28 February 2009

The Republic of Zimbabwe


Mugabe vows to seize more farms

As originally reported by: BBC News
February 28, 2009


Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has vowed to continue seizing land from white farmers after a spate of "farm invasions" over the past month.

Speaking at a rally to celebrate his 85th birthday, he also promised to push for majority Zimbabwean ownership of companies operating in the country.

Mugabe supporters raised $250,000 (£176,000) for a lavish birthday party in Chinhoyi, north-west of Harare.

Zimbabwe asked African states for $2bn (£1.4bn) in economic aid just days ago.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the new prime minister and former opposition leader, did not attend the celebrations despite earlier indications that he might.

Mr Mugabe's spokesman, George Charamba, told Reuters news agency Mr Tsvangirai had opted out of the event after realising it had been organised by the president's Zanu-PF party.

"People should not read this as a snub - he excused himself," Mr Charamba said.

Mr Mugabe turned 85 on 21 February but his party is being held a week later.

SADC 'nonsense'

Mr Mugabe told the rally in Chinhoyi there would be "no going back" on planned and already executed seizures of land owned by white farmers.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) tribunal in Namibia had no right to intervene on the farmers' behalf, he said. "Farms will not be returned back to former farmers," he told the audience.

"Some farmers went to the SADC... but that's nonsense, absolute nonsense, no-one will follow that.

"We have courts here in this country, that can determine the rights of people. Our land issues are not subject to the SADC tribunal."

In November, the tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe's plans to seize dozens of white-owned farms were illegal under international rule and should be halted immediately.

Zimbabwe's Commercial Farmers Union says that, in the past month, operations at about 150 farms have been disrupted. Some farmers have been evicted.

Mr Mugabe said the new government would continue to push for a majority stake in companies operating in Zimbabwe.

"We would want to see a greater participation of our people in them, not less than 51%, in certain companies we would have designated," he said.

Mr Mugabe also urged his supporters to accept the new power-sharing government but his latest message on land reform is a sign that he is still firmly in control, BBC Southern Africa correspondent Peter Biles reports from Johannesburg.

This week, Mr Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change said the government must intervene to stop farm disruptions, in order to enhance productivity.

Economic woes

The birthday celebrations come as Zimbabwe struggles with the world's highest inflation, food shortages and a cholera epidemic which the World Health Organisation says has killed 3,894 people since August last year.

There have been more than 84,000 reported cases, says the WHO.

More than half the population is believed to need food aid, while just 10% of adults have a regular job.

Mr Tsvangirai - who was sworn in two weeks ago in a unity government with Mr Mugabe ending months of political deadlock - has said it will cost as much as $5bn to fix Zimbabwe's economy.

The country has asked for $2bn in emergency aid to revive public services and the business sector.

Following a two-day meeting of regional ministers in Cape Town, South Africa, members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union pledged to "pursue measures in support of Zimbabwe's economic recovery programme".

But Western donors have said they are waiting for proof that the unity government is really working before sending in funds.

The Republic of Zimbabwe


Defiant Mugabe's birthday banquet

Zimbabwe's president demands cattle and money from his starving people to pay for a surreal party

by Alex Duval Smith

As originally published in: The Observer
February 22, 2009


Robert Mugabe marked his 85th birthday yesterday with a sumptuous banquet in Harare at the start of a week of parties which observers say is a further sign of the Zimbabwean president's defiance in the face of growing criticism of his regime.

His latest show of excess came as prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai said "maybe US$5bn (£ 3.5bn)" would be needed to rehabilitate the collapsed health, social and education systems.

Surreal celebrations got under way on Friday as schoolboy pipers, accompanied by drum majorettes, marched through the decrepit capital and members of a ruling party youth organisation sold $10 raffle tickets.

Teetotal Mugabe's private party yesterday was hosted by his wife, Grace, 44, and attended by friends and a number of African diplomats. But state television did not, as is customary, broadcast his speech.

A $100-a-ticket gala dinner at Harare's Rainbow Towers Hotel on Wednesday is advertised as a musical extravaganza including Nigerian hip-hop star 2Face, Congolese rhumba band Werrason and a host of local acts. The parties will culminate on Saturday with a public feast and concert at Chinhoyi, about 50 miles west of Harare, which is to be televised. Dozens of animals will be slaughtered for the event and guests include hundreds of children also born on 21 February.

Zimbabwe University political science professor John Makumbe said the birthday display was the latest of many signals that the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) does not intend to respect the power-sharing agreement that saw Tsvangirai sworn in on 11 February.

"The money for the parties and the cattle and chickens donated are extracted from people virtually against their will," he said. "Thousands have died from cholera and many students are not attending school or university because teachers are not paid. It's unbelievable that he can blow quadrillions of Zimbabwe dollars on parties."

The celebrations have been organised since 1986 by a Zanu-PF youth group called the 21 February Movement. Initially modelled on scouting and aimed at promoting children's rights, it has increasingly become a young sycophants' association.

Zanu-PF youth leader Absolom Sikhosana defended the Chinhoyi event: "It is not a feast per se, but an event where youths have a chance to meet their hero. This inspires them to emulate his exemplary qualities of nation-building, patriotism and principled leadership."

In a sign of the times, the 21 February Movement set out to raise only $500,000 (£350,000) for Mugabe's birthday week against a reported $1.2m last year. Last week Sikhosana made a heartfelt plea on national radio for benefactors to make good on their promises: "We know things are tough, but it would be nice to honour the pledges you made."

