Monday, February 28, 2011

Christie Misrepresents State Workers’ Contract | FactCheck.org

Christie Misrepresents State Workers’ Contract

Chris Christie is misrepresenting the facts about New Jersey union contract negotiations under his predecessor.

Christie has been battling state unions since becoming New Jersey governor in 2010. On CBS’ "Face the Nation" Feb. 27, he exaggerated the generosity of contract terms negotiated (and renegotiated) by Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine’s administration. He also misquoted Corzine’s comments at a state worker rally.

Christie and host Bob Schieffer discussed the budget showdown in Wisconsin and whether state workers had the right to collective bargaining.

Schieffer: Well, is that good or bad for New Jersey? Do you think they ought to have the right in New Jersey to collective bargaining?

Christie: What I’ve said in New Jersey is, as long as it’s fair and reasonable collective bargaining. You know, we can’t have what we’ve had before. You know, Bob, public sector workers, state workers in New Jersey, this past year, were working under a contract from my predecessor Jon Corzine, got 7 percent salary increases in a zero percent inflation world. I don’t think the people who are paying the bills think that’s the result of fair adversarial collective bargaining. They want someone in the room representing the taxpayers. And that’s what I’ll be this June, when that contract expires.

We take no position on whether the contract negotiated by Corzine was fair to taxpayers. It is misleading, however, to say that state workers "got 7 percent salary increases" from the Corzine administration.

The four-year contract, which took effect July 1, 2007, and expires June 30, 2011, provided for salary increases every July from 2007 through 2011: 3 percent in each of the first two years and 3.5 percent in the last two years. That contract, the New York Times reported at the time, also contained concessions made by the unions. It raised the retirement age for new state workers, required all state workers for the first time to pay a portion of their health care costs, and also increased state workers’ pension contributions. In that pre-recession era, the Times called it a "political victory" for Corzine in his attempts to reduce health care and pension costs.

So, how could Christie — who defeated Corzine in the 2009 election — claim that workers got 7 percent salary increases?

Well, as the Associated Press later reported, Corzine renegotiated that contract in 2009 and deferred the scheduled 3.5 percent salary increase due in July 2009 until January 2011. In addition to the 18-month salary deferral, the union "took unpaid furlough days in exchange for a no-layoff pledge through December 2010." Although the changes saved the state money, New Jersey had to pay a 3.5 percent salary increase in July 2010 and then another 3.5 percent in January 2011 — a two-step salary hike that raised pay by 7 percent in a single fiscal year, giving Christie a talking point he has used before.

The GOP governor also made the claim that state workers "got 7 percent salary increases in a zero percent inflation world." It is true that when Corzine renegotiated the contract in 2009 the consumer price index — the standard measure for inflation — declined that year by 0.4 percent. But it did increase in the other three years of the contract by 2.8 percent in 2007, 3.8 percent in 2008 and 1.6 percent in 2010.

Lastly, Christie misquotes a statement attributed to Corzine at a state worker rally in 2006.

Christie: My predecessor, Governor Corzine, stood on the front steps of the Capitol at a public sector union rally and said, “I’ll fight to get you a good contract.”

Did Corzine really say that? We could not find that quote in Nexis, the newspaper database, but we found one that was somewhat similar. Paul Mulshine, a conservative columnist for the Star-Ledger, quoted Corzine as saying more than once, "We will fight for a fair contract!"

But promising state workers a "fair contract" is not necessarily the same thing as promising them a "good contract." After all, fair — as defined by Merriam-Webster — means "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism," or "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice," as defined by dictionary.com.

via factcheck.org

Moody’s Mark Zandi: GOP Cuts Would Cost 700,000 Jobs | Elections

By: Jon Walker Monday February 28, 2011 3:51 pm

The House Republicans’ proposed cuts are part of a war on jobs, and today, fresh on the heels of the analysis by Goldman Sachs, we have another independent economic analysis (PDF) to verify it. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, the specific cuts pursued by the GOP would result in 700,000 fewer jobs. From Washington Post:

The report, by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

President Obama’s re-election is going to hinge on the top issue with voters and that is jobs and the economy. Seven hundred thousand jobs can easily be the difference between Obama winning a close election thanks to a steadily recovering economy with official unemployment dropping to 7.9 percent by November 2012, and Obama losing because the economy seems to have effectively stalled with unemployment at 8.4 percent. It is no wonder that Republicans always seem to undergo a sudden anti-deficit revival that necessitates immediate cuts whenever a Democrat is in the White House.

I understand some in the Obama administration thought it was important for voters to see him as being “serious” about the federal debt by playing to the Republicans’ deficit hysteria rhetoric, but the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs is going to be far more destructive to his re-election prospects than opinions about relative deficit seriousness. By playing to their rhetoric, we aren’t having a debate between cuts and pro-jobs legislation, just a debate about how big and how destructive the cuts should be.

via elections.firedoglake.com

WaPo- Ezra Klein | How is the GOP planning to create jobs, again?

How much does the GOP care about jobs?

A lot, if you listen to what they say. "House Republicans' top priority is helping to create jobs," declares Michael Steel, John Boehner's spokesman. Or watch the video atop this post, which records one Republican legislator after the next demands to know "where are the jobs." Case closed, right?

But look at what they're trying to do. Goldman Sachs says that if the GOP's spending cuts pass, "the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3." That is to say, GDP growth would fall by 1.5 to 2 percentage points on an annual basis. That's horrifying.

And Goldman Sachs isn't alone. Macroeconomic forecaster Mark Zandi estimates that the GOP's spending cuts would "destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012." That's a lot of jobs. And it's not by making people richer or making it easier to retire early, as is true when the GOP talks about the "job-destroying health-care bill." It's by firing public employees and sucking demand out of the economy.

You could say, perhaps, that the GOP is taking a longer-range view: they're willing to lose jobs now to prevent a debt crisis later. But their efforts to repeal the health-care law will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, add more than $200 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while their spending cuts would remove merely $64 billion. And they want to extend all the Bush tax cuts -- without offsets -- at a cost of $4 trillion or so to the deficit over 10 years. So it's hard to take their stated concern for the deficit seriously, either.

I'm not going to ask "where are the jobs?" The House Republicans have only been in office for a few months, and they don't control the whole of the government. What I do want to know is where is the policy that would create jobs?

via voices.washingtonpost.com

TerraPower, Bill Gates and the Reactor - WSJ.com

FEBRUARY 28, 2011

A Window Into the Nuclear Future

TerraPower—with the backing of Bill Gates—has a radical vision for the reactors of tomorrow

He's now betting that he can reshape the energy industry with a project akin to shipping Windows once and having it work, bug-free, for 50 years.

Thanks to his role funding and guiding a start-up called TerraPower LLC, where he serves as chairman, Mr. Gates has become a player in a field of inventors whose goal is to make nuclear reactors smaller, cheaper and safer than today's nuclear energy sources. The 30-person company recently completed a basic design for a reactor that theoretically could run untouched for decades on spent nuclear fuel. Now the company is seeking a partner to help build the experimental reactor, and a country willing to host it.

