicted on charges of steering $9.6 million in agency money to a consulting client.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:58:32 GMT

From the AP - A former top NASA official has been indicted on charges of steering $9.6 million in agency money to a consulting client. The United States attorney’s office announced a three-count indictment on Friday against the former official, Courtney Stadd of Bethesda, Md., who had served as NASA’s chief of staff and White House liaison. The indictment accuses Mr. Stadd of steering money from an earth science appropriation to Mississippi State University, which was paying him as a consultant. Mr. Stadd is also accused of lying to NASA ethics officials investigating the matter. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on all three charges. Mr. Stadd, who joined the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as chief of staff in 2001 and left the agency in 2003, served as President-elect George W. Bush’s NASA transition chief in 2000. Mr. Stadd “was centrally involved in the organization and management of NASA,” said John Logsdon, a Smithsonian Institution space scholar. “He was in many ways the White House representative to the NASA front office,” said Mr. Logsdon, a member of the NASA Advisory Council. “So he had a fair degree of influence.” According to the indictment, Mr. Stadd started a management consulting firm called Capital Solutions that specialized in advising aerospace-related clients, including the Georesources Institute at Mississippi State. The institute paid Mr. Stadd $85,000 in fees and travel costs to edit documents and prepare community outreach and public communications material, the indictment says.

'Avigdor Lieberman...intends to demand that Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu grants him "full autonomy" in the new post, Haaretz has learned.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:57:02 GMT

From Ha'aretz - Avigdor Lieberman, who Thursday emerged as the most likely candidate to replace Tzipi Livni as Israel's foreign minister, intends to demand that Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu grants him "full autonomy" in the new post, Haaretz has learned. Relations between Lieberman and Netanyahu have reportedly become tenser than usual following Netanyahu's talks with Labor chairman Ehud Barak over Barak's possible inclusion in a future government. Labor has a nucleus of prominent members who said they will not accept their party's entry into a coalition with Lieberman, whom they accuse of racism against Arab Israelis. Lieberman, for his part, was reportedly offended by Netanyahu's attempts to reach a deal with Barak. But prominent Labor members have harshly criticized Barak over the negotiations, saying Netanyahu's regional vision does not match Labor's. With Kadima heading for the opposition benches and Labor's hard core leaning in the same direction, Lieberman is a crucial partner for Netanyahu if he is to form a coalition, as he was instructed to do by President Shimon Peres following the February 10 elections. Peres entrusted Netanyahu with the task instead of Kadima's Livni, based on a recommendation by Lieberman, whose party clinched 15 seats in parliament.

'The American visit was ignored by state-run newspapers, a possible indication of Syria’s cautious approach.'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:55:00 GMT

From the New York Times - A senior American envoy visited Syria on Saturday as part of the Obama administration’s effort to ease the rivalry between the countries, and he said he held “very constructive” talks with Syrian officials. Syria has also signaled its interest in better relations, but both sides remain cautious over whether they can surmount their crucial differences, including Syria’s backing for militants and its alliance with Iran. The Syrians want a strong American hand in Middle East peacemaking to help them regain territory they lost to Israel in the 1967 war. Improvement in bilateral ties also could result in easing economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by Washington. The Obama administration’s decision to send Mr. Feltman and Mr. Shapiro to Syria is the most significant sign yet that it is ready to improve relations with the Syrian government after years of tension. The two met Saturday with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem. But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the envoys were sent for “preliminary conversations” when she announced the visit last week and played down the expected results from the diplomatic push. It was not clear whether the United States envoys would meet with President Bashar al-Assad. The American visit was ignored by state-run newspapers, a possible indication of Syria’s cautious approach. Imad Moustapha, Syria’s ambassador to the United States, said that he noticed a change in the Americans’ tone in his recent meeting with Mr. Feltman in Washington. “They’ve given up on the idea of Syria has to do this and that,” he said, characterizing current discussions as an “in-depth exploratory dialogue” by the Americans after the failure of their past policies.

'Because the case for never criticizing Israel and backing it no matter what it does makes little strategic or moral sense...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:51:26 GMT

From Stephen Walt - You know your opponents are worried when they start calling you names. Jonathan Chait says I'm "paranoid," that I "went bonkers" in a recent blog post, and that my scholarship is "wildly hyperbolic." He says his real objection to Charles Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council is that Freeman is an "ideological fanatic" (isn't it odd that this quality went undetected during Freeman's lengthy career as a public servant?) and that Freeman's other critics were mostly worried about his relations with Saudi Arabia (as if this had nothing to do with their views on other aspects of our Middle East policy). Nice try, but it is abundantly clear to almost everyone that the assault on Freeman has been conducted by individuals -- Chait included -- who are motivated by their commitment to Israel and who are upset that Freeman has criticized some of its past behavior. Of course Chait doesn't broadcast this openly, as it would immediately undermine the case he's trying to make. As for the others, Michael Goldfarb compares me to Father Coughlin and says I assembled a "blacklist," when in fact I did no such thing. I'm not suggesting that Freeman's critics should lose their jobs or face other forms of persecution; I just pointed out what they were doing and said it was wrong. Read what I actually wrote, and then ask yourself why Goldfarb would make this up. Perhaps he's confusing me with Ron Radosh, who did call for the New York Times to fire Roger Cohen for writing a column about Iran that didn't demonize it. Jeffrey Goldberg says that my co-author and I are "viciously anti-Israel," even though we have consistently declared our support for a Jewish state, said we "admired its many achievements," and wrote that the United States "should come to Israel's aid if its survival is ever in jeopardy." M.J. Rosenberg challenges Freeman's critics too, and Goldberg labels him a "professional slander expert." What explains the false claims and overheated rhetoric these pundits employ? Why can't Chait and his allies represent their opponents' views accurately, and deploy facts and logic instead of invective and character assassination? Answer: because the case they are defending is so weak. Not the case for Israel's existence, which virtually everyone engaged in these debates supports (including Freeman himself), but the case for continuing to give Israel nearly unconditional backing, even when it continues to build settlements in the Occupied Territories and when its newly-elected leaders openly declare their opposition to a two-state solution, which was the preferred outcome of the Clinton and Bush administrations and is now the stated goal of the Obama administration. Because the case for never criticizing Israel and backing it no matter what it does makes little strategic or moral sense, advocates of that approach have no choice but to misrepresent their opponent's arguments, and to try to portray them as wild-eyed extremists (i.e., "ideological fanatics" or "paranoid"), in an attempt to marginalize them. It never seems to occur to them that what we really have here is a straightforward policy disagreement, and that the policies they prefer might actually be harmful to Israel and the United States. Their tactics used to work pretty well, but more and more people understand and resent the game that Israel's hardline supporters are playing. But Messrs. Chait, Goldfarb, and Goldberg don't get this. They don't understand that their mean-spirited fulminations are undermining their own case, much as a loudmouth hogging the mike at a public meeting turns off the rest of the audience. So it's hard to get too upset at all the name-calling. As Napoleon once said, "when your opponent is making a very serious mistake, don’t be impolite and disturb him." P.S. The Washington Times reports today that Freeman's appointment is going to be vetted by the DNI's Inspector General, to make sure there are no disqualifying conflicts of interest. I see nothing wrong with that, provided he is judged by the same standards as other government officials in similar roles. The article also quotes several former NIC members who support the vetting process but believe "It has to be looked at, but I don't see anything to disqualify him," and that Freeman "should be a fine choice."

'Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed...'

shawnfassett — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:46:06 GMT

From Reuters - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees. Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.