According to some reports, pledges for only £70,000 have come in, much in the form of food donations. State media has reported that each district in Zimbabwe is expected to donate 50 cattle and to raise US$1,500 (£1,000).

Mugabe had already run roughshod over the power-sharing agreement by appointing 61 ministers instead of the agreed 31, Makumbe said. "Each will need their Mercedes, their 4x4, their driver, bodyguard and housing. At the same time, Tsvangirai is trying to raise money for basic reconstruction."

Amid scepticism from the international community, Tsvangirai and South African President Kgalema Motlanthe did their best to indicate progress on Friday. At a joint press conference in Cape Town, Motlanthe even claimed that the cholera crisis, which the UN says has killed 3,800 people and is worsening, had been "contained".

Tsvangirai played down the plight of his deputy agriculture minister, Roy Bennett, and 30 other activists who are in jail for alleged plotting against the regime. He said: "We are working slowly to deal with that matter and to make sure it does not become the focus of the attention. The real attention has to be on the plight of Zimbabweans."

The two men announced that Southern African finance ministers are this week expected to announce a $1.5bn loan to Zimbabwe, to be underwritten by the African Development Bank. The institution is part-funded by Europe and the US, but decision-making rests with African governments.

International donors remain concerned that aid will be diverted to the ruling party, just as £20m from South Africa last December mostly ended up in the hands of party supporters.

American Musical Performer Niggas on the Run Eatin' (NORE) (f/k/a Noreaga) (a/k/a Victor Santiago, Jr.)


Rapper N.O.R.E. arrested in South Beach

by Jose Pagliery

As originally published in: The Miami Herald
February 24, 2009


New York rapper N.O.R.E. was arrested in Miami Beach on Sunday afternoon after punching a man in the face and throwing a cup of yellow liquid on him, according to police.

Victor Santiago, who also goes by the stage names N.O.R.E. or Noreaga, was arrested by Miami Beach police after he got into a fight with a man at Fatburger, a South Beach restaurant at 947 Washington Ave., police said.

According to the police report, Santiago and three other men walked into Fatburger yelling. On their way in, the rapper ripped one of the restaurant's flower bouquets out of its place. Santiago then offered a man a cup of yellow liquid - when the man refused, Santiago threw it at him.

''Do you know who I am?'' Santiago yelled, according to the report. The rapper then punched the man in the face three times, police said.

When Miami Beach police officers arrived, they saw the four men running out of the restaurant - all were put in custody.

Police charged Santiago with simple battery and disorderly conduct in a licensed establishment.

27 February 2009

The United States of America (USA)



STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1003

By: Key





AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.





WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.



52-1-5082

SD

11/17/08

Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney


Mulroney will face 'closest possible scrutiny,' inquiry chair says

by Greg McArthur

As originally published in: The Globe and Mail
February 25, 2009


Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney lost a bid to narrow the scope of an upcoming public inquiry into his conduct yesterday after the inquiry chair ruled that his decision to accept cash payments shortly after leaving office should “bear the closest possible scrutiny.”

The chair, Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, rejected arguments from Mr. Mulroney's legal team that he is forbidden from using the Criminal Code of Canada to determine whether Mr. Mulroney acted inappropriately when he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

The ruling is the first public indication from Judge Oliphant about how far he is willing to probe when the inquiry begins in earnest on March 30.

The inquiry was called in late 2007 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper after revelations that not only had Mr. Mulroney accepted at least $225,000 in cash from Mr. Schreiber in 1993 and 1994, but that he waited six years to declare the income.

Mr. Schreiber was paid more than $20-million in secret commissions by German manufacturers for his efforts in negotiating federal government contracts during Mr. Mulroney's time in office. Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber have both testified that those commissions had nothing to do with the cash, but the men have offered different explanations about the purpose of the payments.

At a hearing about a month ago, Judge Oliphant asked all inquiry participants to make arguments about what standard he should use when assessing whether Mr. Mulroney's behaviour was “appropriate” – a question that the federal government has given the judge the task of answering.

Mr. Mulroney's lead lawyer, Guy Pratte, argued that the Public Inquiries Act, as well as numerous rulings, meant that Judge Oliphant could not consider laws such as the Income Tax Act, or Canada's anti-corruption legislation, because inquiries are barred from making findings of criminal or civil wrongdoing.

Judge Oliphant ruled yesterday that there is a distinction between making a finding of criminal wrongdoing and informing himself of what society considers to be appropriate, as reflected in criminal laws.

“I intend to determine, on an objective basis, whether Mr. Mulroney ... conformed with the highest standards of conduct,” the judge wrote.

“I believe that this standard is one that reflects the importance to Canadian democracy of the office of the prime minister, as well as the public trust reposed in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of public office holders.”

The judge also pointed out that in 1988 Mr. Mulroney distributed a document to his cabinet titled Guidance For Ministers that warned them they had an obligation to go further than “simply to observe the law.”

Yesterday, Judge Oliphant ruled: “If the Prime Minister intended to hold ministers personally accountable to that level, then it follows that he himself would be accountable on the same basis.”

The former prime minister has not appeared at any of the inquiry's preliminary hearings.

Mr. Schreiber, meanwhile, dropped an outstanding lawsuit against Mr. Mulroney this week. More than a year ago, the 74-year-old German-born businessman sued the former prime minister, alleging that Mr. Mulroney did no work in exchange for the cash.