AFP/Getty Images

Bill Gates

It's a long-term, risky endeavor for Mr. Gates and his fellow investors. The idea will require years to test, billions of dollars (not all from him) and changes in U.S. nuclear regulations if the reactor is to be built here. Current U.S. rules don't even cover the type of technology TerraPower hopes to use.

"A cheaper reactor design that can burn waste and doesn't run into fuel limitations would be a big thing," Mr. Gates says. He adds that in general "capitalism underinvests in innovation," particularly in areas with "long time horizons and where government regulations are unclear."

TerraPower is one of a host of inventors, reactor makers and electric utilities trying to kick-start innovation in a field that hasn't seen a big technological advance in decades. President Barack Obama wants to help, too, designating $853 million for nuclear research, including small-scale reactors, in his proposed 2012 budget.

The type of reactor TerraPower is working on, a traveling-wave reactor, could reduce the need for enrichment and reprocessing of uranium. Executives at the Bellevue, Wash., company say their reactor could even be buried in the ground, where it could run for 100 years.

“ I am absolutely in favor of pursuing nuclear power, but it is a totally unforgiving technology. One minor 'oops' and large areas can become uninhabitable for thousands of years. When the experiment is over, you can't just turn your reactor off and walk away from it -- decommissioning it may cost more than building it in the first place.Yes, we need to do this. No, we cannot afford to just jump in and start building reactors. ”

—Bill Brown

To understand how a traveling-wave reactor works, think of a wood-burning stove. Today's reactors use dried wood—enriched uranium-235—that burns hot and quickly. A traveling-wave reactor would start with a little bit of dried wood to get a hot flame going, but most of the fuel would be green, or wet, wood—depleted uranium-238. The wet logs wouldn't burn as hot as the dried ones, but they would continue to burn long after the hot flame goes out.

Burning the enriched uranium would shoot neutrons into the depleted uranium making up roughly 90% of the fuel. That process would produce plutonium, which would create energy as it continued to get hit by even more neutrons. It's a slow, controlled reaction that could continue over many years without need of human intervention. And in TerraPower's design, the core of the reactor, where fission takes place, would be small: a cylinder about 10 feet wide and 13 feet long.

View Full Image

View the parts of TerraPower's traveling-wave reactor.

Another plus: Large supplies of depleted uranium are available as a byproduct of today's water-cooled reactors. Removing it from those reactors and reprocessing it for reuse is a costly procedure, and a source of worry that radioactive material might fall into the wrong hands. Reducing the need for reprocessing could save money and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

The idea for traveling-wave reactors has been around for decades but was mothballed amid waning U.S. interest in nuclear power. Then came a boost in the 1990s from a research paper by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, including Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb and the brain behind Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile-defense initiative; and an acolyte of Mr. Teller's named Lowell Wood.

Mr. Wood recently found a receptive ear in Nathan Myrhvold, a former Microsoft executive and head of Intellectual Ventures, a patent and invention firm in Bellevue. Mr. Myrhvold is a close friend of Mr. Gates, who is also an investor in Intellectual Ventures. In recent years the three men have done a lot of brainstorming about future technologies, including the traveling-wave reactor.

The reactor idea intrigued Mr. Gates, who was studying energy and climate change at the time. Among the reactor's other potential advantages, Mr. Gates says he was interested in its potential for producing cheap, zero-carbon energy and its ability to turn "what is a waste product into fuel."

Mr. Gates got the project rolling with seed money in the tens of millions of dollars. Venture-capital firms Charles River Ventures and Khosla Ventures invested $35 million last year. Nuclear-industry veteran John Gilleland is TerraPower's chief executive; a network of part-time researchers and scientists around the country offer input.

Looking for a Home

The traveling-wave reactor is still virtual, existing only in software on computers at TerraPower headquarters. Mr. Myrhvold says there is a basic design, not a full blueprint. But it's enough for the next step: building a test version of the reactor. TerraPower is looking for a customer, such as an electric utility, and a country that is willing to house an experimental reactor.

The company has made pitches in France and Japan, Mr. Myrhvold says; both have big nuclear-power industries. He's also made the rounds in Russia, China and India, he says. So far, there have been no takers.

One country he is certain won't be a customer anytime soon is the U.S., which doesn't yet have a certification process for reactors like TerraPower's. It would likely be a decade or more before the reactor could be tested on U.S. soil. "I don't think the U.S. has the willpower or desire to build new kinds of nuclear reactors," Mr. Myrhvold says. "Right now there's a long, drawn-out process."

Policy experts say that's with good cause. "Our regulatory process, while burdensome, is there for a reason, and it does represent the gold standard around the world for nuclear safety," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington.

Mr. Myrhvold says he hopes the process will speed up and spark innovation to meet the world's growing energy demand. "Let's try 20 ideas," he says. "Maybe five of them work. That's the only way to invent our way out of the pickle we're in."

Mr. Guth is the Los Angeles bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. He can be reached at rob.guth@wsj.com.

via online.wsj.com

Dangerous Minds | Dear Koch Brothers, Tea partiers & union bashers: ‘Anonymous’ would like your attention please

Dear Koch Brothers, Tea partiers & union bashers: ‘Anonymous’ would like your attention please

“Hello, Anonymous calling for the enemies of democracy. Are the Koch Brothers in?”

This warms my Trotskyite heart: After posting the following “open letter” to Koch Industries, effectively putting them on notice and asking the American and European population to stop buying their products, the politically motivated hackers of “Anonymous” have already begun to make good on their threat, as last night and this morning the Koch-supported rightwing political organization, Americans for Prosperity’s website was knocked offline several times. If an elite hacker was able to get into the intranet of Koch Industries, they could probably really disrupt their business for a few days. Let’s hope they cause maximum chaos for these evil bloodsuckers. (I hope Fox News is next. THAT would be the best thing ever, wouldn’t it?)

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Citizens of the United States of America,

It has come to our attention that the brothers, David and Charles Koch—the billionaire owners of Koch Industries—have long attempted to usurp American Democracy. Their actions to undermine the legitimate political process in Wisconsin are the final straw. Starting today we fight back.

Koch Industries, and oligarchs like them, have most recently started to manipulate the political agenda in Wisconsin. Governor Walker’s union-busting budget plan contains a clause that went nearly un-noticed. This clause would allow the sale of publicly owned utility plants in Wisconsin to private parties (specifically, Koch Industries) at any price, no matter how low, without a public bidding process. The Koch’s have helped to fuel the unrest in Wisconsin and the drive behind the bill to eliminate the collective bargaining power of unions in a bid to gain a monopoly over the state’s power supplies.

