Yesterday I caught up on comments, but go not visiting in. I felt very tired. I got a new coffee maker. Setting it up took a masters degree in engineering, but it was a welcome addition. I was sick of instant, which had been drinking since the old machine dies Saturday morning. Today I have morning appointment. I’ll have to see how they go.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 3:48. To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
From Common Dreams: In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he had approved the nation’s first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.
I understand that the Kennedys and other northeastern blue-bloods objected to this, because they don’t want to see it from their mansions. Tough!
From Daily Kos: Speaking of stupid, according to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):
"The president is the one who put the kibosh on working together, and now he’s just trying to use the mainstream media to confuse the American people. The fact is I think he thinks Americans are stupid, and he’s going to play this out until he gets a headline in every paper that Republicans are obstructionist.”
Unbelievable! We lefties have been tearing out our hair in frustration over Obama’s repeated and fruitless attempts at bipartisanship!
The Senate had executives from Goldman Sachs on the carpet yesterday. It wasn’t pretty.
The question at the center of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the role of investment banks in the financial crisis: Are Goldman Sachs bankers criminals or merely a big bunch of jerks?
Put another way: Did the employees of Goldman Sachs deliberately mislead investors by failing to disclose that one of the people creating a certain mortgage-backed security was also betting against it, as a new lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges? Or did they simply recommend mortgage-backed securities to investors, then turn around and bet against them—essentially betting against their own investors?
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations may have failed to prove the former, but it presented a strong case for the latter.
The hearing pitted senators determined to find wrongdoing—they sifted through a five-pound stack of internal e-mails, company memos, letters to investors, and financial statements—against Wall Streeters insisting they were just doing their jobs. As a result, the hearing was less about litigating the SEC case than it was about senators highlighting and assigning blame for the causes of the financial crash.
Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who as always appeared to have stepped right out of The Pickwick Papers, got right to the point in his introductory remarks: "Goldman Sachs didn’t just make money. It profited by taking advantage of its clients’ reasonable expectation that it would not sell products that it didn’t want to succeed, and that there was no conflict of economic interest between the firm and the customers it had pledged to serve." In other words, Goldman has an obligation to be honest with its customers. And part of that obligation is to tell them what Goldman thinks of the investments it’s selling.
Goldman Sachs didn’t just disagree. The half dozen current and former employees dragged before the panel, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, took a position so contrary, it’s as if they were speaking a different language. Levin said Goldman was "shorting," or betting against, the housing market. Goldman said it wasn’t—it was merely hedging against its bets that the housing market would succeed—and that its "short" was hardly "big." (The shorts just happened to outweigh the longs.) Levin argued that Goldman was misleading its clients by hiding the fact that it thought subprime securities would fail. Blankfein argued that its clients don’t care what Goldman thinks of the assets it’s selling, even if it were possible to ascertain what all 35,000 Goldman employees "think" of a security. Levin said Goldman has an obligation to disclose how an instrument is created. "I don’t believe there’s a disclosure obligation," Blankfein said… [emphasis added]
Are the Goldman Sachs executives testifying at today’s governmental affairs hearing sorry? Do they have regrets about their role in the financial crisis?
Sure doesn’t sound like it.
"Regret to me means something that you feel that you did wrong," said former Goldman partner Dan Sparks. "And I don’t have that."
What I do have though is — we made mistakes in our business, like any business does. And we made some poor business decisions in hindsight.
But did Goldman Sachs play a part in causing the financial crisis?
"I don’t know," Sparks said. "I’d like to think about that and respond. I haven’t thought about that specifically."
What about you, Joshua Birnbaum?
"I would second what Mr. Sparks said," said Birnbaum, former managing director of the banks’ structured products group trading. "We’re all sympathetic to the negative impact to that bubble."
And "to the extent that investment banks and commercial banks may have extended too much credit at certain periods of time," Birnbaum said, "then it’s possible" Goldman played a role.
Michael Swenson — who now holds Birnbaum’s old job — was more definitive.
"We did not cause the financial crisis," he said. "I do not think we did anything wrong."
"There’s things that we wish we could have done better in hindsight, but at the times that we made the decisions, I don’t think we did anything wrong," Swenson said.
And Fabrice Tourre, who boasted by email of selling financial products to a "widow and orphans"?
