The kind of upheaval observed in the international money markets over the past few months has never been witnessed in history. —Thomas Jordan, "a Swiss central bank governor," as quoted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing in "Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park'"

It was not the above quote but a conclusion drawn earlier this month by Evans-Pritchard that has drawn the attention of bloggers—

The strategic failure of a whole generation of economists, bankers, and policy-makers has been so enormous that it may now take a strong draught of socialism to save the Western democracies. We start - but may not end - with the nationalisation of Northern Rock. —from "America faces day of reckoning with debt"

Perhaps thanks to the spectacle of anxious account holders standing in line to withdraw money from a bank for the first time since the Great Depression, the British appear to have a better understanding than Americans that the crisis is not one of sub-prime mortgages per se but of the banking system itself.

Ten days ago the British Treasury announced further guarantees of Northern Rock to include "'uncollateralized and unsubordinated wholesale deposits' and liabilities under any ''uncollateralized derivative transactions,'" which brings the public's liability to 113 billion pounds [$226 billion].

It is now occurring to some folks that if the government is to be responsible for the bank's obligations, the government might as well own it—hence Evans-Pritchard's loose use of the word "socialism." This is not, however, socialism but an effort to perpetuate capitalism under new ownership.

To show you what I mean, we might compare an action being contemplated in the U.S.—

Quietly, insiders are perusing an obscure paper by Fed staffers David Small and Jim Clouse. It explores what can be done under the Federal Reserve Act when all else fails.

Section 13 (3) allows the Fed to take emergency action when banks become "unwilling or very reluctant to provide credit". A vote by five governors can - in "exigent circumstances" - authorise the bank to lend money to anybody, and take upon itself the credit risk.

It works out to be the same remedy that the Brits are applying to Northern Rock, but if and when there is ever a discussion of government takeover of U.S. banks, you will know that the dollars have hit the fan. You will also notice a very strong smell as they disintegrate into brown flecks.

Related post
Shades of 1929 (9/15/07)

Tags: news and politics UK Britain banking

Does anyone remember Our Man in Havana? It's a British spoof on Cold War spying in which Alec Guinness, as a vacuum-cleaner salesman, convinces the British spy agency that he's acquired top-secret plans for a rocket launcher. But the plans turn out to be the schematics for one of the models in his vacuum cleaner line. The 1959 movie was filmed in Cuba, famous by then for Communists and the rhumba.

Now comes the iRobot Corporation fresh from winning a lawsuit against Robotic FX Corporation for patent infringment and "misappropriation" of trade secrets. As a result of their court victory they've been blessed with a $286 million contract to supply "bomb-disarming robots" to the U.S. Army—101 of them immediately.

If you want to know how the thing works, you might inspect one of the models in their vacuum cleaner line—say, the Roomba.

Tags: news and politics robotics land mines

Class, either by income or social status, is real but undefined in our society, yet those conditions underlie so much of the economic, social and political conversation in the newspaper. —Timothy J. McNulty, Public Editor (ombudsman) for the Chicago Tribune, writing in "Class definitions always will be a moving target for journalists"

McNulty is worried about the 163 times that writers for the Tribune used the phrase "middle class" this year. Surveying the stories he found that the notion was applied to people making from $120,000 and $180,000 in one story but down to $63,500 in another.

I recall a study from some years ago finding that most Americans tend to identify themselves as "middle class" no matter where they cling on the socioeconomic ladder. Perhaps in reference to that fact McNulty writes—

There is a reason that politicians of both parties and commentators, such as Lou Dobbs, send out angry broadsides about the "war on the middle class." Listeners -- no matter how much or how little they make -- can choose to believe these commentators are talking about them.

How can you have a class war if there are no classes? It's good to know that the press continue to assist in the public's conceit and the official deceit, though I doubt the mavens of the media have given it much thought. They are, after all, middle class—just like the rest of us.

Tags: news and politics wealth inequality socioeconomic status culture

liability relief: retroactive immunity from charges of criminal acts, amnesty

"Liability relief" is what the majority of the U.S. Congress hope to provide for AT&T and other telecommunications giants for their criminal role in spying on Americans at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA).

"Liability relief" should be distinguished from "pardon," which removes the punishment but not the fact of the crime, as George Bush granted to "Scooter" Libby.

Tags: news and politics domestic surveillance

Klüft and Holm, reigning Olympic champions in the heptathlon and high-jump events, both agreed that competitors at the highest level should either have computer chips implanted into their skin or GPS transmitters attached to their training bags to help keep track of their movements at all times. —Paul O'Mahony reporting in "Klüft touts computer chip implants"

I have nothing against sports. They're an excellent way to keep mesomorphs out of mischief. But public adulation of our athletes will ultimately lead to incursions into the lives of ordinary citizens that seem to have no bounds.

It is now common for highschoolers to be subjected to drug-testing if they want to participate in any school-sponsored sport. Baseball is in the midst of a "drug scandal" that will undoubtedly see some sort of drug-testing emerge. If this is deemed permissible for and by the public's idols, it is little wonder that invasions of the privacy of lesser mortals are readily accepted.

I am not, by the way, opposed on principle to the implantation of computer chips or binding people with irremoveable GPS anklets. But such technologies need to tested.

We must begin our research with the group capable of inflicting the greatest harm to the public and requiring the greatest amount of surveillance—our politicians.

I want to know their whereabouts every minute of a 24-hour day. If they enter a restroom I want a videocam to prove they're there to pee—and not just to pick up a briefcase full of cash. If they hold a meeting, I want it recorded and transmitted off-site to prevent tampering with the recording device.

The program would of course be entirely voluntary and in no way conflict with any cry-baby notions of "civil liberties." Like athletes, politicians are not forced to enter their profession. And these small intrusions into their lives should be regarded only as part of the "cost of doing business," which I know they'll happily pay in return for the rewards and remunerations of the job.