The Koch brothers have made a science of fabricating ‘grassroots’ organizations and advertising campaigns to support them in an attempt to sway voters based on their falsehoods. Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth and Citizens United are just a few of these organizations. In a world where corporate money has become the lifeblood of political influence, the labor unions are one of the few ways citizens have to fight against corporate greed. Anonymous cannot ignore the plight of the citizen-workers of Wisconsin, or the opportunity to fight for the people in America’s broken political system. For these reasons, we feel that the Koch brothers threaten the United States democratic system and, by extension, all freedom-loving individuals everywhere. As such, we have no choice but to spread the word of the Koch brothers’ political manipulation, their single-minded intent and the insidious truth of their actions in Wisconsin, for all to witness.

Anonymous hears the voice of the downtrodden American people, whose rights and liberties are being systematically removed one by one, even when their own government refuses to listen or worse - is complicit in these attacks. We are actively seeking vulnerabilities, but in the mean time we are calling for all supporters of true Democracy, and Freedom of The People, to boycott all Koch Industries’ paper products. We welcome unions across the globe to join us in this boycott to show that you will not allow big business to dictate your freedom.

U.S. Product Boycott List

Vanity Fair [not the magazine, the napkins and “classy” paper plates -RM]
Quilted Northern
Angel Soft
Sparkle
Brawny
Mardi Gras
Dixie

European Product Boycott List

Demak’Up
Kitten Soft
Lotus / Lotus Soft
Tenderly
Nouvelle Soft
Okay Ktchen Towels
Colhogar
Delica
Inversoft
Tutto

To identify these brands, please look for the following logo anywhere on the packaging:

Anonymous.

We are Legion I We do not forgive I We do not forget I Expect us

Happy to say that I don’t think I’ve ever bought any products manufactured by Koch Industries. I wouldn’t wipe my ass with them. Literally!

&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;

via dangerousminds.net

Religion Plays More Of A Role Than The Tea Party Likes To Admit · NYU Local

Religion Plays More Of A Role Than The Tea Party Likes To Admit

By Evelyn Cheng on February 28th, 2011 (2 hours ago)

The Tea Party movement claims that it is reviving the Constitution, reaffirming the Founding Father’s original intent, and generally seeking the good of America through smaller, more limited government. But Tea Party ideals seem to fall more in line with the religious right as Tea Party activists seek legislation in favor of pro-life and anti-gay policies. In an article decrying these religious overtones, The Atlantic states that:

“A new Pew Forum survey offers some quantitative evidence that Tea Party members tend to be religiously inspired, social conservatives; the movement “draws disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants … most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party.”

As recent Tea Party initiatives demonstrate, religion may be gaining an upper hand in Tea Party politics. The article mentions that attempts at banning Sharia law seem like an unnecessary crusade-like clash with the Christian right, the defunding of Planned Parenthood over the abortion-issue has similar religious roots, as well as America’s Zionist support for Israel.

Glen Beck also brought religious overtones to American politics with his rally at Washington, D.C, last August in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” Beck, who was joined by Sarah Palin and other conservative leaders, sought to return the nation to “faith, hope and charity.” The rally turned out more religious than political, indicating that Tea Partiers need to be clear whether they are seeking economic and political advancement or religion. Although religious ideology inevitably seeps through to government policy, one ought to make one’s priorities clear.

For all their Biblical rhetoric the Tea Party and conservatives have overstepped their responsibilities, even as Christians. The book of Romans says that rulers are to punish those who do wrong and reward those who do right, not become muddled in the ethical realm that is the responsibility of other institutions. Understandably all areas of life will clash with the government at some point, but Tea Partiers should focus on fulfilling government’s inherent task.

Likewise, the left should also focus on government’s essential role as protector and judge, instead of spending time trying to advocate its own ideological convictions. Yet as ideology is essentially a part of who we are as human beings, we will never be able to completely eradicate its influences. Tea Partiers just need to make their goals clear: economics or ethics?

via nyulocal.com

Sunday, February 27, 2011

IP v6

via imgs.xkcd.com

Playmates

via cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions | Forbes

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

Feb. 25 2011 - 11:56 am |

By RICK UNGAR

Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

Via tax.com

How can this be possible?

Simple. The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.

Many of us are familiar with the concept of deferred compensation from reading about the latest multi-million dollar deal with some professional athlete. As a means of allowing their ball club to have enough money to operate, lowering their own tax obligations and for other benefits, ball players often defer payment of money they are to be paid to a later date. In the meantime, that money is invested for the ball player’s benefit and then paid over at the time and in the manner agreed to in the contract between the parties.

Does anyone believe that, in the case of the ball player, the deferred money belongs to the club owner rather than the ball player? Is the owner simply providing this money to the athlete as some sort of gift? Of course not. The money is salary to be paid to the ball player, deferred for receipt at a later date.

A review of the state’s collective bargaining agreements – many of which are available for review at the Wisconsin Office of State Employees web site - bears out that it is no different for state employees. The numbers are just lower.

Check out section 13 of the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors collective bargaining agreement – “For the duration of this Agreement, the Employer will contribute on behalf of the employee five percent (5%) of the employee’s earnings paid by the State. ”

Johnston goes on to point out that Governor Walker has gotten away with this false narrative because journalists have failed to look closely at how employee pension plans work and have simply accepted the Governor’s word for it. Because of this, those who wish the unions ill have been able to seize on that narrative to score points by running ads and spreading the word that state employees pay next to nothing for their pensions and that it is all a big taxpayer give-away.

If it is true that pension and benefit money is money that already belongs to state workers, you might ask why state employees would not just take the cash as direct compensation and do their own investing for their retirement through their own individual retirement plans.

Again, simple.

Mr. Johnston continues-

Expecting individuals to be experts at investing their retirement money in defined contribution plans — instead of pooling the money so professional investors can manage the money as is done in defined benefit plans — is not sound economics. The concept, at its most basic, is buying wholesale instead of retail. Wholesale is cheaper for the buyers. That is, it saves taxpayers money. The Wisconsin State Investment Board manages about $74.5 billion for an all-in cost of $224 million. That is a cost of about 30-cents per $100, which is good but not great. However it is far less than many defined contribution plans, where costs are often $1 or more per $100.”

If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue. They are not, in fact, asking state employees to make a larger contribution to their pension and benefits programs as that would not be possible- the employees are already paying 100% of the contributions.

What they are actually asking is that the employees take a pay cut.

That may or may not be an appropriate request depending on your point of view – but the argument that the taxpayers are providing state workers with some gift is as false as the argument that state workers are paid better than employees with comparable education and skills in private industry.

Maybe state workers need to take pay cut along with so many of their fellow Americans. But let’s, at the least, recognize this sacrifice for what it is rather than pretending they’ve been getting away with some sweet deal that now must be brought to an end.

UPDATE: Since this post was published earlier today, many commenters have made the point that, while it is true that it is state employees’ own money that funds the pension plan, when the pension plan comes up short it is up to the taxpayer to make up the difference.