Mr. Schreiber was due to be examined in Quebec this week as part of the civil proceedings.

In a letter to Mr. Mulroney's lawyers, a lawyer for Mr. Schreiber explained that rather than provide information in advance of the inquiry and help Mr. Mulroney prepare for what Mr. Schreiber might say come March, he was choosing to end the legal fight now.

26 February 2009

Film Actor / Pop Celebrity Angelina Jolie


Jennifer Aniston on Angelina Jolie: "really uncool"

by Alex Dobuzinskis

REUTERS
November 11, 2008


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - In the three years since Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston ended their Hollywood marriage, Aniston has barely said a word about the break-up and the woman who stole Pitt's heart, Angelina Jolie.

But in an interview for the December issue of Vogue magazine, Aniston finally talks about the split and the Oscar-winning actress who is now Pitt's companion, saying the way Jolie revealed details of her relationship with "Ocean's Eleven" star was "really uncool."

Aniston, 39, told Vogue Jolie should not have given a detailed account of how her relationship with Pitt developed on the set of the 2005 movie "Mr. & Mrs. Smith," when Aniston and Pitt were still together. Those details were revealed in Jolie's 2007 interview with Vogue.

"There was stuff printed there that was definitely from a time when I was unaware that it was happening," Aniston said.

"That stuff about how she couldn't wait to get to work every day? That was really uncool," said Aniston.

Aniston and Pitt finalized their divorce in August 2005 after announcing their separation in January that year.

Pitt and Jolie now have three biological children and three adopted children, and are involved in humanitarian causes. They have emerged as one of Hollywood's most influential couples.

Aniston also has a lot of clout in Hollywood. She starred in the hit former television sitcom "Friends," and in 2002 won an Emmy for her role in the show.

She has also starred in movies including "Friends with Money" and the upcoming "Marley and Me."

In the Vogue interview, Aniston says she still talks to Pitt and occasionally the two exchange "very kind hellos and wishing you wells."

"I have nothing but admiration for him and ... I'm proud of him!," Aniston said, adding the divorce "never was that bad."

"I mean, in the end, we really had an amicable split. It wasn't mean and hateful and all of this stuff they tried to create. ... It just didn't happen. The marriage didn't work out."

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: editing by Bob Tourtellotte and Todd Eastham)

American Television Sports Commentator / Former Professional Athlete Charles Barkley


Barkley pleads guilty to DUI, will serve 5 days in jail

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 24, 2009


PHOENIX (AP) - Charles Barkley will serve time in jail after pleading guilty Monday to charges of driving drunk.

According to Scottsdale court records, the 45-year-old former NBA star pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges related to the same drunken driving arrest.

Barkley, who works as a TV analyst, is set to serve five days in jail on March 21. The Hall of Famer must pay more than $2,000 in fines and attend an alcohol treatment program. Under Arizona law, he'll also be forced to install an ignition interlock device on his vehicles.

His attorney was not immediately available for comment.

Barkley was stopped by police Dec. 31 shortly after leaving a Scottsdale nightclub. He was arrested after failing a field sobriety test. He had a blood-alcohol level of .149 percent, nearly twice the legal limit of .08 percent in Arizona when he was pulled over.

"I was gonna drive around the corner and get (oral sex)," Barkley told a police officer, according to the official police report. He explained that the girl had performed oral sex on him a week earlier, and it was the best such experience of his life.

Later, Barkley told a civilian Gilbert Police Department employee that he would "tattoo my name on your (butt)" if the employee would get him out of the DUI, according to the police report. Barkley then laughed and corrected himself, saying, "I'll tattoo your name on my (butt)," before laughing again, according to the report.

After a six-week leave of absence, Barkley resumed his studio analyst role for TNT last week.

"This is just my bad, no excuses," Barkley said in an interview with TNT colleague Ernie Johnson posted on NBA.com before he returned to work.

"I think that a DUI is unacceptable," he added. "That can't happen and I've got to challenge other people, not just celebrities or jocks. You have to really think before getting behind the wheel after you've been drinking."

Barkley conceded at the time he could face jail time.

"I think it's going to be good for me, to be honest. I need to make sure drinking is not a problem for me," he said. "I just want some professionals to talk to me about it."

If they tell him to stop drinking, "then I'll have to stop drinking," he said.

Asked if he could do that, he replied, "I feel I can do anything that I put my mind to."

25 February 2009

Canadian Political Consultant / Commentator Warren Kinsella


A prayer for a bully

by Ezra Levant

As originally posted on: Ezra Levant
February 24, 2009


On Monday, almost exactly one year after he joined it, Warren Kinsella was asked to leave his volunteer position on the legal affairs committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress. It’s not often that volunteers get fired, but it happens.

Kinsella joined the CJC a year ago, announcing it, not by coincidence, right when he was fired as a columnist with the National Post. His blog entry on the subject was titled “The universe balances out”, a version of Aesop’s fable of sour grapes. Kinsella asked us to believe that serving on a low-profile, volunteer committee of lawyers was as desirable to a political animal like him as having a prestigious political column in a national newspaper. Oh well – let the man lick his wounds; we’ve all had bumps in the road of life. You won’t believe me, dear reader, but even though Kinsella was threatening me with lawsuits even then, I still sent the man a short note of consolation, as he seemed so genuinely dolorous because of his ouster from the Post.