As we now have it, national politicians are surveilled fairly closely only during the course of a campaign. But the moment they're elected they disappear into a bureaucratic maze that makes it hard for the citizen to keep track of them. The results, as we have seen again and again, can be disastrous. This state of affairs must end.

Meanwhile you might want to check out what's going on over at spychips.com and antichips.com.

Tags: news and politics domestic surveillance Sweden RFID microchip implantation

The Nordic Battlegroup is a rapid-reaction force of the European Union (EU) consisting mostly of Swedes. And since, contrary to rumor, feudalism is not dead, the NB needs a coat of arms.

This is what artist Vladimir A. Sagerlund produced—

Some ladies of the battlegroup were so offended by the pizzle twixt the lion's legs that they took the matter to the European Court of Justice. So the army acted in the interests of "gender equality" and removed the offending genital. This act of butchery confirmed everything Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a host of right-wing bloggers ever thought about castrating women, not to mention Europeans.

Limbaugh, especially, bemoaned the loss of the penis—

... another illustration of the chickification of culture."

"Is that how you get gender equality? You emasculate a lion? Why not just put boobs on the female lions? What do you have to go and take away the penis for?"

—A plaint heard all too often.

The artist was incensed—

"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown."

But the army proceeded with the depizzling—

"We were given the task of making sure the willy disappeared," Christian Braunstein from the army's 'tradition commission' told Göteborgs-Posten.

"We were forced to cut the lion's willy off with the aid of a computer," he added.

The lion now appears as shown below—

If the point was to androgynize the animal, the effort failed. It was silly to dewilly but leave the mane intact. Surely that's the prominent feature. Of the pizzle I can only remark that if the ladies hadn't brought it up I would never have spied it, since I avert my eyes from the hinder parts of animals, as we all should.1

Related post
The town of Piekary Slaskie: A Polish joke (1/31/07)

Tags: * heraldry Europe Sweden political correctness Scandinavia humor

The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste. —Columnist Paul Krugman writing in "Big Table Fantasies"

Why, bless my soul! Now that I think about it the profits are the waste.

Related posts
No Free Lunch gets a table (9/25/05)
Sweden fixes its teeth (12/7/05)
First American graduate from Cuban medical school (8/26/05)
Healthcare costs: The deception continues (4/25/06)
Cuban Immigration Plan of the Day (8/8/06)

Tags: * health care insurance pharmaceutical industry

The US–Turkey tragifarce continues. Turkey sent 50 fighter jets over Kurdish Iraq (Kurdistan) this Sunday to strike villages where the PKK, the "terrorist" organization leading the Kurdish separatist movement, were presumed to be active. According to the BBC report, "Iraqi officials" claimed 10 villages were attacked. The PKK says five of its fighters and two women were killed.

Yesterday's account from the BBC included Turkish claims that the U.S. had backed the attacks. Today's update from the Beeb bore the headline "US denies backing Turkey PKK raid." Whom to believe? This one is easy: Believe the Turks.

Bradley Brooks of the AP seems to have better connections than the BBC correspondents—

The attack came a month after the U.S. promised to share intelligence with Turkey to help combat the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK and Turkey's military chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, said U.S. intelligence was used Sunday.

"America gave intelligence," Kanal D television quoted Buyukanit as saying. "But more importantly, America last night opened (the Iraqi) airspace to us. By opening the airspace, America gave its approval to this operation."

In Washington, a Pentagon official said that the U.S. military has been sharing intelligence with the Turks, but that he did not know exactly what information was given to aid with the airstrikes or when it might have been given.

Another defense official said the U.S. had made sure Turkey would have clear use of the skies to enable the strikes.

They both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

While an attack by 50 warplanes may seem a sudden and frightful escalation of the Turkish threat to invade northern Iraq—highlighted by the 100,000 or so troops positioned at the border—it seems more likely an attempt by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan at least to postpone such an eventuality, with the U.S. assisting him in the effort.

As I've mentioned previously, Erdogan appears to have his own reasons for averting a full-scale ground invasion aside from the question of whether such an invasion would be strategically or tactically sound. Nevertheless, with a claim that over 35,000 Turkish lives have been lost in attacks by the PKK, Erdogan can't allow the Turkish public to conclude that he's sitting on his hands.

My conclusion is based on these considerations—

First, it is odd that so many warplanes could attack so many villages and leave only 7 dead. If the strikes were "surgical" (a term not used in the accounts), the Turkish Air Force makes the U.S. Air Force look like an abortionist with a coathanger. It seems more likely that the attack was an exercise in "shock and awe."

Second, the attack could only anger anyone who still identifies as an Iraqi, but certainly the Kurds. The unofficial acknowledgement of U.S. complicity in the foray reveals the delicate situation in which the U.S. finds itself—unable to control Kurdistan on the one hand and unable to deny Turkey its right to self-defense on the other. So it may be that a highly visible but essentially toothless air attack was the best that could be hoped from the U.S. perspective.

Still there is a cost. To help stave off an outright Turkish invasion, the U.S. must cooperate more openly with Turkey while risking alienation of the only region that has stayed out of the armed resistance to U.S. occupation—

Masoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region, in a statement condemned the attacks, which he said were "conducted with indirect U.S. approval, as defending the sovereignty of Iraq and the Kurdish region is within the Americans' responsibilities."

Barzani is well on record in support of Kurdish independence.

Related posts
If this is true ... (3/4/05)
Threat of the Day (10/9/07)
Another excuse for the US presence in Iraq is crumbling (10/23/07)

Tags: news and politics Kurdistan Workers Party

This past Thursday the Spanish-language news journal "Aquí y ahora" surprised me with some relatively old news: There is an exhibit at the American University Museum in Washington, DC, of the "Abu Ghraib" series of 79 paintings by the Colombian painter Fernando Botero. It opened in November and will close December 30. Though the paintings have been shown in Europe, this is the first exhibition in an American museum.

