The utter failure of the Red Cross and other aid orgs in Haiti

Vice and ProPublica did some recent investigations of US aid to Haiti after the quake, and unfortunately you can probably guess what they found. It was literally like the Iraq War in terms of incompetence, mismanagement, hubris, CYA, and outright lies. I am done with the US Red Cross.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM4kEUEcp8

Generous Americans gave the US Red Cross $500MM for Haiti relief. They outraised all other charities, probably due to marketing and brand. They promised that they would build thousands of permanent homes (with water and sanitation) for Haitians, and even "new communities". So far, they have built SIX (yes 1-2-3-4-5-6) new homes, and are getting ready to pull out. At least Bush eventually got Saddam.

The problem is that the RC is good at distributing temporary disaster aid (like post-Katrina water and tents), but knows nothing about reconstruction. Yet they gladly took our money and promised that they would get it done. Well, land rights and building logistics in Haiti is a Third World disaster as you can imagine, so the RC contracted with third parties. Except doing that requires higher mgmt fees on donations up to 33%. For scale, good charities have mgmt margins of like 5%. So millions of dollars went poof, and those orgs paid bureaucrats to try to get houses built, but never broke ground. For the few shovel-ready projects, they were delayed by red tape from HQ, and many people resigned out of frustration.

All the while, RC PR maintains that they did an awesome job and saved Haiti. They said they gave 4.5MM Haitians shelter, which is pretty impossible considering that is the entire urban pop. of Haiti (and only Port-au-Prince was affected). I have no idea how they got their #s. We know that there are inept, unmotivated people at every workplace. And unfortunately charity orgs are no different, despite their inspirational missions. RC leaders in DC treated Haiti like a 9-5 job, and it wasn't their ass if they didn't deliver. What about hiring local Haitian experts to manage the projects instead? It's their country and they had more innate motivation. Unfortunately there were HR delays and even overt prejudice against Haitian applications and hires. Mr. Big Boss Know-It-All American had to call the shots. I really hope Nepal doesn't turn out like this.

There are opportunists and carpetbaggers after every disaster/war, but I naively didn't expect them to have a red cross on their arms. But the truth is that they are no better than an occupying army, or USAID, or Halliburton.

----

Like, who can you trust? Charity Navigator supposedly rates nonprofits. They rate the ARC as 3 out of 4 stars, with a 10% overhead ratio (90% of donations go to "programs"). That is pretty good, if we can trust their accounting.

But unfortunately, people have been trying to exploit others' generosity/sympathy since the advent of money. What level of hell is reserved for those scum? I can almost tolerate the Nigerian oil scammers and Wolf of Wall Street types, as they are preying on people's greed. But how can you lie to profit from goodwill?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1903#.VXBesecmz9k

Also, F John Paulson for donating $400MM to Harvard Engineering. That's like doing volunteer work for the House of Saud. Literally he could have done much more good if he just gave the money away on a street corner in Boston. But that really wasn't a donation, it was more like a purchase of legacy and boasting to his peers.

http://www.republishan.com/e/7151433366795166/For-the-love-of-God-rich-people-stop-giving-Harvard-money

Leaked tapes reveal "regulatory capture" at the NY Fed

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra

In some cases, managers observed behaviors indicating regulatory capture (in other words, when the regulator is kowtowing and in the pocket of the regulatee) as soon as 3 months after the agent was assigned to the bank. But the greater fault was the lack of policy/oversight to prevent this, and the managerial inaction once it was identified. Corruption and human nature will always be with us, so what is the point of a regulatory agency that can't even properly police itself?

The VA, ICE, ATF, NSA, IRS, Secret Service, CONGRESS... I know these recent negative cases may skew the overall assessment of gov't effectiveness, but do they represent a sufficient mass to conclude that our country is seriously broken? What is the point of paying for a gov't that delivers this level of performance? Well, we know that our gov't works extremely well for certain segments of our society, but our leaders need to remember that the middle class in aggregate represents a larger tax base and voting bloc than the rich (and will always be so).

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption. 

Sochi: the most corrupt and immoral Games since Hitler

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00005&segmentID=2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10581829/Sochi-Olympics-Nothing-but-a-monstrous-scam-says-Kremlin-critic.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmzJ1ndHOQ

After Salt Lake, Athens, and Beijing, we know that we can't count on the Olympics for integrity, fiscal resp., and principles - but they've outdone themselves this year. These games will cost over $50B (what is reported to the public at least)... that is more than the combined value of all NBA teams, or the GDP of Bulgaria. Just for a month of sports that only about 10% of the world cares about (or knows how to play, or can even afford to play). Studies have shown that it's very hard to achieve positive ROI on a major modern sporting event, but that price tag is just ludicrous. It's like Iraq with less murder and torture - fat gov't contracts handed out to political pals to build bridges to nowhere with no durable value to the country. Abused Russian people deserve better - from their homophobic, megalomaniac leader especially, but from us too. 

Maybe the best thing we can do is boycott such travesties, and petition our leaders to protest. That might send a message to the event organizers/int'l orgs that their "customers" won't tolerate their horrible choice of host nations (and the social-environmental implications). Same goes for Brazil this summer for the World Cup.

I would hope the celebrity athletes and coaches would boycott as well, but I understand that their careers are short and they don't have many chances to medal. Even Jesse Owens went to compete in Nazi Germany (but at least by winning, he made a social statement - it's not like Shaun White winning another medal will do anything for gay rights or anti-corruption). I know there is no chance that NBC and other media companies would boycott, because they lust after the ad revenue. Forget moral principles, they would probably love to buy the rights to broadcast the hunger games (hosted by the Donald of course) if the audience was big enough.

Sochi is just Putin pissing on a tree trunk like a junkyard dog, or a spoiled brat on a global reality TV show. We shouldn't indulge him any more. We boycotted Soviet games in the past when that nation had more moral leaders than Putin.