"I firmly believe that my conduct was correct," Tourre said… [emphasis added]
In spite of all this, the GOP blocked financial reform for the second day in a row. If they want to keep pairing themselves with Bankster behavior, let them. But, since this merely opens debate, what does the Repuglican party fear? I’ll tell you. There are several progressive amendments waiting. Once debate starts, the GOP will be forced to either allow up or down votes on them, votes that they would lose, or filibuster issues so specific that they won’t be able to cover up their true position. The next vote is scheduled for Noon eastern time today.
Then there is the matter of Ben Nelson (DINO-NE). He sided with the Republicans again. But Rachel Maddow has exposed his true motive.
For all their wailing about the intrusiveness of government, one might thing that the Teabaggers would oppose the most intrusive move by government since Crawford Caligula declared open season on all citizens’ telephone calls and email. One might be wrong.
Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.
The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers [sic] into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?
Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government [Teabaggers delinked]. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), a Tea Party backer.
According to a new survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, white Tea Partiers tend to be “predisposed to intolerance,” pointing to a possible reason the movement has been reluctant to join with immigration reform activists:
For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.
Also, if Tea Partiers really do feel like they’ve been taxed enough already, they should support immigration reform. As Andrea Nill has reported, “In January, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress found that legalizing undocumented immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue within three years… [emphasis original]
This is the worst way we could have proven that we do not have the the technology or expertise to expand offshore drilling.
The Gulf of Mexico oil rig disaster will develop into one of the worst spills in US history if the well is not sealed, the coast guard officer leading the response warned.
British Petroleum, which leases the Deepwater Horizon platform, has been operating four robotic submarines some 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) down on the seabed to try to cap two leaks in the riser pipe that connected the rig to the wellhead.
But the best efforts of the British energy giant have yielded no progress so far, and engineers are frantically constructing a giant dome that could be placed over the leaks as a back-up plan to try and stop the oil spreading.
Time is running out as a huge slick with a 600-mile (965-kilometer) circumference has moved within 21 miles of the ecologically fragile Louisiana coast despite favorable winds. Photos released by U.S. space agency NASA revealed the spread had become so great, it was visible from space.
The US authorities said they were considering a controlled burn of oil captured in inflatable containment booms floating in the gulf to protect the shorelines of Louisiana and other southern states.
"I am going to say right up front: the BP efforts to secure the blowout preventer have not yet been successful," Rear Admiral Mary Landry told a press conference, referring to a 450-tonne machine that could seal the well.
Asked to compare the accident to the notorious 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster, Landry declined but said: "If we don’t secure the well, yes, this will be one of the most significant oil spills in US history."… [emphasis added]
To give you an idea of the scale, the oil slick is currently larger than West Virginia. There is little to be done about the drilling operations underway, but no more should be allowed.
Yesterday, I caught up on comments after another doctor’s appointment. I may have achieved a breakthrough. After fighting my way through denials by two receptionists and a nurse, the doctor said she might consider kosher, organically grown chickens. I hope to get some visiting done today.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 4:59. To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
From McClatchy DC: At least 100 protesters walked out on former congressman Tom Tancredo as he spoke Monday night on the values of Western culture at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Bravo!! That was over half Tancredo’s audience.
From Think Progress: For the first time since 2004, the biggest Wall Street firms are now giving most of their campaign donations to Republicans.
I trust you already know that the GOP successfully filibustered financial reform.
This may be the single biggest lie in modern American history: "Most Republicans want a bill," said Sen. Richard Shelby, "but they want a substantive bill." We’ve criticized the Democrats plenty of times on the issue of financial reform, and the Dodd bill isn’t perfect. But this wasn’t a yea-or-nay vote about a bill. It was a vote to decide whether Senators would even be permitted to debate the bill. That difference means everything.
The GOP has now gone on record officially as saying it wants to block the Senate from even discussing a financial reform bill. They don’t want to let the American people see and hear a debate on this topic from their Senators. When it comes to financial reform, they don’t want the democratic process to take place at all.
Richard Shelby has received $789,489 in campaign contributions from the securities and investment community over the last five years, along with $430,352 from lobbyists, $306,700 from commercial banks, $239,600 from finance and credit card companies, and $151,300 from miscellaneous finance companies.
R. Shelby, R-Alabama. Price of a vote: $1,917,441. (That’s the amount we know about, anyway.)
He had help, of course, from a unified Republican Party. Even Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who we praised when he voted for Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives bill, joined in the effort to short-circuit the open democratic process. So did a lone Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was reportedly angry because a provision benefiting Nebraskan Warren Buffett was removed from the bill.