I suppose the paintings were a surprise for me not only because I don't keep up with the art world but also because the paintings, produced in 2005, received little notice in the American media. No surprise there.

The Washington Post turned to Erica Jong for a reaction at the time of the opening, and react she did—

I am looking at another recent work by Botero in which a roly-poly woman is stuffing her face with an apple as if she were a Christmas pig. Before the Abu Ghraib series I would have shrugged off this image. Now I see all Botero's work as a record of the brutality of the haves against the have-nots. I would be surprised if the Abu Ghraib series of images did not completely change our view of Botero as an artist.

Botero alludes to Picasso's Guernica when he states his reasons for painting the series—"Nobody would remember the horrors of Guernica if it weren't for the painting [Simply Appalling translation]." And he notes that he based the paintings not on the famous photographs out of Abu Ghraib but on what he read in the press.

Unfortunately, most of us will not have the opportunity to see these paintings. So cycling from the press to the paintings and from the paintings back to the press, I recommend the description of the exhibition written by Tim Harper for the Toronto Star that concludes—

Most say they find Botero's paintings more disturbing than the actual images, which they all saw in media accounts at the time.

Since there are a number of Simply Appalling readers in the Washington-DC area besides the NSA, I thought I should mention the exhibition before it closes.

Tags: news and politics torture

There's little time to write. I've been contending with rot and mold—not on me, as you might suppose, but on the surrounding structure.

In the meantime you might contemplate the motivation for this—

... the Army won't let you read any Silver Star narratives. Though most are not classified, they are kept filed away from public view....

Army lawyers and bureaucrats have blocked requests ... to open these war stories to the public....

—David Wood reporting in "Army blocks 'narratives' of heroism"

Wood lists the official excuses—

The Army denied a March 2006 Freedom of Information Act request for the narratives, first on the grounds that it couldn't find all of them.

Next, Army lawyers argued that releasing the narratives "could subject the soldier and family to increased personal risk." But the Army and the Defense Department already publicize the names, photos and hometowns of medal recipients.

The lawyers also argued that disclosure would discourage officers in the future from writing detailed battle accounts.

The Army seems not to have a leg to stand on—

After being prodded for more than a year, the Army acknowledged last week that there is no law or regulation that blocks release of the narratives.

The Army had argued that a Defense Department directive specifically prohibited the release. But the Pentagon directive on medals and awards makes no mention of narratives, and the Army's assertion was hotly denied by a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck. "No DoD policy prohibits the release of award narratives," he insisted.

Even so, Army lawyers are conferring with the Pentagon's general counsel, seeking a balance between privacy and public disclosure, officers said.

So the Army is lying about it's reasons for hiding the narratives and fighting tooth and nail to prevent their disclosure. What could account for this bizarre behavior?

My only thought is that the Army may fear that disclosure of the narratives might open them up to questions concerning the integrity of the awards, as happened in the case of Presidential candidate John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 campaign.

Insights are always welcome in the Comments section.

Tags: * army medals citations military secrecy

Having been stood up last night by someone whom I was to meet me for an important conference at the Pink Snapper, I was left to ponder the meaning of 'meaning' and other lugubrious thoughts occasioned not only by the failure of our mutual understanding of the meaning of 'meet' but also by certain essays I had read yesterday in pursuit of greater insight into Bentham's Panopticon.

But before I could fully sound out "panopticism," I found myself hip deep in the maelstrom of post-structuralist indeterminacy from which I hastily withdrew. Call it a phobia if you like, but I have always feared I might lose my balance and be swept away by a floating antinomy.

I really don't understand the deconstructionists, but it has always seemed to me that, feeling as they do about words, they use an inordinate quantity of them.

All I know about meaning is that if I say "potato" over and over again it will in short order decompose into a veritable salad of meanings. And if I continue to say it, it will lose all meaning other than the pure sound of it—at least from my perspective—which hardly helps since pure sound has no meaning, as you may quickly verify by chanting "OM." So in the end I am left without the 'potato' I began with and begin to wonder what I should eat.

You, on the other hand, are free to suppose whatever you like about what 'potato' means to me—and this becomes part of the meaning of 'potato' for you, colored perhaps by your memory of the last time you were left alone in a room with a man saying "potato."

What this denotes I cannot—or will not—say.

Previous posts
Snatches from the Pink Snapper — 1 (11/12/07)
Snatches from the Pink Snapper — 2 (11/18/07)

Tags: humor philosophy post-structuralism

• According to Reuters, the Iranian news agency ISNA reported this weekend that Iran "has completely stopped selling any of its oil for U.S. dollars." This is probably not as dramatic as it appears at first blush since Iran has been steadily reducing its sales in dollars for some time, preferring the euro and yen.
   
• You've probably heard by now that "Scooter" Libby has dropped his appeal of his conviction for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. President Bush had already commuted his prison sentence. But the BBC offered this insight—

  The decision to drop the appeal is also a tactical one, correspondents say.
  
  Even if a federal appeals court overturned Libby's conviction, that would lead to another long and costly trial.
  
  If he was convicted again, Mr Bush's commutation would not apply and the president is likely to have left office.

• The diocese of San Joaquin, California, has become the first of the Episcopal Church's 110 dioceses to vote to secede from the American church and join the Province of the Southern Cone (South America). Too much "liberal theology" (read, "gays") in the American church, you know.
  
  Along the way the diocesan bishop, John-David Schofield, led his flock to believe that "... the Archbishop of Canterbury has been fully informed of the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone and described it as a 'sensible way forward.'" On Monday the Archbishop let it be known that he had done no such thing.