The US will soon be the number one energy producer, but is it worth it?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476

This is mostly driven by fracking and the growing global demand for energy keeping fracking economical. I am not insinuating causation here, but it's probably not coincidence that the top energy producing nations are all corrupt, repressive, wealth imbalanced, polluted, and economically dysfunctional outside of the energy sector. Therefore, I am not sure we should want the US to go down the same path. The notable exceptions are Canada and Norway, but they benefit from strong public institutions and more balanced economies. In our post-Citizens United, underfunded-EPA, too-big-to-fail corporate reality, I just hope we don't resemble Nigeria or Russia too much. 

We've already discussed all the potential reasons that fracking is an environmental risk, but what about the economic upside? Some in the industry would claim that the fracking boom vaulted the US out of recession. It's undeniable that more jobs, corporate profits, and taxes were generated, but enough to have a material overall GDP impact? Business Insider and W Post are not sure (see below). The boom has triggered the market price of gas and electricity to go down a lot, but energy is a small fraction of modern industrial costs (compared to labor and raw materials), so it's not like the lower prices led to much higher profits or cheaper products for consumers. Also, the oil & gas industry is fairly automated with low labor participation relative to capital investment. So there weren't that many new jobs created, and even in drill-baby-drill Texas, only 6.5% of jobs are in energy (and 1% nationally). So even if the industry doubles in size (and you believe the API's claim that for every 1 new petro-job created, 2.7 other indirect jobs are too), it's not enough to make up for the 7M-plus jobs lost during the Great R. But what about GDP growth? Well, oil & gas is only 2.5% of our economy (it's a commodity after all), and of the 7.6% GDP growth the US experienced since 2009, only 0.6% can be attributed to the "energy boom" according to Capital Economics. 

Therefore, is all the environmental risk worth these meager benefits? As we've discussed before, just because it is economically justified at present to do something doesn't mean it's the best available course of action long-term. And in many cases, once we commit down a path, we can't undo it later. We can always drill in the future after more testing is done and if national needs dictate. But if we drill now (chasing short-term bucks and jobs, however small), we can never revert to "the way it used to be" if we discover that we made a mistake. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shale-boom-economy-is-overrated-2013-5?op=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/23/the-oil-and-gas-boom-has-had-a-surprisingly-small-impact-on-the-u-s-economy/

Brazil: where are their priorities?

http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/photo-finish-relive-the-weekend-in-sports-1372640894-slideshow/confederations-cup-photo--1751219419.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/world/americas/opinion-brazil-simoes

Two-and-a-half years have passed, and [President Rousseff] is still popular among the poorest, but the recent protests were led by a different bunch: The traditional middle class. On the streets, well-educated people, from central, urban areas, shouted that they had been sold a lie [about their lives getting better].  

Inflation is once again a major concern, violent crime is on the rise, cases of corruption fill the press, healthcare is in a precarious state, infrastructure projects have not materialized and street traffic is depressingly worse than ever.


While TV showed the inaugurations of costly, lavish football stadiums, people felt their lives were getting worse by the day. After all, the World Cup will cost the nation some $15 billion, and the promised legacy in infrastructure is still nowhere to be seen.

- CNN

So they won a soccer tournament tonight, big deal (it has no real consequence except raising their FIFA ranking from their current #22, just ahead of Mali). They did wipe out Spain, whose squad is believed to be one of the greatest in history according to some. But it's just sport - what about jobs, infrastructure, accountability, and gov. services?

The match took place in Rio as crowds tried to march on the stadium but were blocked by riot police. You've probably heard that a combined million Brazilians have been protesting their government recently - first sparked by something so mundane as a planned bus fare hike (like how the Turkey protests started over a park closure, or the Tunisia protests starting over the frustrations of one small businessman). But these "minor complaints" are part of a larger theme of 2nd world governments reaping the rewards of increasing int'l prominence, but not passing much of it down to the people.

Brazil is part of the sexy BRICS economies, and barely felt the recession. The Economist projects a healthy 3-4% real GDP growth rate through 2017. Yet public opinion of Brazil's president and legislature are much lower now vs. 2003. Wealth inequality in Brazil is one of the worst in the world (worse than the US), by Gini and other metrics. 5-6% inflation is a problem and the Real is expected to lose value against the $ each of the next 4 years. The current and former presidents come from a leftist labor party that capitalized on the support of the poor to win. But it is the middle class that is key for Brazil to become a true global power, and it is the middle class that is currently really pissed off (same with Turkey, and the US - though we are too cowardly to protest).

Occupy was a manifestation of this, but all around the world people are rising up because they are tired of putting up with gov'ts that claim things are going great and they are making your life better, yet people are hurting more and more. From Greece to China to Brazil, citizens are fed up with corrupt leaders who have their priorities all backwards, and are in office just to enrich themselves and serve the elite.

We know what the Olympics did to Greece's economy (and China violated all sorts of civil rights to make their Games happen), and now we have Brazil proud to host the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics. They're building fancy billion-dollar stadiums, yet basic services, rule of law, and such are terribly lacking (a successful int'l sporting event needs those things too!). There were concerns about the 2010 South Africa World Cup partly because that host was also in BRICS, and crime/poverty is endemic in parts of SA. FIFA even planned to use Brazil as a backup host if conditions in SA were too poor for the Cup. But now it seems Brazil is in worse shape. Of course a big int'l event is a way for the host to show off to the world that they have arrived. They sweep their national ills under the rug for a month while foreign revelers cheer, drink, and spend money. The Olympics didn't make China stronger (and didn't really boost their global prestige IMO), and Brazil shouldn't expect any better. Honor your commitments to your people first, then worry about stupid ballgames. Same goes for the US... but "bread and circuses" are effective distractions so the masses forget how their leaders are abusing them.