The bill contains many measures that Republicans say they want. As Sen. Shelby said, they claim to want something substantive. Normally a bill is finalized through a process of public debate — at least that’s what we were taught in civics class. But 41 Senators are on record as saying they don’t want a public debate about this bill. They don’t want to introduce amendments or debate the merits of the policies that are in it today. Their long-range strategy is no doubt to paralyze the Senate until Democrats are forced to accept back-room deals that will kill an already dangerously weakened bill. That’s a great way to kill reform without leaving any fingerprints… [emphasis added]
We expect that from Republicans, but Ben Nelson (DINO-NE) should be thrown out of the party.
Why did Ben Nelson join his Republican colleagues in voting against the motion to proceed on Wall Street reform? Probably because of this:
Senate Democrats agreed Monday to kill a provision from their derivatives bill pushed by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a change one analyst predicted could force the Nebraska company to set aside up to $8 billion.
The Senate Agriculture Committee inserted language into its derivatives bill last week at the request of Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) that would have exempted any existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements—the money set aside to cover potential losses.
Ben Nelson apparently forgot the immense damage his "Cornhusker Kickback" did in the last big debate, feeding the backroom deals narrative for the opposition. He went for another one… [emphasis added]
Not surprisingly, President Obama was not happy with the vote.
“I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can’t afford that. A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party.”
Because of concessions already made to Wall Street’s GOP lackeys, this bill is already too bipartisan. Keith Olbermann and Sherrod Brown clarify the issues quite well.
Although we lost the vote we should count this as a win for our side. Today Goldman Sachs executives will be testifying. They will lie, claiming they did not defraud investors, even though their email proves that they did. Let the GOP try to defend taking the side of Lloyd Blankfein. There’s a great menu at the Senate hearings today: GOP Pig, spitted on their own lies.
Democrats are calling for a boycott of Arizona over their racist GOP immigration law.
Calls grew across the US today for a boycott of Arizona over its new law giving the police the most draconian powers in the country to deal with illegal immigration.
Democratic members of Congress, religious leaders and leftwing activists urged a boycott of hotels, convention centres and other economic targets in the state. At least one nationwide group has responded by cancelling a convention planned for the autumn. Scores of lorry drivers were reported in the US media to have threatened to stop carrying loads to and from the state.
The calls are being made spontaneously by individuals and an array of groups, but leftwing activists predict they will soon coalesce into a single campaign.
The bill, signed into law on Friday, gives police the right to stop anyone "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the US". It has polarised opinion across the US, creating a clear divide between Democrats and Republicans.
In a sign of the passions aroused, cleaning crews were called to the state legislative building this morning to clear swastikas daubed on it overnight.
Opponents of the legislation say it will lead to victimisation of anyone who looks or sounds Latino. Supporters say the legislation is needed because the state can no longer cope with an estimated 450,000 illegal immigrants.
Among those calling for a sweeping boycott was the San Francisco city attorney, Dennis Herrera, who urged city departments to look at contracts with Arizona that could be terminated.
Herrera said: "Arizona has charted an ominous legal course that puts extremist politics before public safety, and betrays our most deeply held American values."
He noted that a similar boycott 20 years ago, which included the National Football League’s decision to move the Super Bowl from the state, led to Arizona finally dropping its refusal to recognise to Martin Luther King Day.
A Democratic congressman from Arizona, Raúl Grijalva, is also calling for an economic boycott against what he described as "unjust and racist" legislation that will damage Arizona’s prestige and credibility. He was forced to close his office at the weekend after receiving two death threats… [emphasis added]
On the news, I’ve seen Republican after Republican claiming that this law will not institute racial profiling and that there is nothing racist about the bill. If you have the slightest doubt that these GOP hypocrites are lying through their teeth, you will not after watching Rachel Maddow expose the people behind the bill and the positions they represent.
I’m behind again, because I had an appointment with the Pulmonologist. The bad news is that they refused to accept payment in chickens. The worse news is that I have to do another sleep study next month. Today I have more medical appointments, so catching up will be hard.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 4:05. To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short takes:
From Washington Post: The Treasury Department said Monday that it will begin selling 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup as part of a plan to divest its 27 percent ownership position in the bank.
Oh No! Will this be the end of socialism? 😉
From Raw Story: The publisher of former President George W. Bush’s book "Decision Points" on Sunday set a Nov. 9 release date, unveiled its cover design and announced new details about it.
This is great. In the run up to election day, the public will be reminded of the exploits of GW ChickenHawk.