Tags: news and politics

The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC. —Sean Olender writing in "Interest rate 'freeze' - the real story is fraud"

Attorney Sean Olender doesn't think Bush's announcement last week of a plan to reschedule the rise in interest rates on subprime mortgages, maintaining them at their current levels for the next five years, is quite what it is advertised to be. In brief, Olender argues that the plan is not about keeping hapless homeowners in their homes but about keeping fraudulent financiers out of jail.

Along the way, Olender makes a number of observations about the mortgage debacle that are "beyond the current media discussion." For instance,

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

And, to be sure, fraud is everywhere. It's in the loan application documents, and it's in the appraisals. There are e-mails and memos floating around showing that many people in banks, investment banks and appraisal companies - all the way up to senior management - knew about it.

Secretary Paulson: What did he know and when did he know it?

As chief of Goldman Sachs, Paulson was involved, to degrees as yet unrevealed, in the mortgage securitization process during the halcyon days of mortgage fraud from 2004 to 2006.

Paulson became the U.S. Treasury secretary on July 10, 2006, after the extent of the debacle was coming into focus for those in the know....

Goldman Sachs is the only major investment bank in the United States that has emerged as yet unscathed from this debacle. The success of its strategy must have resulted from fairly substantial bets against housing, mortgage banking and related industries, which also means that Goldman Sachs saw this coming at the same time they were bundling and selling these loans.

If a mortgage bond investor sues Goldman Sachs to force the institution to buy back loans, could Paulson be forced to testify as to whether Goldman Sachs knew or had reason to know about fraud in the origination process of the loans it was bundling?

To be sure, there are other opinions as to what lies behind this new plan, which almost everyone agrees will not avert the crisis and will help as few as 145,000 homeowners. Elizabeth Warren says it may be a tactic to head off Democratic proposals for changes in the bankruptcy laws that would greatly empower threatened homeowners.

While economic ideology was undoubtedly considered before proposing this "plan," staying out of jail and saving the banks would be the priorities—and in that order.

Related posts
Many in finance found to be SIV-positive (10/30/07)
Must-View of the Day (11/17/07)

Tags: news and politics banking finance SIV mortgage derivatives corporate crime corporations

I've often felt that the role of economics, like religion, in the life of a people is seldom appreciated for its essence—a form of poetry that embodies the abstractions and distractions of those of us who have escaped from the plow and now wonder what we should do about each other.

Economics, disguised as science and cloaked in the robe of mathematics, typically presents itself so denuded of its poetic aspect that there should be little surprise if it is commonly ignored by anyone with any sense. Yet the pure poetry of the enterprise at times bursts forth in an effulgence that cannot fail to charm. Such was today's find.

The text was written by Gary Danelishen, an economics major at Baldwin-Wallace College, and was the concluding sentence of his essay on "Austrian Economics vs. Benanke's Economics."

It is an excellent example of abstract poetry and could well stand alone in any anthology. I have taken the liberty, however, of adapting it, using certain techniques associated with visual poetry, to produce the work that follows. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

[A note on browsers: This œuvre was produced using Firefox and tested under Safari. The result when viewed through Internet Explorer is, as always, anyone's guess—and if your monitor explodes I am, as always, truly sorry.]
 

THE MEANING OF IT ALL
 

A central-bank-engineered

monetary expan$$$ion

producing→

falling

€xchange rate$

is

a pecuniary externality

resulting in

a Lachmannesque kaleidoscopic vision of

CAPITAL

forever in

disequilibrium.

Tags: poetry humor

While not falling as far as Giuliani, Hillary Clinton has lost ground recently in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. The former First Lady now attracts 34% of the vote nationwide. That’s the lowest level of support recorded for Clinton since Rasmussen Reports began daily tracking in mid-July.... In weekly results, Clinton’s support hasn’t been this low since April. —Rasmussen Report commentary on their Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for 12/5/07

This may cost me an ambassadorship to Uzbekistan, but it's worth it.

Tags: * polling poll Hillary Clinton Campaign 2008

Today, along with the Idaho Statesman, I resume my efforts to assist the Republican Party with its sex-ed program "Republicans for sex," or REX—more commonly known as "Republicans suck."

As you probably know, after an unfortunate encounter with a cop in an airport men's room, U.S. Senator and Idaho Hall-of-Famer Larry Craig pled guilty to engaging in what he now says was Constitutionally protected speech. Craig also stated in no uncertain terms, "I am not gay, I never have been gay."

After hearing that claim, several of Craig's alleged paramours were skeptical and contacted the Statesman with tales of their own. Some were willing to talk on tape.

He-said, he-said allegations

You know I would be the last to publish rumor, gossip or speculation. But I always feel that when the mainstream media (MSM) do it, it elevates it somehow. Reporter Dan Popkey notes that—

As with the Statesman's August report, the new evidence is not definitive. There are no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. Like last August, they are he-said, he-said allegations about a man seeking discreet sex from partners whom he counted on to never tell.

But the Statesman's investigation, which included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, found nothing to disprove the five new accounts. The men offer telling and sometimes similar details about what happened, or the senator's travel records place him in the city where sex is alleged to have occurred, or his accusers told credible witnesses at the time of the incident.

.... His admission of guilt, taken together with the three accounts published Aug. 28 and the five new statements, add weight to the evidence that Craig has been living a double life.

Help for the hearing-impaired

The Statesman has kindly made the testimonies available online so that "Idahoans can hear these accounts and decide for themselves about accusations against Sen. Craig." Since some Idahoans are deaf, I've decided to provide transcripts.

There is also the matter of accuracy. Reporter Popkey does a creditable job of providing a third-person account of the interviews for those who may be reluctant to listen to the tapes. But at times his account strays from the exact narrative. For instance, Popkey writes of sex worker Mike Jones that "Jones said he immediately deduced ... that he was servicing a politician." Jones never used the word "servicing"—at least on tape—and it does seem a little crude.1

So I present herewith a transcript of the Stateman's interview with Mike Jones. Jones, you will recall, was the person who peered into the soul of megachurch pastor Ted Haggard and found him wanting—wanting methamphetamines and sex, that is.
 