Kinsella quickly became a noisy advocate for the CJC’s position on political censorship, and engaged in a year-long smear against the Post (and others who disagreed with the CJC). How such a scorched-earth approach to advocacy served the interests of the CJC was unclear; then again, how any of Kinsella’s antics (like Catscam) helped the CJC’s cause was always an open question. (When I asked why Kinsella was serving as a CJC officer while giving advice and help to the anti-Semites at the Canadian Islamic Congress, Kinsella sued me for saying it!) The CJC should have turfed him then for consorting with the anti-Semitic enemy, but better late than never.

It will be interesting to see if Kinsella turns against the CJC in anger now, too.

Others will note Kinsella’s latest defeat with glee. And part of me is glad to see someone who tries so hard to bully and blackball others, have his own stratagems backfire on him. But, to be very frank, I’m not that gleeful – I actually feel sad for him. I’m not saying that condescendingly – it really is sad to see a man with so much energy and talent get so consumed with personal vendettas and petty squabbles that it starts to cost him in his professional and public life.

I’m not going soft on Kinsella – his lawsuit against me is absurd, and if taken at face value, he means to bankrupt me. He’s a bully, and a fountain of foul-mouthed defamation in his own right. But there comes a point when someone – even someone who swears he’ll destroy you – is so self-destructive, and so blind to that self-destruction, that you feel a pang of sorrow for them.

I was never close friends with Kinsella; I invited him to write in the Western Standard magazine once (of course, it was because he was disparaging Paul Martin), and I once caught his tone-deaf band playing in a fetid basement in Toronto. And we once spoke on a panel together at a conference; that was about it. But I felt a sort of collegiality with him because we were both engaged in the political life of the country, albeit from opposite points of view. There is a camaraderie that happens in such circles; to my surprise and delight, I have made several genuine and even deep friendships with Liberals I met on debate panels. I suppose it starts from a sense that you both love the democratic system, and for talking heads like Kinsella and me, that you enjoy some of the more theatrical aspects of campaigning. I think there’s a sense of humour necessary to being a pundit, even a serious one. And so, until he went haywire a year ago, I felt a small sense of fraternity with him.

There was even a brief moment – oh, say about a half hour – when I thought Kinsella and I might work together on a project. It was several years ago – 2004 if I remember – and we were both on the board of the Canada-Israel Committee. The subject of political intimidation came up – nicknamed “chill/vil”, for libel chill and public vilification. It was how radical Muslim groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress were trying to silence critics through things like defamation threats (and human rights complaints!)

Kinsella and I were both at that meeting, and I suggested a bi-partisan “rapid response” team of lawyers and spin-doctors to fight back against radical Islamic chill/vil. I remember mentioning Kinsella by name, and the feeling of slight naughtiness at the thought of us working on a political campaign together. Alas, nothing came of it – until, shockingly, Kinsella actually helped out the chill/vil side of the equation by meeting with the Canadian Islamic Congress.

But underneath his bluff and bravado is a real man with – though he might deny it – real feelings. I know he must be embarrassed and angry today at his ouster, just as he was a year ago. And though I won’t do it, I feel a strange urge to send him a note of consolation again.

Not because I wish him well in general – I hope his political candidate loses, and I hope that his vendettas against his enemies (including me!) fail, too. But I truly hope he gets back on a productive, calmer track in life, one that’s less about scorched earth, threats and bullying, and more about that thing that I thought we once had in common: a belief in the democratic process.

I think Kinsella – I used to call him Warren, but I’m not sure if you can call someone suing you for $5-million by his first name – has been blown off course by his own temper. A year ago this month Kinsella wrote on his website that his wife had counseled him to drop his obsession with me. He hasn’t – he’s doubled down on it, made a fool of himself, and has now exposed himself and his family to the potential costs of a failed nuisance suit. He’s filed equally spurious lawsuits against other of his enemies, such as those at Free Dominion. Forget about the legal and financial jeopardy his nuisance suits have put him in, and forget about the public snickering at his hyper-litigiousness and thin skin; and forget about his dubious reputation as an apologist for political censorship: what about his family’s plea for him to get back to productive things, and let go of his obsessive antagonisms?

I guess what I’m saying is that Kinsella looks to me like he is spiraling down. I think that hit me when Steve Paikin wrote a personal account of Kinsella’s erratic threats against him. I know that Paikin and Kinsella had an amicable relationship – maybe not a friendship, but a happy rapport. Reading how Kinsella’s foolish attempt to bully Paikin has obviously ruined that friendship made me think: “this guy is self-destructing”. I thought that perhaps it was just me. But it’s not – it’s the Post, and the CJC, and TVO and too many others.

I hope Kinsella loses his nuisance suits. But where I thought I might feel schadenfreude, I feel sorrow. The news of his termination today doesn’t give me any joy. There is none in this public spectacle as he tumbles down, a flailing ball of anger and impotence.

Don’t call me weak for saying that I hope he gets back up again. Not so he can throw another punch at me, but so he can get on with being a serious person – and listen to his family.

24 February 2009

Former United States District Court Judge Samuel Kent


Judge pleads guilty before start of sex-crime trial

by Juan Lozano

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 23, 2009


HOUSTON - A federal judge accused of gropping two female court employees as he tried to force himself on the women and have them perform sex acts pleaded guilty Monday to obstruction of justice in exchange for sex-related charges being dropped.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, the first federal judge charged with a sex crime, retired Monday, avoiding possible impeachment by Congress.

Kent's guilty plea came as jury selection in his trial was to begin.