There is some truth in this – but not as much as many seem to think. Because the pension plan is a defined benefit plan – requiring the state to pay the agreed benefit for however long the employee may live in retirement- if the employee lives longer than the actuarial plan anticipated, the taxpayer is on the hook for the pay-outs during the longer life.

But is this the fault of the state employees? The pension agreements are the result of collective bargaining. That means that the state has every opportunity to properly calculate the anticipated lifespan and then add on some margin for error. What’s more, the losses taken by the pension funds over the past few years can hardly be blamed on the employees.

Take a look at what Sue Urahn, an expert on the subject at the Pew Center on the States, has to say about this when describing the $1 trillion gap that existed between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises.at the end of 2008-

To a significant degree, the $1 trillion reflects states’ own policy choices and lack of discipline:

• failing to make annual payments for pension systems at the levels recommended by their own actuaries;

• expanding benefits and offering cost-of-living increases without fully considering their long-term price tag or determining how to pay for them; and

• providing retiree health care without adequately funding it

Via Pew Center on the States

That is the point. While the governor of Wisconsin is busy trying to shift the blame to the workers in an effort to put an end to collective bargaining, the reality is that it was the state who punted on this – not the employees.

Further, by the state employee unions agreeing to the deal proposed by Walker on their benefits (as they have despite Walker’s refusal to accept it) they are taking on much - and possibly all – of the obligation out of their own pockets.

As a result, the taxpayers do not contribute to the public employee pension programs so much as serve as insurers. If their elected officials have been sloppy , the taxpayers must stand behind it. But if the market continues to perform as it has been performing this past year, don’t be surprised if the funding crisis begins to recede. If it does, what will you say then?

via blogs.forbes.com

U.S. Imposes Sanctions to Deter Libya | NYT

WASHINGTON — The United States closed its embassy in Tripoli on Friday and imposed unilateral sanctions against Libya, including the freezing of billions in government assets, as the Obama administration made its most aggressive move against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi since his security forces opened fire on protesters.

Just minutes after a charter flight left Tripoli carrying the last Americans who wanted to leave Libya, officials markedly toughened the administration’s words and actions against Colonel Qaddafi, announcing that high-ranking Libyan officials who supported or participated in his violent crackdown would also see their assets frozen and might, along with Colonel Qaddafi, be subject to war crimes prosecution.

“It’s clear that Colonel Qaddafi has lost the confidence of his people,” said the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, in a briefing that was delayed to allow the plane to take off because the Americans feared that the Libyan leader might harm the passengers. “His legitimacy has been reduced to zero.”

On Friday night, President Obama issued a formal executive order freezing the American-held assets of Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.

With Colonel Qaddafi killing more of his people every day in a desperate bid to remain in power, it was not clear that these actions would do much to mitigate the worsening crisis. Sanctions, for instance, take time to put in place, and every other option comes with its own set of complications. Colonel Qaddafi, increasingly erratic, has seemed to shrug off outside pressure, becoming even more bizarre — with charges that protesters are on drugs — in the face of the world’s scorn. And unlike with Egypt and Bahrain, close American allies that also erupted into crisis, the United States has few contacts deep inside the Libyan government, and little personal sway with its leadership.

Libya and the United States resumed full diplomatic relations only in 2008; before that it was regarded as an outlaw state. In fact, even as he was announcing that the Obama administration was cutting off military to military cooperation with the Libyan Army, Mr. Carney noted that such cooperation was “limited” — a stark contrast to the deep ties that the Pentagon has cultivated with other Arab armies.

The tougher American response came nine days into the Libyan crisis and six days after Colonel Qaddafi’s security forces first opened fire on protesters at a funeral in Benghazi, plunging Libya into something close to civil war and igniting worldwide condemnation. In the days after, the Obama administration repeatedly called for an end to the violence, but avoided criticizing Colonel Qaddafi by name — a cautious policy that brought criticism from the president’s Republican rivals.

Countering those criticisms, administration officials said they feared a hostage crisis, which tied President Obama’s hands until American citizens, diplomats and their families were evacuated from Libya. A ferry with 167 Americans left Tripoli on Friday afternoon, having been delayed for two days by 15- to 18-foot waves in the Mediterranean, and a charter plane with additional Americans left Friday night. The embassy, Mr. Carney said, “has been shuttered.”

European leaders have been more aggressive. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called on Colonel Qaddafi to resign, a step that Mr. Obama has yet to take. But American allies and the United Nations also moved to isolate Libya diplomatically. A senior United Nations official said that the world should intervene to stop the bloodshed in Libya, and France and Britain called on the international organization to approve an arms embargo and sanctions. NATO said it was ready to help evacuate refugees.

In Geneva, the normally passive United Nations Human Rights Council voted unanimously on Friday to suspend Libya’s membership, but not before a junior delegate of the Libyan mission announced that he and his colleagues had resigned after deciding to side with the Libyan people. The gesture drew a standing ovation and a handshake from the United States ambassador, Eileen Donahoe.

Administration officials said that getting the people around Colonel Qaddafi to abandon him is a key part of the American and international strategy to isolate him. Administration officials say they are supporting a British proposal to try to bring before a war crimes tribunal Colonel Qaddafi and those who support or enable his violent crackdown.

“It’s hard to do, but the point is to encourage the remaining supporters of Qaddafi to peel off,” said Robert Malley, the Middle East and North Africa program director at the International Crisis Group. “If you want to accelerate his demise, you send the message that those who do not participate in the violence might not be prosecuted for their association with the regime.”

American officials are also discussing a no-flight zone over Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from using military aircraft against demonstrators. But such a move would have to be coordinated with NATO, and would require a Security Council resolution, diplomats said. Arab governments might object on sovereignty grounds.

Administration officials have avoided public discussion of additional military options. When asked whether the United States was considering using its military assets in the region — including a marine amphibious ship in the Red Sea — to support the rebellion in Libya, Mr. Carney said, “We are not taking any options off the table in the future.” But administration officials said there were no immediate plans to intervene militarily.

The administration’s measures appeared to satisfy human-rights groups. Analysts said they wanted more details about the sanctions, but they were encouraged by signs that the United States would support the effort to have Colonel Qaddafi referred to the International Criminal Court on war-crimes charges, as well as by a special NATO meeting.

“Even if people aren’t explicitly talking about no-fly zones, the fact that NATO met today suggests there is more on people’s minds than diplomacy,” said Tom Malinowski, the director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. “I sense military contingencies are on the table.”

One complication that could speed up consideration of any military action would be evidence that Colonel Qaddafi was prepared to use his remaining stockpile of mustard gas.

The American sanctions will also include travel bans against Colonel Qaddafi and senior members of his government, and the freezing of assets, including a move to freeze all American-controlled portions of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, administration officials said. Sanctions, once they go into effect, could have an impact on oil-rich Libya. According to an American diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks, a senior Libyan official told American diplomats in January 2010 that the Libyan Investment Authority, which manages the country’s oil revenue, had $32 billion in cash, and that several American banks managed up to $500 million in each of those funds. Administration officials said they planned to go after that money as part of the punitive sanctions.