[Audio 1] MIKE JONES: Well, my first thing I said to myself is "What a hypocrite! This guy came to see me!" And you know, I didn't know what to do. It was almost like the Haggard thing—it was like "Now what do I do when I know this information?"

But what really set the tone for me with Craig was, he said he was going to resign, okay? Listen, in my mind, I thought "Fine." You know, "that's what he should do" I think, you know, "I don't need to worry about it." I didn't want to make it an issue. You know, that's not what I was into—of coming out everytime I knew someone was gay that was seeing me. That was not my thing.

But what made me change my mind—what really kind of angered me—was when he reneged—when I heard rumors that he was reneging on his resignation, when I started seeing blurbs where Craig may actually, you know, not resign, that's when I contacted you guys, because that's when—I started getting like "This is not right!" You know he was doing the right thing to resign but now that he's going to backtrack and renege on that—that was not right because I knew this guy was a hypocrite.

[Audio 2] The one thing that stands out about this man—besides the fact that I recognized him and heard and recognized his voice when he spoke was—here's a man who within the first five minutes of seeing me said, "Do you follow politics, Mike?"

Which is such a strange statement anyway to begin with. And then he didn't follow up on it. He basically changed the subject. When I said, "Yes," he said, "Oh gee, it's cold outside." And that's in my mind— You have to understand that people in my business—you know, we're pretty good about figuring out people very quickly based on things they say or things they do. And so when he said that, in my mind I go, "Oh, he's a politician." Which was not my first—by any means. But it didn't matter to me. That's not what I was in business for—was to really figure all that out or try to trap people.

But it was a clear indication that he was a politician to me. And then he did something that only a few people did that saw me through the years. And that is—he kept his clothes on.

STATESMAN: Elaborate on that for me.

MIKE JONES: Well, he took his dress shirt off, and he had a T-shirt on, and he undid his zipper and pulled his penis out and he performed oral sex on me.

[audio 3] Yeah, I sent him into the room and that's where they can disrobe or whatever they want to do. I always stay out of the room...

STATESMAN: I see. Okay.

MIKE JONES: ... while they do that. And so there was—I had hooks and hangers on the wall so they could hang up their coats—whatever.

So when I went in there, when he said he was ready, I just saw the T-shirt on and he was laying on the table with his clothes on. It was like no big deal.

So I was just kind of touching him around. And he wanted me to be nude, which I was. And you know he was kind of playing with me a little bit. And then, you know, after I got an erection for him, that's when he undid his zipper and pulled his penis out. So he was stroking as he was, you know, performing oral sex on me.

STATESMAN: He was stroking...?

MIKE JONES: His penis.

STATEMAN: Okay.

MIKE JONES: Yeah.

As Statesman commenter "Lavatory Larry" wrote so aptly of Senator Craig, "He really has put the 'Ho' back in Idaho!"

Related post
Sex education in America (8/31/07)

Tags: news and politics Larry Craig sex scandals prostitution humor

you must lay the ghosts of your past —translation of "tienes que deshacerte de tus fantasmas," offered as an example of the proper usage of fantasma by WordReference.com

It's similar to dragon slaying—but more fun.

Tags: humor

• Nov 30 — Today: Deadline for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to provide its initial release of documents to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) honoring EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The documents concern ODNI's "communications with telecommunications carriers and members of Congress regarding pending legislation that would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA')." [PDF of court order]
  
  Put more simply, EFF wants to know of any government discussions of retroactive immunity for companies such as AT&T that illegally allowed the government wholesale access to our communications. Declan McCullagh discusses the background of the case.
   
• Dec 09 — Sun: According to the AP, "The U.S. military said Thursday it would submit evidence to the Iraqi judiciary system on Dec. 9 against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been held in U.S. custody for more than 19 months." (See "Outrage of the Day") "The move would be the first legal step in initiating formal charges against Hussein, who was seized in Ramadi on April 12, 2006."
   
• Dec 10 — Mon: The deadline for ODNI to provide EFF with "a final release of all responsive, non-exempt documents."

Tags: news and politics domestic surveillance internet email VOIP telephone wiretapping

Turner has amassed 2 million acres over the past two decades to become the largest private landowner in the country. He owns large chunks of land in 11 states, with most of his holdings in New Mexico, Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota, and is restoring buffalo, cutthroat trout, wolves, black-footed ferrets and other flora and fauna that filled the Plains before the West was won. —Nate Jenkins reporting in "Ted Turner's Land Purchases Questioned"

One of the interesting features of this "little" story is that, as was the case with George Soros' support for the Democrats, conservatives have become terribly concerned over how Ted Turner is spending his money. That's surprising, since it seems that all his acquisitions have the potential for being immensely profitable.

Some are worried that he wants to create a large wildlife refuge, turn it over to the federal government and reduce the property tax base.

To restore a species you must eat it

Turner's organizations also have been in discussions with the World Wildlife Fund and the World Conservation Union about conserving bison. The groups have expressed interest in developing a huge park where bison could once again roam the Great Plains.

Actually, Turner's spokesmen say, the driving force behind Turner's land purchases is the desire to make money. Turner's Vermejo Park Ranch in New Mexico, for example, offers weeklong elk hunting excursions at $12,000 a pop. He has also entered the restaurant business with gusto, opening more than 50 Ted's Montana Grill restaurants across the country that feature bison meat.

I've been seeing more buffalo meat lately on the supermarket shelves. If you're not averse to eating red meat, bison are lower in fat and friendlier to the environment than cattle.

Turner not only holds the largest chunk of land in private hands but also owns the largest herd of buffalo.