-------

You probably heard about the criticisms of the BRA gov't and FIFA leading up to the World Cup, but here is a humorous/pathetic summary too:

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-fifa-2014-6

Like the IOC and NCAA, FIFA is another corrupt, egotistical, short-sighted "nonprofit" sport mafia that is only interested in its finances (often at the expense of all other parties) - maybe to a more pathological level than some for-profit corporations. It's not about "the good of the game" or the players/fans. The sporting events themselves are entertaining and almost universally beloved, but the governing bodies are just immoral leeches capitalizing on our passion/addiction for the sport. Maybe because of that, at some point it has to be justified to boycott.

Bill Maher on The Great Gatsby and the modern wealth gap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DKD0O-owNM

America's bizarre fetish for romanticizing the leisure-class, mega-rich, Guilded Age types like the Buchanans depicted in Gatsby is especially peculiar today considering what we have (or haven't) learned from the Great Recession, as well as recent the populist backlash against US plutocrats.

The sad irony is the rich would be better off with less income disparity and a more flourishing middle class. Clearly when basic needs are more securely met, people feel more comfortable to consume, which benefits most of the economy and trickles up to the wealthy. Well, the rich got around that issue by expanding credit (pay day loans, adjustable rates, even tax refund loans).

The rich complain that they already pay the lion's share of the nation's taxes. While that is numerically true, maybe we can reframe the issue. When employers and other the powers that be give people quality wages and benefits, they will be healthier and less of a burden on health services. When education is more democratic and affordable, people will make better economic choices and become more productive, which will increase GDP, lower demand for public services, and reduce the "tax burden" on the rich. When we don't fight wars or adopt bad taxation and trade practices just to give special interests more profits, then that also reduces the need for taxes. So if the rich are tired of paying so much tax (even though marginal rates are much lower today than the 1960's), then reduce the wealth gap and make the market more free and democratic.

And when workers are not stressed out and distraught over neighborhood crime and horrible commutes (caused by defunding public services/infrastructure to support tax breaks), rising health care, real estate, and education costs (driven by the irrationally high willingness to pay by those who can afford it), uncertain retirement (brought on by the cutting of pensions, the Fed's low rates pushing people to equities, and market volatility due to risky speculation, manipulation, and fraud), and the omnipresent threat of layoffs/outsourcing/downsizing, then they are actually able to concentrate on their jobs and become more creative, productive, and valuable to the company and its stakeholders. When employers treat their staffs well, they are less likely to be a workplace cancer, a slacker, a defector to the competition, or new competition (launching their own venture). It's strange that the rich, who love to congratulate themselves for being so clever and superior, can't grasp this simple concept.

But here is the circular problem: political corruption allows some companies to enjoy economic advantages. They out-compete all the mom & pop shops without the Washington connections (yes I know companies succeed on their own merit too, but far too many cheated to get to the top and secure their standing). Other firms witness this "recipe for success" and follow suit, because now it's too risky to try to win the old-fashioned way. This Darwinism leads to the "survivors" of the dog-eat-dog market often being the biggest jerks. So now we have fewer and nastier employment choices, and the % of Americans working for public companies is at an all-time high. Employers know they have the leverage, so they cut benefits and make the workers more dependent on investment income (for the minority who can even afford to invest). More and more, our survival is tied to the stock price of our employer and our chosen securities. So for the few shareholders who actually vote, they want boards and execs who are the shrewdest SOBs around - to make the stock appreciate. And for passive shareholders, they are just happy when the price goes up, and they don't want to know how. So public companies are making our lives hell, yet they are also our only potential salvation from hell, so we make a Faustian bargain with them. It is paradoxically in our economic best interests to support those who harm us. 

When people are not desperate, they are less likely to steal or kill or revolt (yes, it has come to that). As Maher said, you can only squeeze people so far before they push back (especially when the squeezers are a tiny minority). It's not as bad as the starving peasants in monarchic France or Russia, but there will be a point when the masses won't take it anymore (see the Arab Spring, which started as an economic uprising). Or look at the angry youth and public workers in much of Europe now. When that stuff happens, it's no good for the rich either (unless you are like the Shah and can loot Iran before you flee to posh exile - not trying to give Lloyd Blankfein any ideas). So wouldn't they rather share a little more of the pie in order to preserve the good thing they have going? They say that love knows no bounds, but really selfishness and greed (even to the point of self-destruction) is America's most abundant resource. Well, one could argue that greed is a twisted form of love - just loving the wrong things.

Congess' outrageous insider trading

Corporate executives, members of the executive branch and all federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules. But not the people who write the laws.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/congress_insider_trading/index.htm?section=money_topstories

"60 Minutes" had a recent report exposing the egregious insider trading conducted by members of Congress that is technically not illegal for them, but would put normal people in the slammer. Sensing that the gig is up and anticipating public outcry, the Senate is now resuscitating 2004's STOCK Act: a failed bill to explicitly ban insider trading by Congress, and require more frequent public disclosure of lawmakers' trading activities. In order to look ethical leading up to an election year, the bill has currently attracted 171 co-signers (possibly a record), whereas it couldn't get an ounce of support during its original drafting. Some critics say that the bill is unnecessary because regular trading laws already apply to Congress, and they are not "insider" employees of the companies whose securities they trade. But of course neither was Martha Stewart.

As an example, take September 2008. Lehman was about to go under, and the whole system was on the edge. Paulson and Bernanke called a select group of lawmakers for ultra-secret meetings to break the bad news and plan responses. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but one of the attendees, the ranking GOP on the House Fin. Svcs. Cmte., AL's Spencer Bachus, suddenly bought a massive amount of options that would pay out if the market tanked. Bachus was one of our elected officials who was supposed to avert the crisis, yet he had a clear financial incentive to let the market plummet. WTF?

Maybe another coincidence, but current House Speaker Boehner was trading in health insurance stocks during the health reform debate. Shortly before Washington decided to kill the public option proposal, Boehner bought shares of private insurance companies when everyone else was bearish on them. And of course with the news of the public option's demise, insurer's stock prices rose and he made money.