“The government of Libya has claimed that it holds as much as $130 billion in reserves and its sovereign wealth fund reportedly holds more than $70 billion in foreign assets,” an Obama administration official said. The official said that “while we are aware of certain assets owned by the Libyan government in the U.S., there are likely additional funds that we are not aware of.”

Analysts said that going after the assets of Colonel Qaddafi’s aides would probably be more effective than going after those held by the leader himself, given that he is engaged in an all-or-nothing defense of his rule.

A more draconian approach, suggested Danielle Pletka, an expert on sanctions at the American Enterprise Institute, would be to impose a trade embargo on Libya, excepting only food and other humanitarian aid.

The United Nations Security Council will discuss a proposal backed by France and Britain for multilateral sanctions, including an arms embargo and financial sanctions. But no definitive move was expected until next week. Italy, which is not in the Security Council and has deep investments in Libya, said Friday that it also backed sanctions.

Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris, Rachel Donadio from Valletta, Malta, and Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva.

via nytimes.com

Ezra Klein - How Medicare -- and health-care reform -- help with 'job-lock'

How Medicare -- and health-care reform -- help with 'job-lock'

By Ezra Klein

One of the theoretical problems with our health-care system is that it discourages entrepreneurship. We get health care at a subsidized rate, with no discrimination for preexisting conditions, from our employers. But if we leave our jobs, we lose that health care. And buying our own health care is expensive, and occasionally impossible: Plans sold to individuals cost $2,000 more than equivalent plans sold to businesses, the employer subsidy (and the tax break underpinning it) vanish, and we can be turned away because of back pain that got resolved a decade ago. So a lot of people decide to stick with their employer and forgo starting that business. It's the responsible thing to do, particularly if you have a family.

At least, we think they do. But it's a bit hard to test why someone didn't do something. Robert W. Fairliea, Kanika Kapurb and Susan Gates, however, came up with a clever way to measure it. They used a data set that allowed them to compare "business ownership among male workers in the months just before turning age 65 and in the months just after turning age 65." That is to say, business ownership before getting Medicare, and business ownership after getting Medicare. Not surprisingly, Medicare appears to make people more entrepreneurial. "We find that business ownership rates increase from just under age 65 to just over age 65, whereas we find no change in business ownership rates from just before to just after for other ages 55–75."

The Affordable Care Act will help solve this problem. Repealing it won't.

By Ezra Klein | February 25, 2011; 2:05 PM ET

via voices.washingtonpost.com

Friday, February 25, 2011

Brooklyn bar turns the TARDIS into a Toilet | io9

The Steampunk Victorian bar Way Station in Prospect Heights, NY has opened its doors to everyone who wants fancy cocktails, live jazz and blues music — and for those who want to brag that they've relieved themselves inside the TARDIS.

Way Station, located at 683 Washington Ave., Prospect Heights, turned its bathroom into the Doctor's time traveling blue box. And according to the owners, "Doctor Who fans will be excited to find out that it is bigger on the inside." Delightful.

via io9.com

How Old Will I Be | Shoe

via images.ucomics.com

Still Worlds Apart - Blog - OpenCongress

Still Worlds Apart

February 24, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

If progress is being made on keeping the government up and running beyond the March 4 deadline, it’s not being shared with the public. Both Democrats and Republicans have spent the week digging in their heels and pledging to move forward on their separate, conflicting paths, virtually guaranteeing that we will see a government shutdown while things are being worked out.

House Republicans announced yesterday that their first order of business when the come back next week will be to pass a two-week continuing resolution that would cut about $4 billion from current spending levels, which would be, essentially, a pro-rated version of the spending cuts in their rest-of-the-fiscal-year continuing resolution, perhaps even a little more aggressive. The Democrats in the Senate. “This isn’t a compromise, it’s a hardening of their original position,” Reid’s spokesman, Jon Summers, said. He’s right, of course.

But spending levels aren’t even the real debate. The bigger problem, as Jonathan Bernstein notes, is that the Republicans are using the continuing resolution as a means for pursuing their entire domestic policy platform, like defunding Planned Parenthood, blocking net neutrality rules, and preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. That stuff is all in the continuing resolution the House passed last week, and it makes it nearly impossible for the two parties to strike a deal on the more practical matters, like keeping federal employees funded and benefits flowing to veterans,

If the only question was about funding levels, which was always expected to be a battleground, then it’s doubtful a compromise would’ve been impossible. The budget debate might have gone to the brink, maybe even shutting the government down for a few days before a deal was reached. In theory, however, it’s just not that difficult to cut a deal between one side that wants X dollars and another side that wants Y dollars spent on, more or less, the same set of programs … But, when it comes to the policy fights over health care reform, environmental regulations, Planned Parenthood, and other issues, there aren’t partial victories available. Democrats won’t give in, and House Republicans won’t either, at least not easily. To take just one example: If you’re a Republican congressman, once you’ve said that allowing funds to go to Planned Parenthood is basically just funding abortion (even if it’s not), how do you reconcile a “yes” vote on a compromise bill that allows funding for that organization?

I don’t know how this gets solved in the five days between when Congress comes back and all discretionary government funding expires. Maybe if Congress’ own salaries were dependent on them passing a spending bill they would find a way. But they’re not, and Congress’ immunity to the consequences of a government shutdown is probably contributing to the collective mindset that continues to steer this whole thing towards gridlock.

via opencongress.org

Flying Off Into The Sunset - Technology Review

Flying Off Into The Sunset

Only two more launches are planned before the entire shuttle fleet is retired.

Stephen Cass 02/25/2011

The six-person crew of the Discovery, before boarding the shuttle earlier today

As dusk approached yesterday, the space shuttle Discovery blasted off. It was an appropriate time of day, as the entire shuttle program has entered its twilight hours. When the Discovery returns after its eleven-day mission, it will be mothballed and shipped off to the Smithsonian, leaving only the Endeavour and Atlantis to each fly once more, with the final mission coming in the summer of this year.

After that, NASA will have to find other ways to get astronauts into space. NASA's had gaps in its spaceflight capabilities before, such as during 1975 to 1981, after the Apollo rockets and spacecraft were retired and before the shuttle started flying. But, unlike the late 1970's, NASA can't just choose to skip sending anyone into space -- today, people and supplies must be routinely sent to the International Space Station (ISS), currently operating with a crew of six in low Earth orbit.