Tags: * lifestyles of the rich and famous landholding environmentalism conservation

Writing of the Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein who has been held by the U.S. military in Iraq for 19 months—

We believe Bilal's crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq may have made Bilal even more of a marked man. —Tom Curley, President and chief executive of the Associated Press, writing in "Railroading a Journalist in Iraq"

This remarkable assertion by the person who leads America's and the world's largest news organization was published on page 17 of Saturday's Washington Post. Without the paper before me I surmise that this would have been a page of the two-page editorial section. I have to wonder what the Post considers news.1

Curley writes,

.... This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish.

A year ago, our going to trial would have been good news. But today, the military authorities who created the case against Bilal have largely been rotated out of Iraq. Witnesses and evidence that Bilal may need would also be much harder to find, even if there were time to track them down. Further, if Bilal wins, he could still lose: The military has told us that even if the Iraqi courts acquit Bilal, it has the right to detain him if it still thinks he is an imminent security threat.
....

After months of stony silence, except for leaks of unsupported and self-serving allegations to friendly media outlets, military authorities are railroading Bilal's case before a judge in circumstances designed to put Bilal and his lawyers at an extreme disadvantage.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world's largest prison-camp network have found a way to provide access to due process in a form that actually looks more unjust than indefinite imprisonment without charges.

But this is a poor example -- and not the first of its kind — of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people.

Related posts
Why isn't the press defending freedom of the press? (6/16/04)
Why isn't the press defending freedom of the press? (Revisited) (6/21/04)

Tags: news and politics press freedom bill of rights civil liberties military censorship

This AP report is so clear that I've reprinted it in its entirety—with a mere sprinkle of comments.

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

"One of the first indications..."? Doesn't that chap your ass? How about "temporary" military bases built to last? How about the construction of the world's largest embassy? How about the apparent insanity of any number of policies and actions if the U.S. did not intend to remain an occupier?

In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.

U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal _ which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year _ to be the last.

Translation: The U.S. wants to remove the bother of going before the U.N. in order to legitimize continued occupation.

The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Aside from the gauze of pretense that this is an "Iraqi" initiative, they're not even attempting to hide American corporatist aims.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive.

You bet the subject is sensitive! Truth be told, these officials would prefer not to be handed their heads on a platter by the folks back home. Who could they be, we wonder? Allawi and Chalabi were made for the part.

Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.

I've speculated in a number of posts that the unaccountable hostility to Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr arises from his refusal to sell off Iraqi assets to American corporate interests and his demand for withdrawal of American forces. A few months back, after al-Sadr ordered the Mahdi Army to lay low and resumed his party's participation in the parliament, the Washington Post and other mainstays of the mainstream media obligingly dropped the "radical" epithet that normally accompanies every mention of al-Sadr's name. We note that the AP has revived the practice.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources.

The story coyly omits to mention who would be the recipient of the windfall. Certainly not the Iraqis.

Any benefit to the Iraqis could be achieved through the exploitation of their oil by any agency. And free-market considerations would mandate that they achieve the best deal possible for themselves, including the possibility of developing the resource themselves.

Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

Previously, Saddam Hussein was the greatest lever against Iranian expansion. Of course he had to suppress the majority population, the Shia, in the bargain. Any guess as to how the U.S. will achieve the same objective?

At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding.

"It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations."

Of course it's not binding, you twit. Iraq would have to have an actual government.

Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said.

That would be just about the time the new Democratic President will begin to get settled in office. Do you think he or she is going to announce a withdrawal instead of a "deal" to occupy Iraq?

The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters.

"We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said.

Gee. We invaded Iraq to prevent the spread of "weapons of mass destruction," then to remove a tyrant, then to spread democracy—but certainly not out of self-interest. Now we learn that long-term occupation will be in our "mutual interests." The Mafia, we should note, uses similar methods and language when making an offer you can't refuse.

From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the U.S. as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States."

Translation: The U.S. intends to run the country into the foreseeable future, so the religious, cultural and regional rivalries will be irrelevant under the new regency.

When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force.

"Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth."

Bilateral relationships with the countries of the multinational forces? That would be, in order of importance, the United States, Blackwater, Dyncorp, Aegis, Erinys and a host of other "security services" too numerous to name. Oh, I forgot. Blackwater et al. aren't countries. Other than the U.S., all countries in the "multinational force" have either withdrawn or are withdrawing.

Still, it's good to know the Iraqis are taking the lead on this. It wouldn't look good if the U.S. had a role in the planning.

She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment."

Sometimes I'm not certain whether I'm reading a news account or the script for a comedy act.

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

No word yet on what those 50,000 troops would be up to. But according to this account, don't you love the way Iraqi officials seem to be taking over U.S. military planning? "Iraqi officials foresee..."

The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

If the U.S. Congress can't set timelines for troop reduction, I'm pleased to know that someone can.

On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues."

Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests."

Not since the British Raj in India will a country have been on such an equal footing with its occupier.

He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil."

A casual reader might conclude that foreign forces will be leaving Iraqi soil. That may seem confusing, but isn't really. When the U.N. mandate ends, so will the justification for the presence of the so-called "multinational forces." Then it will be up to the Iraqis to form "bilateral agreements" to continue the occupation of their country.

So far the only country that seems interested in taking them up on the offer is the United States. Poor Iraq. You'd think there'd be a greater demand!

One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region.

They also oppose the possibility of an Iraq-style invasion.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.

"Partners"? If they had fallen under the old Soviet sphere of influence, the press would have referred to them as "satellites." And satellites don't have a say in the matter. The difference between a "partner," such as Iraq, and a "satellite," such as Saudi Arabia, is that satellites are not occupied.

Well, don't come to me later and say the press didn't inform the public of U.S. plans for Iraq. Oh, sorry. I put that backwards, didn't I? The AP account is quite clear. These are not U.S. government plans for Iraq, but Iraqi government plans for the U.S.