The jurist, who once shouted in court that he would bring "hordes of witnesses" in his defence, spoke barely above a whisper as he pleaded guilty to lying to a judicial committee investigating the sex-related charges.

"Judge Kent believes this compromise settlement was in the best interests of all involved," his lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said in a statement. "A trial would have been embarrassing and difficult for all involved."

Kent, 59, had been facing six charges - five related to federal sex crimes and the obstruction charge, a felony that alone carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Kent had vigorously maintained his innocence. DeGuerin had said the judge's conduct with the two women was mutual and consensual.

If he had been convicted of the most serious federal sex crimes charges, Kent could have received a sentence of up to life in prison.

Kent, appointed by president George H.W. Bush, has been on the bench for nearly 19 years. Federal judges are appointed for life and can only be forcibly removed through impeachment by Congress.

Prosecutors had said they would present evidence showing there was nothing consensual about what Kent did with the two women, Cathy McBroom, his former case manager, and the judge's former secretary.

The Associated Press does not normally name alleged victims of sexual abuse, but McBroom's lawyer and her family have used her name in publicly discussing the case.

Both women were in the courtroom as Kent entered his guilty plea.

Authorities first investigated Kent after McBroom filed a complaint against him in May 2007 and the Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began a probe.

McBroom accused Kent of harassing her over a four-year period, culminating in March 2007, when she said the judge pulled up her blouse and bra and tried to escalate contact until they were interrupted.

The judicial council suspended Kent in September 2007 for four months with pay but didn't detail the allegations against him. It also transferred him to Houston, 80 kilometres northwest of Galveston, where he had worked since being appointed in 1990.

A Justice Department investigation of McBroom's claims led to Kent's indictment in August on three federal sex charges.

Last month, prosecutors added two more sex charges and the obstruction charge, accusing Kent of trying to engage his former secretary in a sex act and then lying about it to the Judicial Council.

DeGuerin had said Kent and his secretary were involved in a longtime affair and he didn't reveal it to the judicial council because he was being a "gentleman."

The lawyer also told the presiding judge that Kent was taking medication for depression and anxiety as well as diabetes and was under the care of both a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

New York State Court of Claims Judge James Lack


ROAD-RAGE LI JUDGE IS AT IT AGAIN

by Murray Weiss, Lorena Mongelli and Chuck Bennett

As originally posted: New York Post
February 21, 2009


A Long Island judge notoriously dubbed "Senator Road Rage" for his horrifying behavior while he was a politician nearly mowed down a traffic agent in Manhattan on Thursday and then threatened the officer's job, The Post has learned.

Court of Claims Judge James J. Lack and his daughter, Katherine, 37, were "barreling down" West 60th Street near the Mandarin Oriental Hotel at about 5 p.m. when they crossed paths with the unlucky agent, sources said.

Lack, who was awarded the judgeship by former Gov. George Pataki in 2002 after a stint in the state Senate, ignored an order to slow down from the officer, who was standing in the street, the sources said.

The robed rage-a-holic - who's been involved in dozens of angry driving incidents over the last 20 years - gunned his engine to swerve around the agent, who struck his hand on the passenger's-side mirror, the sources said.

Lack jumped out of his 2005 Mercury SUV and declared he was a judge, flashed an ID, and screamed, "I'll have your job!" the sources said.

Katherine then heaped her own abuse on the agent before they abruptly drove off, said the sources.

Lack objected to that version of events. He said he had just left the Hospital for Special Surgery, where his wife was undergoing cancer surgery.

He claimed the agent was not wearing a reflective vest and confused him with a jaywalker. The agent, he said, punched his window and broke the mirror.

Lack called the cops, and Internal Affairs launched an investigation, the NYPD confirmed.

His daughter admitted to being a little hotheaded but apologized, saying, "I was very upset. I get a rush of adrenaline when I'm scared."

This was far from Lack's first roadside confrontation.

In 2001, when Lack represented East Northport in the state Senate, he followed a horrified 39-year-old mother home after a traffic incident, threatened to have her jailed and cursed the woman out in her own garage.

He also reduced an East Northport car wash attendant to tears after his credit card was rejected.

murray.weiss@nypost.com

23 February 2009

United States Senator Roland Burris


Roland Burris acknowledges trying to raise cash for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

by Rick Pearson, Ray Long and John Chase

As originally posted on: ChicagoTribune.com
February 17, 2009


CHICAGO - U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the Illinois governor's brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris' latest comments in Peoria, Ill., Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on Monday night joined a growing chorus of Democratic officials who want a deeper investigation of Burris' comments. But she did not go as far as some, including Republicans, who have said specifically they want Burris investigated for possible perjury.

"This is a particularly frustrating revelation," Madigan said of Burris' recent disclosure that he had contact with five Blagojevich insiders. "I encourage the Sangamon County state's attorney to take a closer look at this in the interest of truth, integrity and transparency."

Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt did not immediately return a telephone call for comment Tuesday.

In that latest affidavit, Burris said he had three conversations in October and November with Blagojevich's brother, Robert Blagojevich, at least two of which included Burris' expressing interest in the Senate seat. Burris said in the affidavit he believed that in the last of the three conversations he told Robert Blagojevich he could not raise money for the governor because "it could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with him regarding his decision to appoint a successor to President Obama."

But in Peoria Monday night, Burris acknowledged making inquiries to friends about raising money for the governor at the request of Blagojevich's brother. Previously, Burris has only said he believed such fundraising would be inappropriate.