NASA always knew that the shuttles couldn't fly forever, but its attempts to develop a successor failed, most notably including the VentureStar, an ambitious single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft that was cancelled in 2001 after over a billion dollars had been spent in development. This left the agency with no clear alternatives, prompting NASA to begin studying how to keeping the shuttle flying until at least 2020, until the disintegration of the Columbia during re-entry in 2003 cast doubts on the wisdom of prolonging the working life of the vehicles. The agency then begun working on the Constellation program, but the future of that program remains clouded, and only one preliminary test flight of the launch rocket has occurred to date. After this summer, NASA will have to rely solely on hitching rides on Russia's cramped three-person Soyuz spacecraft to get its astronauts to and from the ISS.

Fortunately, a number of strong candidates to replace the shuttle, as least with regards to resupplying the ISS, have emerged in the last few years from the private sector, as outlined in the latest Briefing from Technology Review. SpaceX is furthest along, successfully testing an automated version of its Dragon space capsule and Falcon 9 launch rocket in December. Dragon will begin supplying the ISS this year with cargo, and is designed to be easily upgraded to accommodate astronauts--if NASA is willing to buy tickets.

via technologyreview.com

High School Atheists Are Organizing -- Why Are Schools Pushing Back? | Belief | AlterNet

High School Atheists Are Organizing -- Why Are Schools Pushing Back?

High school non-theist groups are getting dedicated support from a national organization but their schools are flipping out. What does this mean for the future of atheism?

February 22, 2011 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Belief headlines via email.

TAKE ACTION
Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition �

High school student Brian Lisco just wanted to form a student club. A senior at Stephen Austin High School in the Houston suburbs, Lisco wanted to meet with like-minded students; students who shared common interests, who could talk about ideas they found interesting, who could give one another support.

But his efforts were consistently thwarted by the administration at his high school. His requests to form a club were stalled for months, and obstacle after obstacle was put in his path.

Why?

Because the group he wanted to start was an atheist group.

His story is being repeated, with variations, around the country.

Atheist student groups have been organizing in colleges and universities for years, and their numbers are climbing at an astonishing rate. The Secular Student Alliance, an umbrella organization supporting non-theistic student groups, passed 250 affiliates this month -- a number that has doubled in just two years. (Conflict of interest alert: I'm on the speaker's bureau for the Secular Student Alliance, and am colleagues/ friends with several people in the organization.) And for the most part, atheist groups at colleges and universities meet with little resistance, and in many cases get a fair degree of support, from school administrations -- who are familiar with the laws in such matters, and often have clear diversity policies in place.

But in high schools, it's a different story. Resistance to atheist groups from high school administrators, while not universal, is depressingly common. According to JT Eberhard, campus organizer and high school specialist for the SSA, "Most of them seem to elect to try and drag their feet until the interested students either lose interest or graduate. The 'objections' are varied. I've heard 'it would be too controversial', 'all clubs are secular', 'other groups already do the same thing', and a whole host of other lame reasons." Eberhard adds that a common tactic is to tell students they need a faculty adviser to form a group -- a requirement that is, in fact, flatly illegal -- "and then to make sure the group cannot find a willing one." (The legal principle that high schools must give all students equal access to forming extracurricular clubs, with or without a faculty advisor and regardless of the purpose of the club, has been well- established... and it's a principle that has been applied to religious groups, and was in fact strongly lobbied for by them.)

"A predictable pattern has actually emerged," he continues, "1) Interested student gets everything in order, finds a faculty sponsor, and applies for their group; 2) administration stonewalls them; 3) students push harder; 4) administration crumbles, but faculty sponsor withdraws. I've seen this exact same scenario play out almost double-digit times in the six weeks I've been here."

In a particularly vivid example of these tactics, an Oklahoma high school student who tried to form an atheist group was accused of trying to form a "hate group"... and when it became clear that the students knew their rights and were not going to back down, the faculty sponsor they had lined up withdrew under pressure, saying she had been told that sponsoring this group would be "a bad career move."

But at the beginning of 2011, the Secular Student Alliance began a program specifically devoted to supporting high school atheist groups. With the help of a grant from the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, they hired Eberhard, co-founder of the nationally renowned atheist conference Skepticon (and of the Missouri State University Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Skepticon's official host), as their dedicated high school campus organizer.

The efforts have been paying off. It took four years for the SSA to get just 12 high school groups affiliated with their organization. According to SSA director of campus organizing Lyz Liddell, "We've had around four to six HS groups for most of the time we've been around, but there's been no consistency or sustainability until recently." But in just the first month since their dedicated high school program began, they have gained five new high school affiliates.

And while the SSA primarily supports its college and university groups through financial assistance, organizational advice and materials, access to a speaker's bureau, and so on, it's becoming increasingly clear that support for high school groups will need to be more aggressive. Gentle reminders about the law. Repeated gentle reminders about the law. Somewhat less gentle reminders about the law. Mediation. Media attention when the law is being defied. Possibly even legal action. It hasn't yet come to this last option, and the SSA hopes it won't have to. As SSA's executive director August Brunsman said, "While the law is certainly on our side, we would rather have social understanding than legal victory." But if legal action becomes necessary, the SSA is prepared to support atheist students, and their legal right to form clubs in high schools.

So why are students forming these groups, anyway?

The need for high school atheist groups -- or indeed, for atheist groups of any kind -- is baffling to many people. When USA Today ran an article about Brian Lisco and the SSA's new high school program, it was met with a barrage of hostile comments... partly in the hysterical "Satan is trolling for the souls of our youth!" vein, but largely with puzzlement and snark, along the lines of, "Why would anyone need a club to talk about what they don't believe in?"

But the powerful resistance these groups have encountered makes the need for them all too clear. The reality is that atheists are the most distrusted and disliked of all minority groups -- more than blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and gays and lesbians -- and polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist than they are for a person in any other minority or marginalized category.

And this hostility can have serious consequences, in the form of harassment, bullying, ostracism, vandalism, alienation from family, loss of jobs, and more -- especially in more religiously conservative parts of the country. Says Eberhard, "I can tell you that when I started here we had two leaders out of twelve that had to lead in secret. For instance, we have to send them blank packages and sometimes to other locations. Since then I've had a group-starting-packet request from another such student. I also have another group considering forming, but there is concern for safety." As an example, he quotes an anonymous contact who's interested in starting a group, but is fearful of the fallout:

We have a few families with high school students in our [atheist] group, but none of these students are "out" at school. I also have several High School teachers in the [city name redacted] Freethinkers, but almost every single one of them is afraid of anyone finding out they attend our [group] lest they lose their jobs; I'm having trouble imagining we could find a faculty adviser for students here.

And:

I do want to make sure that SSA would be prepared to support kids who might face some serious consequences should they be willing to bravely take on leadership. I am fully confident SSA will do its homework on the legal side of things, but I'm more concerned about things like anonymous vandalism or family conflict and the kind of toll that might take on kids in a pretty isolated, rural environment. I deal with this all the time with local LGBT teens, but there aren't exactly 24-hour crisis hotlines for teenage atheists who get thrown out of their homes, etc. Since forming the Freethinkers, we've had several incidents of vandalism; I get hate emails all the time.