We already know that most legislators leave DC much richer than when they arrived (and it's not because of their generous salaries). They make decisions with millions or billions at stake, so of course private interests attempt to sway their opinions with bribes. It's not as bad as Nigeria or Iraq, but it happens here plenty. On top of that they need to play the markets too? Aren't they too busy running the country and serving their constituents to trade on the side? Most of us don't even have 5 min a day to watch the tickers, but trading is much easier when you are way ahead of the information curve. It's ridiculous, they are beyond shame.

Take this other example involving IPOs:

If you were a senator... and I gave you $10,000 cash, one or both of us is probably gonna go to jail. But if I'm a corporate executive and you're a senator, and I give you IPO shares in stock and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000, that's completely legal.

Look at Pelosi's reaction to questions about her profiting from the 2008 Visa IPO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LMAP0L5G4

She claims to fight the big banks and help ordinary Americans, yet she accepted shares in Visa while helping to kill CC reform legislation back then that could have saved Americans billions during this horrible recession. The specific reform was eventually signed into law in 2010, but banks got 2 precious years to restructure their revenue models in anticipation of this change. So clearly it's not just a GOP problem.

I would go further than the STOCK Act: Congressmen can't trade in any equity, real estate, or international securities while in office, AND one year thereafter. Maybe bar their immediate families too. They get the pension anyway, why the need for more cap. gains? They can park their money in a 1% CD or money market account like the rest of us saps. They are public servants after all, and servants sacrifice, they don't get rich. How bad would it look if a US soldier in Iraq was in charge of protecting a BP facility, but one night insurgents blow it up? Then later his superiors find out that he was shorting BP stock a week before the incident. As far as I know, FDA employees aren't allowed to trade in stocks of the companies they're auditing, and I think employees at the Fed and Treasury have to sell all their financial stock before taking the job too. It's common sense, so why is Congress somehow exempt? Are they saints? I would also copy China and EXECUTE public officials convicted of corruption, fraud, etc. I'm against capital punishment except for this. I know China's policy hasn't fully stopped the problem, but at least it sends a message that people can't just profit with impunity and make a mockery of the law/public office. But this is America, the country that pardoned Tricky Dick. So tired of this crap.  

From "60 Minutes":
But what baffles Baird even more is that the situation has gotten worse. In the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has grown up in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.

Baird says its taken what would be a criminal enterprise anyplace else in the country and turned it into a profitable business model.
Baird: The town is all about people saying-- what do you know that I don't know. This is the currency of Washington, D.C. And it's that kind of informational currency that translates into real currency. Maybe it's over drinks maybe somebody picks up a phone. And says you know just to let you know it's in the bill. Trades happen. Can't trace 'em. If you can trace 'em, it's not illegal. It's a pretty great system. You feel like an idiot to not take advantage of it.

The outrageously corrupt NCAA football bowls

http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel#/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/174-episode/video/cashin-in-clip.html/eNrjcmbOUM-PSXHMS8ypLMlMDkhMT-VLzE1lLtQsy0xJzYeJO+fnlaRWlDDnszGySSeWluQX5CRW2pYUlaayMXIyMgIAacUXOA==

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2016261023_apfbcsugarbowltaxviolation.html

We already know that major college sports are corrupt, exploitative, and dysfunctional, but the actual numbers are shocking (thanks to an HBO Real Sports investigation and others). First, it's inconceivable that the org's running each bowls are classified as non-profit charities, despite earning over $250M combined each year. There used to be about 10 bowls, but now the number is up to 35. Even the most successful charities on the planet don't grow that fast, only scams and bubbles do.

The bowl org's claim they are charities because they purport to give 75% of revenues to the participating schools - institutions that benefit society in many ways. Yes, the perennial bowl participant football factories like OSU, Nebraska, and Miami have really used the money to provide top education and discoveries for America (often head coaches are paid much higher salaries than the most famous and productive professors). But in actuality, the avg. school payment is about 55% for the dozen or so bowls whose financial records were made available. The poorly-named Humanitarian Bowl only gave 27% to the schools. When confronted with these facts, bowl reps say they are saving the rest for posterity to pay out to schools "at a future date." Well schools are laying off employees, raising fees, and letting buildings crumble NOW.

The problem here is similar to the race to host the next Olympics or over-bidding to win an auction. Schools and communities are so obsessed with getting to a bowl (and the perceived value it entails) that they fail to consider whether it's really cost-effective. Part of the contract between the bowl and schools often involves paying for their own travel, and a guarantee to sell a block of tickets to fans, or the school will have to eat the cost of empty seats. But it's hard for small schools to get alumni and fans to travel across the country during winter holiday time (and eat the big costs of tickets, hotel. etc.), so some schools predictably end up on the short end.

The bowl gets paid no matter what, and then short-changes the schools with smaller contributions. Some bowls even forced the school bands to buy tickets even though they were providing free entertainment during halftime. So knowing all this, why do some cash-strapped schools still fall into the trap? They fall in love with the "prestige" of participating, and many coaches/athletic directors are paid bonuses for reaching a bowl. The bowl org's claim that despite these concerns, schools come out ahead in the end because the publicity will increase alumni donations and fan/student interest for the future. Of course it's very hard to quantify and verify this benefit, so we just have to trust them. And apparently schools do.

So maybe the bowls short-change schools, but they give back to the community, right? Bowls claimed that they've given "tens of millions of dollars" to communities and charities each year. But according to tax documents, the grand total last year was about $4M, or <2% of revenues. But that giving is still generous, right? Well not if you consider the tax incentives and other perks that cities and politicians offer to the bowls, sometimes totaling in the millions. Again, bowl reps repeat the Olympics argument that the event "pays for itself" with all the extra tourism and commerce. Sure, tell that to Greece. Remember that cities also have to eat the clean-up, security, traffic congestion, and other costs. The show examined the example of the elite Sugar Bowl and the financially depressed host New Orleans. The Sugar Bowl gave $1M to Louisianans, but took $6M from their state leaders. Former LA governor Blanco took thousands of dollars from the Sugar Bowl in campaign contributions, which is technically illegal due to the bowl's tax status. And in return, Blanco has helped to maintain this profitable arrangement, even to the detriment of her Katrina-ravaged, cash-hungry state.