Burris told reporters he talked to Robert Blagojevich on a "routine fundraising call" in October, prior to Obama's election as president, and the governor's brother said, "I am now the new fundraiser for the governor, and Roland, you've been helpful for us in the past,' and I said, 'Yes, you know, I've certainly tried to work with the governor. I've tried to help you all. A lot of people didn't.' "

Burris said Robert Blagojevich told him, "'We need to raise some funds. We hope that you could probably get some of your friends together.' I said, 'What type of money we looking for?' He says, 'Can you raise us 10 or 15 thousand dollars?'

"I said, 'I don't know, but I can't do it now because we are in the midst of an election. Call me after the election.' He said, 'Fine.'

In his recently filed affidavit, Burris said it was during his first discussion that he "asked Rob Blagojevich what was going on with the selection of a successor if then-Senator Barack Obama were elected president, and he said he heard my name mentioned in the discussions."

But in his comments Monday night, Burris added new details.

"So some time shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called," Burris said of Robert Blagojevich. "And now in the meantime, I'd talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fundraiser on. Nobody was - they said we aren't giving money to the governor. And I said, 'OK, you know, I can't tell them what to do with their money.'

"So when the (governor's) brother called me back, I said, 'Well, look Rob ... I can't raise any money from my friends. I said, maybe my partner and I, you can talk this over and see, could we go to some other people that we might be able to talk to that would help us out if we give - because we give a fundraiser in the law office, nobody going to show up. We'll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.' "

Burris said prior to his final conversation with Robert Blagojevich in November he came to the conclusion that because of his interest in the Senate seat, he couldn't raise money for the governor.

"I said, 'Number one, I can't raise any money for you and I can't give you any money because I don't want to have a conflict,' " Burris said he told Rob Blagojevich.

In a letter filed Feb. 5 with his latest affidavit, Burris said, "I did not donate or help raise a single dollar for the Governor from those conversations." But Burris didn't reveal that he tried to put a fundraiser together for Blagojevich - and failed because of a lack of donors - before deeming it inappropriate.

Burris was appointed to the Senate three weeks after then-Gov. Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 at his home on federal corruption charges that included allegations of trying to sell the seat held by Obama.

Burris' newest comments contradicts what Robert Blagojevich's attorney, Mike Ettinger, has said about the talks.

Ettinger said Robert Blagojevich did not know about Burris' interest in the Senate seat until the lasts of the three calls, which occurred in November after the election.

Ettinger said Robert did reach out to Burris in October, but to ask him to host a fundraiser, not to make a personal contribution. No specific amount was discussed, Ettinger said.

Ettinger has said he understands Burris contends he had told five people about his interest in the seat during the fall time frame.

"That may be, but my client wasn't one of them," Ettinger said.

The lawyer said his client spoke with Burris in November while on the phone at the Blagojevich campaign office, which leads him to believe that call was recorded by federal agents, who had tapped the campaign headquarters' phones.

During that conversation, Robert Blagojevich learned of Burris' interest in the seat for the first time, and no fundraising effort with Burris went forward, Ettinger said.

22 February 2009

Capitalism and "Civilization"


Capitalism at the Expense of All Life

by Juan Santos

As originally posted on: The Fourth World
December 24, 2008


Part 1: The Killing Horizon

The bottom line is profit. Profit and the lust for it is capitalism’s event horizon. Much like what happens at the boundary of a black hole (“boundary of a black hole” is roughly what the term “event horizon” means in the theory of general relativity) any energy, information or meaning that passes the threshold of a consciousness driven by profit disappears into the super-gravitational field of the black hole itself – never to be seen or heard of again.

Nothing can be seen once it enters this realm, and nothing, having entered, ever escapes. No light, no sign, no dawn of understanding can re-emerge. Anything, any light, any object, any thought, any meaning, purpose, or any human feeling is swallowed and for all practical purposes, obliterated there.

No communication can transpire between inside and outside.

The event horizon of profit-consciousness functions as an inviolate barrier between what appear to be mutually exclusive worlds. Those of us on this side of the event horizon can only guess, but never really know, what happens on the other side. What we know of what is inside the black hole of the capitalist consciousness can only be inferred from what seems to happen at its horizon. We are left to assume that what happens there is annihilation, or its equivalent. It seems that the only thing that can enter that realm is money – life stripped of all meaning except a numerical designation, like a concentration camp inmate with a serial number tattooed on her forearm.

There are things we can infer from this side of the horizon about what happens on the other side, in the black hole of the capitalist mentality – things that show up outside that tell us something about what happens within it. Things like the concentration camp victim, like the mass graves in Guatemala, the unearthed Mayan corpses left by death squads… they seem to emerge from the black hole and give us a glimpse of what is inside: and, beyond that, sometimes we almost get real glimpses in. We get glimpses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, of someone’s recollection of headless frogs spewing blood after the psychopathic child, George W. Bush, has lit a firecracker he’s inserted in their mouths and hurled them through the air. We know these things – we glimpse them, those of us who are paying the strictest kind of attention. But, mostly, nothing escapes, or that which seems to escape the pull of the black hole for a moment is immediately sucked back into the realm of oblivion as if it never happened.

But, as often as not, we can tell what matters to those in the center of civilization’s black gravity – its centers of “power”, by what doesn’t happen out here in the real world – on this edge of the horizon -as much as by what does happen.