Countering anti-atheist myths is important even when the bigotry isn't overtly threatening or grotesque. Myths about atheists are widespread, even among more moderate and progressive believers. Countering those myths requires visibility -- and visibility is more effective with organization. Groups can provide emotional support to people who are coming out when they face opposition and hatred... and groups can make visibility easier to accomplish. As Eberhard points out, "One of the best ways gay students have acquired a greater level of acceptance is by 'coming out', so that many people are now realizing that they not only know gay people but that they like gay people. So it must be with atheists. We need to encourage non-believing students to be proud of who they are if the social stigma is to ever be dissolved."

And even in the absence of overt anti-atheist hostility, and the need to band together for sanctuary and support in the face of it, there are plenty of reasons why atheists want to congregate -- in high schools, or anywhere else. For many atheists, atheism is more than simply not believing in God: it's a positive humanist philosophy, valuing reason, compassion, evidence, ethics, and social justice in this world. These atheists want to congregate with others who share their values: for social support, to do charity and social justice work, or just to eat pizza and hang out. What's more, many atheists are actively engaged in countering religion and trying to persuade people out of it. As Eberhard, says, "Some view the conclusions of religion to be maladaptive and seek to generate public dialogue about the failings of faith." They want to change the way people think -- and organizing makes that more effective.

In other words: Atheists -- including high school atheists -- form groups for the same reasons anyone does. Support in the face of hostility. The pleasure of spending time with people who share your ideas and values, and who like to do the same things you do. Greater visibility in the face of myths and bigotry. A more effective platform for getting your ideas into the world. A more effective platform for doing good work. Just plain fun. Humans are social animals. We like to hang out with other animals we have things in common with. Especially when other animals are being mean to us.

So why are so many high school administrators opposed to it?

"Fear of their communities is probably one thing," says Eberhard. "In many areas the superintendent is elected, and allowing an atheist group that is bound to get local attention is something that's bound to worry them. However, in most situations it seems like it's just their own personal aversion." Unsurprisingly, high school administrators have their own religious beliefs, and their own fears and misunderstandings about atheists. When coupled with fear of controversy, these beliefs and fears can generate resistance, stonewalling, delay tactics, outright intimidation, and the hope that if the problem is ignored for long enough, it will just go away.

But it's hard to escape the notion that, at least in part, high school atheist groups are meeting such strong resistance because -- when it comes to atheism gaining ground in society -- they could change the game.

For one thing, as high school atheist groups become more common, the atheist presence in colleges and universities is likely to become stronger. As Liddell says, "Having high school groups will train leaders who will be able to step up and grow as leaders at the college level, adding awesomeness and sustainability for our college groups. I also think that it will further the growing expectation that there will be a secular group for them in college (after all, if they had one in high school, why wouldn't there be one in college?), and in the cases where there isn't yet, it will encourage them to start one (after all, it would sure have to be easier than it was in high school!)."

But the power of high school atheist groups to change the game goes beyond colleges and universities. As Liddell points out, "For an awful lot of people, high school is the last educational system they're in. If all our groups are in colleges, then only college students will be exposed to freethought as a 'normal' worldview. Having these groups in high schools will go a long way toward raising awareness of our worldview, both among the students who go to school where these groups are and in the communities in which they are located."

It isn't surprising that people who are fearful about atheism in general would be fearful about atheist high school groups in particular. And since high school groups are so vulnerable, it isn't surprising that they would meet with stubborn opposition.

But what does this mean for Brian Lisco, and for other high school atheists trying to organize?

For Lisco and his group, the news has been good. After eight months of stalling and delay tactics, his school abruptly gave him the SSA club... shortly after USA Today contacted them for comment on the matter. For other groups, who won't be able to count on national media attention to aid their cause, the battle for their legal right to organize without intimidation may be more uphill.

But they won't be fighting it alone.

For more information on the Secular Student Alliance high school program, visit the Secular Student Alliance Web site, look at their educator's guide for high school non-theist groups, or contact JT Eberhard, jt@secularstudents.org.

via alternet.org

Thursday, February 24, 2011

US economics: One big Ponzi scheme - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Wall Street traders represent the elite of the global financial world, but after the collapse of the economy those behind the world's depression still seem to be doing just fine [GALLO/GETTY]

Thank you, Bernie, for breaking your silence - even if you are still clinging to that cover-up mode you adopted since you took the entirety of the blame for your crimes.

What is clear is that ripping off the rich is punished far more severely than ripping off the poor. The lengthy sentence you were given spared countless other greedsters and goniffs from facing the music - what music there is.

In an interview - with a reporter from The New York Times who is writing a book to cash in on a man who has already cashed out - we learn, in the vaguest terms, that Mr M believes the banks he did his crooked business with "should have known" his figures did not figure. Keeping with the deceit that has served him well over the years, he names no names.

That said, how right he may be. There were many who should have known and done something about it. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulators for one. Perhaps The New York Times for another. Remember, it was Madoff's confession to his sons that started him on his way to his new 12' x 12' home from home - in a federal correctional institute, where he may dream of his seized penthouse, homes and yachts - rather than any press expose.

For years, he went undetected by business journalists, who knew - or should have known - what he was up to. There are even questions about the speed with which he was sentenced, preventing him from being tried - a process which, through diligent cross-examination, would have brought us more information on the details of his dirty deals.

Do not believe all you read

Even The New York Times interview is being disputed, reports the New York Post: "The trustee representing thousands of Bernard Madoff's victims disputed a report that he personally grilled the Ponzi monster in prison."

"There has been no direct communication between them," said David Sheehan, the chief counsel for the court-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, after The New York Times reported that Picard and Madoff had met over the summer.

"The Times later changed a quote from Madoff and altered some text online that had implied Picard personally visited Bernie in the Butner, NC, lockup where he is serving a 150-year sentence. Picard did not dispute that his legal team met with Madoff."

Madoff is also still not coming clean about the web of alliances he had internationally, as well as in New York. We live in a global economy after all. We now know of Swiss and Austrian connections - but what about Israel, where this ingratiating handler was well known for his connections with Jewish philanthropists and institutions? So far, that story has yet to be told.

At the same time, the people investigating Madoff are making a small fortune. According to the Financial Times: "The army of lawyers and consultants helping to recover funds from Bernard Madoff's $19.6bn fraud stand to earn more than $1.3bn in fees, according to new figures that detail the cost of liquidating the huge Ponzi scheme."

The comments of readers to The Times appear to be more insightful than the paper’s own reports. Here is one from Texas: "I actually, sort of, feel sorry for this man. He was just doing what many investment firms were doing at the same time. He has been imprisoned as a scapegoat - yet many people since then - and to this day - are doing the same thing. Where are the indictments against the thousands of other people who did the same thing - and knowingly led this country into financial disaster?"

Banks close ranks

The best reporting on this subject is not in the mainstream press but in a music magazine, Rolling Stone, where Matt Taibbi investigates why the whole of Wall Street is not in jail: "Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy - but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them," he charges.