Bowls are also lobbying politicians to fight any changes to the system that would hurt them financially, such as a move to a nationwide playoffs postseason format. They've used the profits that didn't go to schools/communities to sponsor lavish trips and "retreats" to discuss strategy and woo VIPs. The org's defend these actions as legitimate efforts to maintain and improve the quality of the bowls. How about executive compensation? The heads of MSF, Amnesty Int'l, and the Salvation Army all make less than $300K/year. The heads of some bowls take in $500-700K, despite managing a much smaller org than the true charities. In some cases, "honorary execs" are paid hundreds of thousands for a few hours of seasonal work per week. Despite their ludicrous pay, a former Fiesta Bowl exec (J Junker) was found to use bowl funds on golf and strip clubs. They give the usual Wall Street excuse - the market sets the going rate to recruit and retain the talent necessary for the job. So I guess "the market" just values a guy who sets up a single football game more than a guy who is in charge of helping millions of Americans day in, day out.

Again, imagine the opportunity costs of bowl profits that could have gone to the causes that they're supposed to go to. Nonprofits are not taxed because they serve a public need, but it seems that the bowls are making off with millions while actually undermining some critical public services.

The US transconti​nental railroads: not exactly a poster child for capitalism​, or are they?

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201109061000




Richard White, a Stanford professor, recently published a book on the history of US railroads and the tycoons who ran them. Contrary to the popular mythology about the "heroic" and "self-made" champions of industry like Huntington and Stanford, it turns out that those men and the companies they ran only made it into the history books due to massive corruption, abuse of gov't resources, and human/environmental damage. And we have the general notion from econ 101 that firms make money by providing demanded goods/services to consumers in a cost-effective way. But for the railroads, every sort of business and market perversion you could think of (prior to the derivatives era) was attributed to them. Though we still have this strange adoration of the railroads as a romance and celebration of America, Old West freedom, and industrial capitalism.



Yes it was impressive that we could lay track from the Mississippi River to the Pacific in just a few years, and made amazing technological advances during the process, but it turned out to be a net loss for the country. Despite our misconceptions, many railroads went bankrupt or needed gov't "bailouts" to survive. And it was hardly free-market: transcontinentals were just not needed in the late 1800's (the demand for long-haul freight and personal transport just wasn't there to justify the huge costs), and even after the railroads were built, it was still cheaper and quicker to use SHIPS to get from SF to NYC, around South America and all. So what was the point of building them? Railroads were not reliable (especially during the winter months), so merchants still favored ships. Like any great capitalists, the railroads didn't respond to this deficiency with improved performance, but engaged in anti-competitive practice instead. They bought up most of the excess capacity on freight ships, creating scaricty and bringing ship rates closer to railroad rates. They negotiated with ship lines to get them to slow down their vessels too. Why try to outdo your competitors when you can just pay them to come down to your level instead?



The most respected railroad men avoided transcont. projects like the plague, and what was left were speculators, washed-up entrepreneurs looking for another chance, and crooks (sound like other modern industries we know?). What was significant about this period was the advent of corporate lobbying. The US railroads were pretty much the first manifestation of the modern American corporation. They pushed for Washington to create the conditions necessary for their flawed businesses to survive, similar to a Maoist or Soviet failed central-planning project. They were justified as a necessary "public good", even though the public had virtually no need for their services at the time. But when something is a public good, we may irrationally spend to keep them going even if they aren't doing any good for us. And of course stakeholders needed to justify their decisions and get public buy-in with propaganda and marketing, hence the Manifest Destiny, pride, and nationalism angles. There's nothing that US industry can't do, we're settling the savage lands with good old US hard work, go west for adventure and riches young man, yadda yadda. Sadly, there was more public outcry against the greedy, inept railroad corporations back then vs. the current greedy, inept firms today. The author speculates that this is due to enhanced marketing and penetration of US corporations today (corps play a much bigger role in US life today), so we are less likely to condemn something that we are associated with.



DC gave the railroads (RRs) huge guaranteed loans and literally millions of acres of free land (that they still own today and don't pay taxes on), even on terribly risky projects with no evidence of future profitability. RRs sold junk bonds to eastern investors by hiding much unflattering financials from traders (in fact, the big 3 US ratings agencies were started to rate RR bonds). And still the incompetent RRs needed several public bailouts to break even (even though the tycoons and big investors made out quite well off the US dime). And worse, the RR bankruptcy terms were so lax that the same doofus execs were allowed to retain control of the firms (not like Obama forcing GM to change their leadership team in exchange for bailouts, just when their execs were getting effective). Their debts were written off, so now these failed firms had a huge financial advantage over the viable, honest RRs (also sound familiar?), and drove some of them out of business. Talk about dysfunctional markets: the weak kill off the strong? Like the fruit companies in Latin America, the RRs asked the gov't to step in to violently break up labor strikes, clear out local Indians, and such. As many people died working on the RRs each year as the Civil War battle of Shiloh, often without investigation, punishment to firms, and compensation to victims (especially if they were Chinese).



So now that these joke of RRs were built, what to do with them? The firms had to get people to use them to gain revenue, so there was a big push to encourage settlement (although net population transfer was eastbound in the early RR years), buffalo hunting, cattle ranching, and mining in the West. There was no real demand for increased cattle ranching, silver, and buffalo, but the demand was manufactured with major gov't incentives, often with terrible environmental consequences (overgrazing, buffalo near extinction, mining pollution). And all the booms associated with those economies of course ended in bust and disaster for many Americans too.