Notice. Notice what is taken “seriously” by the denizens of the dark center of “power” – if anything beyond the next quarterly profit and loss statement can be said to be taken seriously at all.

Notice where the $700 billion in “bailout” money is going. The black hole that some people feared would swallow the Earth when the CERN particle accelerator was launched in Europe didn’t appear there. It appeared thousands of miles away – on Wall Street – and $700 billion in “bail out” money is going into that black hole, never to be seen again.

It’s going to fix problems that have no real existence, that are tied to values that have no real existence. It’s going down the rabbit hole, the black hole, into the land of illusion, the land of swindles, the land of lies, of the selling of the negation of values, of mirrors upon mirrors, into the unreal land of black magic, where it will impact nothing but the “faith” of capitalist financiers and wizards in their ability to live on – and to sustain themselves with – lies and illusion in a system that is fundamentally not sustainable. They call this psychic trick- this denial – “faith” in the markets, liquidity and credit (and to give credit, of course, means nothing but to put faith or belief in something or someone) – even as the credit markets are drying up. They are drying up because no one who is sane can any longer believe the lie. The whole thing is incredible, unbelievable. Unworthy of credit, trust, belief. One might say it this way. The system itself is “subprime.”

Such faith – faith in the unsustainable – is nothing more or less than faith in a lie. The whole thing is based on what Ayn Rand – the late high priestess of capitalism, cruelty, arrogance, free markets and the “virtue” of selfishness, called, ironically enough, given the context, the “blank out.”

All it takes is one stroll down Wall Street to get that Wall Street is “America’s” temple district – the sense of being on “holy” ground is palpable – and all it takes is one glance to get that none of the financial wizards really knows what’s going on… they know not what they have wrought, they know not whom they have robbed; they have invented a house of lies so complex that they themselves can no longer follow the plot or the floor plan. What we know – and what they know, and what Bush knows and Obama and McCain – what they all know- is that the $700 billion the US government has earmarked for the swindlers and deniers is going to cover the lie, is going to keep their asses out of prison, is going to prevent revolt against their system, which profits at the expense of all of us.

It’s not going to so-called “Main Street,” and – even if it did – who’s on Main Street if not merely the junior, local and regional versions of the players on Wall Street – the ones getting their hands dirty – the ones that exploit us face to face, rather than from the remote heights of the now-obliterated World Trade Center?

Yes, who’s on Wall Street, who’s on Main Street, who’s on ghetto streets and barrio streets, and who, after all is on Skid Row, or on a dirt street in a third world village, living, not $700 billion – not even $200 billion, not even $200 or a twenty dollar bill. Living on 2 dollars a day. Or less.

Of course, outside the black hole, outside the house of mirrors, it’s plain to see. All profit comes at someone else’s expense. They have robbed the poor blind – that’s why they are poor. They have gutted the Earth of its soil, plant life, energy, forests and water tables: we are left with deserts and a $700 billion black hole. That’s why the Earth is dying. They profit, as the traditional Hopi elders told us, at the expense of all life. That’s where the limos, and the mansions (whether its one mansion like Obama’s or 13 of them like McCain’s) come from: at the expense of all life. That’s what happens. And they want to maintain their “faith” in it.

Now, notice what doesn’t happen.

Humanity faces a real crisis – one that threatens not only Wall Street, but all life on Earth. Call it Global Warming, call it Peak Oil, call it running out of water on a global scale, call it the collapse of industrial agriculture. Call it fisheries collapsing, call it mass extinction. Call it the potential of planetary death. Call it what is inside the Black Hole made visible, palpable in its meaning. Call it the real event horizon. Call it the Killing horizon. It’s every bit as complex in all of its intersections as the financial “crisis,” but, unlike the financial “crisis,” it’s real.

And what happens?

Nothing. No significant action. At all.

There’s no $700 billion plan to save the Earth – which sustains us all.

The only thing that has ever mattered to the rulers of this empire – and of every other empire – is profit; and profit, we will recall, always comes at someone’s expense – ours, the indigenous peoples in every corner of the planet whose lands and lives have been usurped; at the expense of the enslaved, from Babylon to the USA, at the expense of Polar Bears, Wolves, Buffalo, Dolphins, Bears – and now even the Chimpanzee faces extinction, along with Whales, and as much as 50% of all living species before this century – and this system – is finished with them.

Profit. At the expense. Of all life.

The capitalists can’t look at the meaning of it. They can’t bear to see the meaning and impact of their lives and how they live them. Blank out. They don’t know and can’t know, any more than George W. Bush can really afford to know what was happening when he stuck firecrackers in frog’s mouths and sent them sailing through the air with the fuse sparkling (that, after all, is why he drinks – not to know.) Maybe he imagined as a boy that the frogs were B24 bombers in WW2, and that when the firecracker exploded, it was flak hitting the nose of the plane, right where the navigator sat, and that the blood was the navigator’s blood. Maybe he couldn’t bring himself to look at the shattered skulls, the exposed spines, the blood, and know what he had done. Or maybe he looked, and delighted in what he saw. We’ll never know. It’s lost in the black hole.

Maybe the financial wizards think of derivatives and scam mortgages like Bush thought of frogs. The thrill, the drama of making a kill, of scamming, lying, getting over on others less powerful – the nobodies – the frog people – like you and me, the frog people who live on Elm Street, on ghetto and barrio streets, on Skid Row, on dirt streets, on Reservations, and along trails in the Amazon jungle and paths in the high Andes of Bolivia. We are all, each in our own way, the frog people. One can readily infer, from what happens at the event horizon, that the financiers see us just that way.