Madoff also believes the banks who serviced him did not want to know about his Ponzi scheme which, unfortunately, is probably true - and an attitude coming not just from the banks.

The Times report added: "He spoke with great intensity and fluency about his dealings with various banks and hedge funds, pointing to their 'willful blindness' and their failure to examine discrepancies between his regulatory filings and other information available to them.

"'They had to know,' Mr Madoff said. 'But the attitude was sort of: "If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know."'"

Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism.com quips: "This sounds credible - but it also seems more than a tad self-serving."

Andrew Leonard asks in Salon: "Should we trust him? After all, if there is one thing we know about Bernie Madoff, it is that he is one hell of a liar. But as evidence emerges that bank executives were exchanging emails wondering about Madoff’s amazing investment record, the possibility that the banks were purposefully looking the other way is not inconceivable."

The truth is that many of us still do not really want to know - because, if we did, we would have to do something about it.

By their actions, both Democrats and Republicans clearly appear to prefer the most simplistic understandings - or misunderstandings.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), like the 9/11 and Warren Commissions before it, avoided key issues. The FCIC inquiry did not call for a criminal indictment of wrongdoers. While informative, its report was ultimately a dud - telling us mostly what we knew, although there were some disclosures that our tepid press still missed.

Now the Republicans want to water down the regulations on derivatives in the Dodd-Frank financial 'reform' legislation, claiming they will lead to a loss of jobs. This is predictable: Every effort to defend big business is always couched in terms of helping the public.

The New York Times reported: "Representative Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, warned: 'You think regulation is costly? How about the $7trillion we just lost from not regulating the derivatives markets?'"

There was no response from his colleagues.

So who will do anything about it?

The political right prefers to change the subject, while the left does not seem to have the time or energy to make economic justice its principal concern - even as polls show the economy is the number one problem for most in the US.

Progressives should hang their heads in shame at the minimal amount of activism taking place against the banks and the escalating numbers of foreclosures. Homes and hope are being stolen from people for whom the term "depression" now has a personal, as well as economic, meaning.

The other day, economist Jeff Sachs - who has a lot of atoning to do for his own misguided, destructive economic advice to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union - warned that little is being done about economic inequity and the growing ranks of the poor in the US. He asks if people who run things in the US want "another Egypt". He is a policy wonk, not an activist - and likely fears the idea.

Many activists say they want to emulate the Egyptians, but who will organise anything as effective - even in a land that used to be known for people's movements - to raise hell? In Egypt, young people used the internet to organise and mobilise for change. In the US, the internet seems to function more as an escape valve, consuming hours of our time and giving us another way to talk to each other - and ventilate against the government. Social media here seems to be more for socialising.

The government supports internet freedom abroad - but restricts it and spies on it at home. Obama has already supported a law allowing him to shut it down here in a national emergency.

The passivity of the public is one result of the inundation by middle-of-the-road media and effective information deprivation.

As Noam Chomsky puts it: "The population in the United States is angry, frustrated and full of fear and irrational hatreds. And the folks not far from you on Wall Street are just doing fine. They're the ones who created the current crisis. They're the ones who were called upon to deal with it. They're coming out stronger and richer than ever. But everything's fine - as long as the population is passive."

That is our problem, Bernie. Even if the people want to know, it is not that easy to find out. Let us thank the media and our government for that.

News dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His new film, Plunder: The Crime of Our Time, tells the story of the financial crisis as a criminal tale. He can be reached at: dissector@mediachannel.org

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

via english.aljazeera.net

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Get Alerts on Your Watch. Get inPulse | Hack inPulse: Features

Get inPulse and hack your watch!

inPulse is the perfect hacker accessory - a fully programmable Bluetooth SmartWatch.

Just want to keep tabs on inPulse?
Join our mailing list and follow the blog.

Customize your watch

inPulse is totally customizable. Our SDK can get you saying 'Hello, Watch!' in 5 minutes! Dive deeper and create your own app running right on top of our embedded OS. Code in C and get control over the OLED display, Bluetooth connection, vibrating motor, button, timers, interrupts and more.

Ambient data display

Ever had to check the ping-time of your server during a rolly-chair sword duel? Or maybe you've wanted to check sports scores in a more believable situation, like over dinner with the parents. Write a simple script to funnel data from the net to your watch. Check out our PingStat example app.

Connect inPulse to...whatever!

inPulse can connect by Bluetooth to all kinds of host devices: computers, laptops, smartphones, and certain Bluetooth-enabled toasters.
It plays best with Android, Blackberry, Mac, Windows and Linux. It's a two way connection, so inPulse can send packets back to the host based on user interaction.

Frequently answered questions

Watch out...APPS!

We've created a number of sample apps to get your started, including source code, tutorials and binaries to load on your watch. There's even a simulator, so you can start hacking before your watch even arrives!

Share your apps and get advice on our dev forum!

Tech specifications

1.3" 96x128 pix full color display
ARM7 microcontroller running at 52MHz
32kB total program space, 8kB RAM
Bluetooth 2.1 (L2CAP)
Over-the-air programming
Vibrating motor
150mAh lithium-ion polymer battery
Charges via microUSB
Battery lasts up to 4 days depending on display/Bluetooth use

via getinpulse.com

WANT!!

How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong - NYTimes.com

February 22, 2011, 8:30 pm — Updated: 12:20 pm -->

How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong

By MARK BITTMAN

Mark Bittman on food and all things related.

There’s a feeling of inevitability in writing about McDonald’s latest offering, their “bowl full of wholesome” — also known as oatmeal. The leading fast-food multinational, with sales over $16.5 billion a year (just under the GDP of Afghanistan), represents a great deal of what is wrong with American food today. From a marketing perspective, they can do almost nothing wrong; from a nutritional perspective, they can do almost nothing right, as the oatmeal fiasco demonstrates.

One “positive” often raised about McDonald’s is that it sells calories cheap. But since many of these calories are in forms detrimental rather than beneficial to our health and to the environment, they’re actually quite expensive — the costs aren’t seen at the cash register but in the form of high health care bills and environmental degradation.

Oatmeal is on the other end of the food spectrum. Real oatmeal contains no ingredients; rather, it is an ingredient. As such, it’s a promising lifesaver: oats are easy to grow in almost any non-extreme climate and, minimally processed, they’re profoundly nourishing, inexpensive and ridiculously easy to cook. They can even be eaten raw, but more on that in a moment.

Like so many other venerable foods, oatmeal has been roundly abused by food marketers for more than 40 years. Take, for example, Quaker Strawberries and Cream Instant Oatmeal, which contains no strawberries, no cream, 12 times the sugars of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats and only half of the fiber. At least it’s inexpensive, less than 50 cents a packet on average. (A serving of cooked rolled oats will set you back half that at most, plus the cost of condiments; of course, it’ll be much better in every respect.)