If we learned our lessons from the RRs, the current dot-bomb and housing crashes might have been avoided. It's ironic that the most ardent libertarian proponents of the free market are the ones who most strongly advocate for our most uncompetitive industries. It's not the free market principles that they love, it's just taking advantage of whatever system is in place (loopholes and all) to come out ahead, no matter the cost to others. Obama and others talk about the need to invest in the future so we don't fall behind. But the problem is investments are based on predictions and many of those made by gov'ts turn out to be wrong. Look at the CA high-speed rail project - another total boondoggle where the true demand just doesn't justify the huge costs. Considering all the areas where CA needs more cash, it is a huge opportunity cost to sink billions into another rail gamble. But this is the price you pay when ideology trumps economics.



We wanted to settle the west and make tons of money, so we thought building RRs would get us there. But it was ahead of its time and caused a whole bunch of other problems. If you believe in the free market, let the market demand tell you when it's time to build RRs. If they are so desirable and well-planned, then they will easily get their own funding and won't need gov't loans and bailouts. The author contrasts the Dakotas. South Dakota's RR network was built bailout-free, and turned out to be much more high-performing than the nearby gov't-supported RR in North Dakota. In Europe and Japan, RR firms had to raise their own private capital before breaking ground, so their networks were a lot leaner, better, and weren't subject to the moral hazard associated with US firms wasting other people's money without accountability. Or if the RRs are truly a public good, nationalize them with a set of transparent laws and public input governing their operation. Of course there is the opposite extreme with China, where the gov't invested billions into another un-needed high-speed network, just to create jobs and grease the palms of various bureaucrats. But projects were rushed, safety standards and training ignored, and many of their trains run with mostly empty seats.

Tim Donaghy book on NBA corruption

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Disgraced and incarcerated former NBA referee Tim Donaghy just finished a tell-all book about NBA corruption that was supposed to be published by Random House, but strangely the company changed their mind after investing thousands of dollars on the venture (maybe Stern made a few calls). So it was taken off Amazon pre-order, but this website managed to transcribe some excerpts, and maybe a smaller publishing house will give it a try. Of course we have to consider the source and his motives, like Canseco's tell-all about steroids in baseball. But we should also remember that Canseco turned out to be right with several of his allegations.

We all know that refs influence (deliberately or not) NBA games probably more than officials in all the other pro sports, maybe apart from the goof-riddled MLB playoffs this year. But it's just the nature of the big-money, big-media modern NBA and ref culture that controversies are likely, especially due to the subjective, inconsistent, and vague nature of personal foul rules and enforcement in basketball. Literally millions of dollars are at stake from a whistle at a critical moment. NFL and soccer refs believe that they do a great job if no one notices they're even there. But NBA refs have big egos and want to be noticed. They're a sideshow like the cheerleaders, even at the expense of fairness and correctness.

So Donaghy says what we all suspect: the NBA front office wants to promote big stars, keep games close and interesting, extend playoff series, help the home teams win, and maybe have more interesting/profitable teams succeed. This will make the NBA and its sponsors richer. And officiating can help that. Stars walk all over and rarely get in foul trouble (except clumsy big men), yet defensive specialists get whistles just for breathing on a star. Often home teams or teams down in a game get more calls and go to the foul line more (give the people what they want!). But fans have all the data available for foul calls and which teams/ref crews were participating, so someone should crunch the numbers and see if there is measurable bias (if all else fails, I will take a week off work and try). That doesn't prove intent, but at least could expose a problem.

Donaghy talks crap about several refs, but alleges that Dick Bavetta is the league's "cleaner". He makes sure the proper result plays out in critical games, and even brags about how good he is at it. Coincidentally, he was on the floor during several controversial playoff games, such as game 6 between LAL-SAC in 2002 with SAC up 3-2 against the Juggernaut Lakers (yeah, I'm still bitter). It's also strange that the NBA picks the officiating crew a few days before the game. Why wouldn't they have ref schedules randomized and pre-set even before the playoffs began, in order to reduce the chance of tampering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0KJvlSUB-w

Well some might say that the NBA already is very popular and makes a ton of loot, so why would they risk it all to squeeze a few more millions out? An exposed scandal would ruin everything. Pete Rose was rich, successful, and still broke the rules; same with A-Rod. Success can't stop greed and corruption. In fact in may be a strong motivator; enough is never enough and Stern has to keep growing the NBA's success or he'll be fired. And maybe scandals won't deep-six a pro sport anyway, so it's worth the risk. Although MLB attendance was severely down this year (probably due to the recession), fans still keep coming after the unpopular players' strike and steroids scandals.

But what about ugly, small-market teams doing well in recent times, like SA, DET, NO, and SAC? There are a lot of series sweeps in the playoffs too. And Bron/Nash still haven't won rings. Shouldn't Stern have pulled enough strings so those things didn't happen? Well the NBA can't be blatantly obvious. Some teams are way better than others and should get a sweep. And SA, DET, and SAC did have good, championship-worthy squads for a while. Even with tampering, they still could have overcame and won. It's not like Stern could hire a sniper to take out Duncan with a rifle during a time out. They are clever and they pick their spots, like the DAL-MIA Finals or the LAL-SAC 2002 series. I wish the refs did strike this season so we could see what a properly-officiated pro game looks like.

Living large at the Dept. of Interior

So you have federal employees tasked with collecting royalties from oil companies actually partying, accepting gifts, fornicating with, and doing drugs provided by those companies' representatives. And coincidentally or not, many feel that the government is getting shortchanged on resource royalties. Heh, who needs lobbyists when you can just bribe and dope up the tax collectors instead? This exact scandal happened not long ago (1990) at the same department, so obviously they haven't learned their lesson. Yet another consequence of toothless regulation and laissez-faire government.

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_10437371?source=rss
Oil brokers sex scandal may affect drilling debate
By H. Joseph Herbert The Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/11/2008 10:05:03 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - A scandal involving sex, drugs and - uh, offshore oil drilling.