Related posts
Lessons in sovereignty - Part I (9/19/05)
The Pottery Barn Rule revisited (4/5/06)
The Bush plan for Iraq: What you should expect (1/11/07)
Taking sides in a civil war (1/14/07)
Muqtada al-Sadr and a date to watch (2/9/07)
Empire of the Day (11/25/07)

Tags: news and politics Iraq occupation United Nations American imperialism

At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries....

The data ... show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

—Gregg Zoroya reporting in "20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally"

I refer to this as a "cover-up" not only because the military and VA are clearly fudging the statistics but also because USA Today was able to obtain the data from some locales only through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Rep. Bill Pascrell, founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, estimates that "more than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat."

Explosions may cause concussions without leaving visible scars, so it's inevitable that some injured soldiers will not be immediately diagnosed, or diagnosed at all. But this may be a bigger factor in the undercount—

Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon.

This recalls a practice the Pentagon developed during the Vietnam War for handling reports that might swell statistics on the dimension of the military's drug epidemic at the time. If just before returning to the U.S. a soldier self-reported a drug problem—as many had developed—the soldier would be held back for "further evaluation" and/or treatment before being allowed to return home. Naturally there were fewer reports of drug problems.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a similar disincentive to report problems incident to brain injury, since the technique is already in use with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Luis Sinca recently reported—

Each Marine received a questionnaire. Were they having trouble sleeping? Did they have thoughts of suicide? Everybody knew the drill. Answer yes and be evaluated further. Say no and go home.

As with PTSD, the costs of treatment plus, in many cases, disability payments will be enormous. Just another "untold" cost of the war.

Related posts
A war we can't afford to win (1/24/07)
Statistic of the Day: Veteran suicides (11/17/07)

Tags: * war casualties casualty statistics

The Purple Finger cocktail—

grenadine, cassis, black currants, and vodka —recipe reported by Craig Unger in "A tragicomedy of errors"

A little cloying perhaps, but not bad if you shoot it!

Related post
Doing the Watusi at the polling station: Reflections on David Corn (2/7/05)

Tags: news and politics

We have only one hegemonic power at the moment. It is not accumulating territory, it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That's not working. —Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the world Anglican Communion of churches, as reported by Paul Majendie in "Anglican leader launches attack on U.S."

His Grace was beside himself—

It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering and normalizing it.

Rightly or wrongly, that is what the British Empire did — in India for example.

It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together again — Iraq for example.

And this was in an interview for a Muslim "lifestyle" magazine!

The Queen heads the Church of England. If this keeps up, Prime Minister Gordon Brown may have to ask her to get on the phone with her Archbishop. Clearly he hasn't read the memo.

Related posts
Quote of the Day - Henry Wallace on Fascism - 16 (8/12/04)
Superfluous beliefs (6/10/05)
The hawkish liberal (10/15/05)
Quote of the Day (10/25/07)
Headline of the Day (10/26/07)
Imperialism denied (11/2/07)

Tags: news and politics imperialism Anglicanism Britain religion antiwar

Well, my productivity, such as it is, seems to be falling to its normal holiday level. But I wanted to assure everyone that I am not off my feed. Quite the contrary. I may be suffering from the indolence of the overfed.

Perhaps to prepare me for Thanksgiving, the biggest binge-eating festival of the year, friends and acquaintances have found all sorts of excuses to offer me food. And I have found all sorts of excuses to eat it. Only yesterday I fear I may have personally contributed to the decline of the Atlantic shrimp stocks. I would ask for forgiveness but I don't know whom to ask. It's too late for the shrimp.

Which reminds me of a Lewis Carroll rhyme, which I excerpt here for your dining pleasure—
 

THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER

....

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat—
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more—
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed—
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf—
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

The poem seems fraught with allegorical meaning. For instance, in the first two stanzas we may surmise that the Walrus and Carpenter are beachfront developers. Beyond that I'm far too full to say.

Related post
Recipe of the Day (10/8/07)

Tags: humor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson

Felicia owns the malapropism. I ran into her tonight and idly asked how her day had gone—

FELICIA: Oh, it was okay. I went to church this morning.

ME: Anything special happen?

FELICIA: Not really. You know how churches are—the people just like to get together to conjugate.

Felicia holds a special place in my heart. After all, I went around for years telling everyone my tastes were eclectic when what I meant was eccentric.

Previous post
Snatches from the Pink Snapper — 1 (11/12/07)

Tags: * humor Pink Snapper

The British actors John Fortune and John Bird, looking as if they've leapt from the pages of Forbes, explain the world of finance and how the subprime mortgage crisis evolved. It's hilarious.

Watch it full-screen if your system allows.

(Hat-tip to the Daily Reckoning for the link.)

Related post
Many in finance found to be SIV-positive (10/30/07)

Tags: * humor video

I haven't commented on any of the previous Presidential "debates" among the Democrats for the simple reason that I didn't watch them. Last night, however, a bout of insomnia brought on by an ill-considered cup of coffee left me wide-eyed and incredulous.

As you know, unless you've recently returned from Tibet, the previous debate resulted in a lot of head-shaking among the pundit class that Hillary had stumbled badly and had proven the charge that she is a "waffler." Clinton had attempted to come down on both sides of the question of New York Governor Spitzer's plan to issue state driver's licenses to illegal aliens (a plan which he has since abandoned).

But this is a different day. After last night's debate the consensus was that Hillary "won" or "regained her footing," Obama "struggled," Edwards "retreated" and no one else mattered. (For some of the awed reactions to Hillary's performance, see this compilation of reviews at MyDD.)

It's true that several of the candidates spoke as if they'd spent the previous night with me at the Pink Snapper. But, what the hell! The debate was held in Las Vegas, so what did they expect?

And I won't go through the various ways the debate was slanted and skewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and crew.

But once you got past Dennis Kucinich, the "debate" was so shy of content that no one should be surprised that the final question bore witness to the Ultimate Triumph of the Inane—

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Maria, would you stand please? Give us your full name.

MARIA PARRA SANDOVAL (ph): Maria Parra Sandoval (ph), and I'm a UNLV student. And my question is for Senator Clinton.

This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Now, I know I'm sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both.

[All quotes from the debate are reformatted from transcripts provided by CNN and the NY Times.]

Far be it from me to suggest either that someone—the Clinton campaign or CNN, for instance—planted that question or that CNN deliberately saved it until the last to provide a lighter note as we moved into the commercials. That would be just too, too manipulative.

One of the few points of substance came up in regard to "saving" Social Security wherein Hillary Clinton either spun the truth into a lie or is terribly misinformed.

MS. BAGLEY: I'm a booth cashier. And we moved here over 30 years ago. And I have three children, and as of yesterday, eight grandchildren. (Applause.)

MS. MALVEAUX: And what is your question — Congratulations. That's amazing!1 — And what is your question to the candidates?

MS. BAGLEY: ....

Throughout the campaign we've heard the candidates ... committing to support Social Security and Medicare .... but the ideas on reform are often vague. My question is, what do you plan to do to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are truly available to us, our children and grandchildren in light of the current budget conditions?

MS. MALVEAUX: Thank you very much; a very important issue.

Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: .... Look, this is something that we've talked about in our campaign. We've got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring and the first thing we have to do is to put an end to George Bush raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for a misguided war in Iraq. (Applause.) If we take some of that money back and we start getting control of our budget and have fiscal discipline, that will make some of the difference, but not all of it, because we're going to have more senior citizens, more retirees and fewer workers.

So I've been very specific about saying that we should not privatize; we should protect benefits. I don't think the best way to approach this is to raise the retirement age. But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Right now anybody who's making $97,000 or less, you pay payroll tax on 100 percent of your income. Warren Buffet, who made $46 million last year, pays on a fraction of 1 percent of his income. And if we make that small adjustment, we can potentially close that gap and we can make sure Social Security is there. (Applause.)

[Then he goes on to say something vague about Medicare.]

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Clinton, you've been criticized by Senator Obama, I think Senator Edwards, among others, for refusing to take a hard and fast position on whether you would raise the tax above those making $97,500 dollars a year to try to secure Social Security in the long term. Are you ready to make a hard and fast statement now on your position on what Senator Obama just said?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what I'm for, and I think Judy raises two really important issues. I am for getting back to fiscal responsibility. I think I counted you said "deficit" three times. Six and a half years ago when George Bush came into office, he inherited a balanced budget and a surplus -- (applause) -- and the Social Security system was on a path to be solvent into 2055.

[Waxes eloquent on "fiscal responsibility."]

MR. BLITZER: So --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and then I think we have to have a bipartisan commission. I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle class families and seniors. (Applause.) If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.

Clinton then took on Medicare ever so briefly—

But I want to say one final word about Medicare. Number one, Medicare should be able to negotiate for lower drug prices. (Applause.)

MR. BLITZER: All right. Thank you, Senator.

SEN. CLINTON: It was a travesty when the Bush administration did not allow that to happen, and I have a lot of other ideas about how we'll preserve and strengthen Medicare.

Which she did not deign to share.

At that point Obama hopped up, all excited.

MR. BLITZER: All right. So Senator -- so you're not ready to accept that raising of the cap on that, but I know that Senator Obama wants to respond to you.

SEN. OBAMA: I will be very brief on this because, Hillary, I've heard you say this is a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class by adjusting the cap. Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 -- (cheers, applause) -- so 6 percent is not the middle class -- it's the upper class.

And you know, this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani -- (laughter, boos, cheers, applause) -- where we start playing with numbers -- we start playing with numbers in order to try to make a point. (Cheers, applause.) And we can't do that. No, no, no, no, no. This is -- this is -- this is too important. This is too important for us to pretend that we're using numbers like a trillion dollar tax cut instead of responsibly dealing with a problem that Judy asked for, and she said she wants a specific answer. And that's what I provided.

But understand, this is the top 6 percent, and that is not the middle class. (Cheers, applause.)

Whether by intention or overexcitement Obama referred twice to the trillion dollar figure as a "tax cut." That is unfortunate. But he is accurate as to the percent of the population having a personal income above $97,000.2

Hillary then did a "Hillary." She corrected Obama's mischaracterization of the trillion dollar "tax cut" and began to babble. She sounded like Condoleezza Rice explaining foreign policy. As I said, she is either dishonest or uninformed, and I vote for dishonest.

MR. BLITZER: Senator?

SEN. CLINTON: First of all -- first of all, I think that you meant a tax increase, because that's what it would be.3 But secondly, it is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors. I'm not talking -- I mean, you know, it's different parts of the country. So you have to look at this across the board, and the numbers are staggering.

This is pandering to Wall Street at its best. It may be that school supervisors and firemen make salaries in excess of $97,000 in the larger cities. But I would really like to know just how many of them there are so that you can help your children plan their futures. One thing is for certain: the numbers aren't staggering.

As for the notion that raising the cap would be "burdensome": If she thinks a bit more of a SSI deduction for those making over $97,000 would be burdensome, what must she think of that deduction for those making less?

Let's get real. The increase beyond the cap at $97,000 would represent only a small increase above the amount those earning slightly above $97,000 already pay. Only those making significantly in excess of $97,000 would see what might be called a "significant" increase. And when you arrive in that class, the increase is still insignificant.

Well, there you have it. I have promised myself never to have another evening cup of coffee—at least on those nights when the Democrats plan to debate.

Tags: * Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Presidential debate