It's a strange mix, and it couldn't have come at a worse time for those in Congress pressing to expand oil and gas development off America's beaches while trying to stave off an election-year rush by Democrats to impose new taxes and royalties on the oil industry.

An Interior Department investigation describing a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by workers at the agency that issues offshore drilling leases and collects royalties hit lawmakers Wednesday just as they prepared for votes next week on expanding offshore drilling.

"On the eve of Congress starting this big debate you've got a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct in programs that are going to be a key part of the discussion," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an interview, adding that it can't help but influence the debate.

The two-year, $5.3 million investigation by Interior's inspector general found workers at the Minerals Management Service's royalty collection office in Denver partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business. The investigations exposed "a culture of ethical failure" and an agency rife with conflicts of interest, Inspector General Earl E. Devaney said.

Between 2002 and 2006, 19 oil marketers - nearly a third of the Denver office staff
- received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, including Chevron Corp., Shell, Hess Corp. and Denver-based Gary-Williams Energy Corp., the investigators found.

"Employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and natural gas company representatives" who referred to some of the government workers as the "MMS Chicks."

The director of the royalty program had a consulting job on the side for a company that paid him $30,000 for marketing its services to various oil and gas companies, the report said. MMS Director Randall Luthi said in an interview the agency was taking the report "extremely seriously" and would weigh taking appropriate action in coming months.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne in a statement released Thursday vowed to take swift action, saying that he was "outraged by the immoral behavior, illegal activities and appalling misconduct of several former and long-serving career employees."

"We must and we will eliminate any remaining negative elements in the Minerals Management Service," Kempthorne said.

"This IG report has it all - sex, drugs and the Bush administration officials once again in cahoots with Big Oil," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., whose Joint Economic Committee released a report last year claiming the Minerals Management Service has failed to collect millions of dollars in oil royalties.

Republicans and Democrats promised further scrutiny of the Interior Department agency which last year handled $4.3 billion in royalty-in-kind payments from energy companies drilling on federal lands. Under the program oil companies give the government oil in lieu of cash and the MMS office in turn sells the oil on the open market. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the IG report "raises very serious questions" about the royalty collection process, something especially troublesome "given the potential for expanded domestic drilling." He said some basic reforms in the royalty-in-kind program should be included in drilling legislation.

Wyden said the program should be suspended to "clean house" at the federal agency and "bring back the process of rigorous audits and accountability."

House Democrats on Wednesday offered a broader drilling proposal than they had floated previously. It would lift all moratoria on drilling 100 miles from shore and allow energy development beyond 50 miles from the coast if a state agrees. Waters closer than 50 miles would continue to be protected.

The drilling measure is part of a broader energy package that also would roll back tax breaks for the largest oil companies and require them to pay additional royalties, with the money to be used to spur renewable energy programs and conservation.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called it "a strong bill that will increase responsible drilling and invest in renewable energy" and said those criticizing it would "rather have a political issue."

But House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused the Democrats of "trying to pull a hoax on the American people." He said the plan would result "in little or no new American energy production" because states would share no royalties and have little financial incentives to allow drilling.

The Senate, meanwhile, is expected next week to take up several drilling proposals, including one that would open waters off the Atlantic from Virginia to Georgia and the eastern Gulf off Florida to drilling but keep the bans in place elsewhere. That plan also would allow for a 50-mile coastal buffer.

---

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.

---

On the Net:

Office of the Inspector General: www.doioig.gov

Republican reformers?

Do you guys think the Palin pregnancy business is benefitting either party, or just the tabloid media? Well, many GOPers interviewed say that Palin is energizing the party and making their campaign more exciting, but of course they would only say positive things about their party. Maybe all this hype is giving them more attention than their otherwise boring ticket would produce. Personal controversy obviously never hurt Bill Clinton, and the last time I checked, teen pregnancy still isn't illegal. I think attacks on her "parenting record" is walking a slippert slope, because people may find it intrusive and offensive to "go after a mom", and Palin is really adored by the GOP despite not having accomplished much (their response to Obama?). But try telling the media to tone it down on anything involving sex.

Also, is it just me, or is Joe Lieberman like the worst public speaker ever? I don't recall his speeches back in 2000. Not only was he boring and monotone last night (with a creepy looking mouth), but the content of his speech was nondescriptive and forgettable. He also forgot his flag lapel pin... for shame!

I thought his colleague Norm Coleman from MIN gave a much better speech welcoming everyone to St. Paul. But for Lieberman, Thompson, and others, I am kind of tired of them painting McCain/Palin in such broad brush strokes: "They took on the Washington power brokers and want to clean up politics." Well they say that every election, so can someone tell us specifically how each of them challenged the establishment and fought for what was right for ordinary Americans? I know after he was lightly implicated in the GOP Savings & Loan scandals of the 1980s, McCain got a lot more sober with his politics and made anticorruption a bigger part of his career, of course most famously with McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. He spoke out against Bush's torture doctrine and mismanagement in Iraq when the other GOPers fell in line, and I think co-wrote the legislation to ban torture.

From WSJ: Sen. McCain was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts and one of only three GOP senators to oppose the 2003 reductions. Furthermore, his reason for opposing the cuts was taken straight from the playbook of the most radical left-wing Democrats. In 2001, Sen. McCain argued, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117375309308735018.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

I guess nuance like that will encourage and discourage some voters depending on their background, though of course now he promises to make Bush's cuts permanent and maybe even expand them. I thought his initial opposition to the cuts was also due to the fact that we were at war, and that requires more public sacrifice to support the war effort, not more payouts. He voted against the Dem's minimum wage increase, but also voted against Bush's uber-expensive Medicare drug bill. He has always favored privatizing Social Security, which the Dems will use to scare seniors. Well no matter who wins, it's clear that we won't be able to sustain SS for another 2 decades without drastic changes. McCain also worked with Kennedy and Edwards on the Patient's Bill of Rights, though not sure how much good it has done so far. The 2nd link below also suggests his ties to lobbyists are quite robust, and the 1st link discusses some of his campaign finance issues.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/331143/ex_reformer_mccain_attacks_ex_reformer_obama
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90006/mccain_the_reformer_you've_got_to_be_joking/

I can't find much about Palin online. I guess she voted for the Bridge to Nowhere before she voted against it. As mayor of Wasalia, she hired a federal lobbyist to help secure over $37M in earmarks for her community. But the spending was for an airport, commuter train line (that was shared by other towns too), and water/sewage, so I guess you can make an argument that it was justified, and pork is in the eye of the beholder. I've never been to Wasalia, but I'm sure it's not all posh like Midtown Manhattan. AK communities are very remote, so it's hard to connect people together and provide basic services, and their weather/geography probably necessitates more infrastructure spending than a typical lower 48 community. AK get the most earmarks and tax dollars per capita of any state, but then again they're so lightly populated that they cost Uncle Sam a lot less than say poor and old people in CA or TX. I guess she did reduce her earmark requests to Congress from $550M her first year in office to $200M her second year. She also sacked state officials and lobbyists connected to the pork game. She negotiated a deal with Conoco and BP on long-stalled new gas pipelines without having to offer them any new concessions. She sold the governor's private jet that her predecessor Murkowski purchased on behalf of the state, and prefers to get around by car and commercial air (she also declined security escort, saving the state some money there too). I guess all this contributes to her populist image and makes her very well liked in the state, causing resentment and jealousy among the traditional AK political-business elite. I guess this may be the closest thing to having a non-rich person in the White House.

A funny side-note: you know how Palin is in a bit of trouble for firing an official for supposedly not firing her sister's ex, a state trooper? Well the grounds they cite for the ex's dismissal include threatening the Palins, killing a moose without a permit, and using a stun gun on a 10-year-old. An investigation revealed evidence of the last two and he was suspended for 10 days. In his defense, the ex said that he stunned the kid at the kid's request. As if that makes it alright!?! These are the people protecting us from crime haha.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122002615833483595.html?mod=fpa_mostpop
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/03/goppalin.html

Well clearly she's not the most qualified to step in if McCain passes, and it kind of makes me laugh that the GOP couldn't find a better female running mate in their whole party for McCain. But maybe some fresh blood every now and then is good for politics; isn't that Obama's rationale?

The Camorra

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2572.cfm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2432310,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18028075

We hear a lot about Russian Mafia, the Latino drug cartels, the Hong
Kong Triads, and the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, but maybe the biggest
organized crime gang you've never heard of is the Camorra based out of
Napoli (also the birthplace of pizza). Roberto Saviano, an Italian
journalist, wrote a book exposing the Camorra's system (and named some
high-ranking members). He now needs 24-hour police escort and lives in
a secret hideout due to threats on his life. He got inside by posing
as a textile worker and waiter at Camorra businesses. Mostly due to
the Camorra, Napoli has the highest murder rate (100 dead in 2007,
almost as bad as Oakland's 127) and drug-dealer-to-resident ratio of
any EU city. I guess it's the Baltimore of the EU - where is McNulty?
Since it's founding in the 1800's, the Camorra have killed over 3,600
people. They are in total control of slum areas like Scampia, where
the police or local government do not dare intrude.

Saviano says that the Camorra is more elusive and dangerous than the
Sicilian Mob, because it is organized horizontally (like Al Qaeda
cells, with many semi-autonomous functional units that often fight
each other), versus the traditional top-down, family-led pyramid
command structure. They also have a bizarre criminal morality: they
sell drugs to outsiders but break the bones of any Neapolitans found
with narcotics (they don't want their own neighborhoods crawling with
addicts). They also kill homosexuals and HIV-positive people to try to
"prevent" the spread of the disease. Like all criminal gangs, they are
protected by the omertà, or code of silence among locals.

Like the Sopranos, the Camorra profit from waste management. Rich
areas and companies pay them to illegally dump toxic waste (heavy
metals, leather curing chemicals, etc.) in poorer parts of the
Campania region, where Napoli is located. This hazardous waste has
probably killed or sickened hundreds more victims. The Camorra make a
lot of money off high-end fashion knock-offs too. It's an easy way to
launder drug money, and the Italian fashion designers don't really
lobby the EU and law enforcement to seriously crack down on
counterfeits for two main reasons. First, the Camorra have deeply
infiltrated many legitimate businesses like theirs. Second, the
companies won't admit it, but they benefit from the name recognition/
publicity generated from all the knock-offs in circulation. When
people around the world see the Prada or Gucci motifs (whether genuine
or not), they want to buy it too. And since the Camorra are so
entrenched in Italian commerce, it is very hard to take action against
them, especially in the modern globalized economy where goods and
money are changing hands so rapidly. Italy estimates that 100B Euros
worth of commerce runs through the 3 main Mafias, and the Camorra net
30B E's in protection money. Organized crime is the biggest business
in Italy, accounting for 7% GNP (which buys a lot of votes/
politicians)!

So if Americans are sick of Big Oil's hand in politics, just imagine
Italy's predicament. Recently there have been some big name arrests
and public rejection of the Cosa Nostra, but for now it seems that the
Camorra are untouchable. The debt-ridden Italian government did
approve 1,000 more police officers and security cameras for Napoli,
but so far it hasn't helped. Lawmakers are divided on whether to send
in the military (Prime Minister Romano Prodi says this will do no
good), or an "army of teachers" to help teach young people to stay in
school, respect the law, and reject the Camorra. Like in "Scarface",
some Italians blame a mass pardon in 2006 (aimed to relieve Italy's
overcrowded prison system) that put 7,800 lesser offenders, some with
known Mafioso ties, back in the public and probably in the employment
of Camorra gangs. I'm waiting for the Scorcese crime drama.