But, maybe we’ll never know. It seems to have disappeared in the black hole of denied memory, impossibility, evasions, and lies, just as Bush’s childhood memories lay hidden in the dense black hole of unresolved alcoholism. But we know this; for them, regular people – and animals, forests, polar bears, wolves and glaciers – are invisible. We’re on the other side of their event horizon, and they don’t care what happens to us. They are pulling us all inexorably into the gravity well from which no light escapes. They call the collapse of their house of financial lies a “crisis.” In the U.S., people like the Republican vice presidential candidate call the Killing horizon – the potential of planetary death – a “hoax.”

But, on a planetary scale, as everything unravels and is thrown into increasingly radical imbalance, people are starting to understand that what we see is what we get. And they are starting to see what has remained hidden in the realms of dark gravity and power. The event horizon, the Killing horizon, is drawing ever nearer.

And people are starting to decide for themselves what constitutes a hoax and what is, in fact, an actual crisis. We are deciding what and who needs and deserves a rescue – a “bailing out” – It’s not the wizards and merchants of death; it’s the frogs, lizards, plants, forests, beavers, bears, and human children.

You decide who and what nurtures us all and who and what destroys us. You decide. Is it saner to hug a tree, a cold stone building on Wall Street, or a stock certificate? Look at it. You decide. Everything that matters to you depends on the nature of your decision.


Part 2: Burning Down the House

“...That’s part of the fundamental problem; that people do not even understand that the real world is what is real; without a real physical world you don’t have any kind of economic system. The real world is primary; that’s the first thing we need to do; is to recognize that the real world is primary.” – Derrick Jensen –

It is upon us now to confront the greatest crisis in the lifespan of humankind.

Civilization – the destructive way of the City – has carried us to a climax of radical imbalances, a global eco-crisis, a state the traditional Hopi elders called Koyaanisqatsi:

koy.aa.nis.qat.si (Hopi) [n] 1. crazy life 2. life out of balance 3. life disintegrating 4. life in turmoil 5. a way of life that calls for another way of living.

Two intersecting realities face us; the two faces of eco-crisis. “Eco” means “home.” It is the root meaning of the terms “ecology” and “economy.” We face collapse in both arenas – arenas which are regarded as “separate” by virtue of a semantic, psycho-cultural sleight of hand, but which are, in reality, profoundly interdependent. In this essay, we will explore three premises, in the hopes that their exploration will help enable us to maintain our balance, to see clearly what is unfolding – collapsing – around us and within us; and so that we might act in accordance with the forces of Life, and thus sustain ourselves for this generation and the generations of our children’s children’s children. We live in a culture and under an economic system that is killing the world, and it is crucial that as it collapses we are able to deconstruct it, to dismantle the illusions that we have been steeped in since birth, that we become sane enough, so that – at a minimum – those of us who survive might never again reproduce a way of “life” that holds the potential to destroy all life; that we might not repeat or replicate a way of death.

All of us have been raised in a global capitalist civilization; all of us, even the most radical and astute among us, the most indigenous among us, have internalized much of its values, its premises; its lenses. The lenses are tinted. Their color is death. We don’t see clearly the relationship between ecology and economy. We are cutting off our own left hands, blow by blow, with an axe at the wrist, and call it “Making a Living.” The elitists see it more clearly: They call it “Making a Killing.”

The first thing we need to understand, in order to grasp the relationship between the economic and ecological crises, is this:

Production = Destruction, and Capitalist Production = Unbridled Destruction

Production of food, for example, for most species, means destruction of members of other plant or animal species. This is the case for humans as well, no matter how society and production is organized, and it is the case for every form of life except those involved in photosynthesis, which destroy no other forms of life, but which, rather, transform sunlight and minerals dissolved in water into life. All other forms of life, from the herbivores to the carnivores, destroy individual members of other species of life in order to survive.

Maintaining the balances between production, reproduction and destruction is utterly essential for the continuance of life on this planet. Such balance depends on reciprocity. In every ecosystem there are untold examples of such reciprocity; for a very simple example, an animal that eats a plant is also likely to play an essential role in that plant species’ propagation by spreading its seed or pollen, either through external bodily contact and transport, or through its digestive system, often providing key nutrients for the growth of new plants.

There is nothing in the nature of industrial capitalism that alters the centrality of this principle or that escapes its implications – the karmic results of willfully ignoring it. But, as I wrote in Apocalypse No! part3: The Law of Life and the Law of Death:

“Modern production is a wedding of opposites, a two faced god: its other face is destruction. Consumption for one is starvation for the Other. Production for one is destruction for the Other, and like a cancer, production has grown beyond all limits: the industrial system lives by destroying without limit, by ignoring the limits to growth.”

Far from entering into a reciprocal relationship with the rest of life, industrial capitalism simply consumes the other, reducing life to the level of a “resource,” without respect or regard for the balances of living systems or the ability of other forms of life to reproduce themselves at the species level – or, often, even at the level of the herd. Short term, short- sighted profit is the all-but universal standard for capitalist production. And profit, as noted in part one of this essay, always comes at someone else’s expense. In a recent interview, Derrick Jensen spoke directly to the essential nature of the process:

“Production, at base, is the conversion of the living to the dead…GNP is a measure of how quickly the world, the real physical world, is turned into economic products.”

At root, profit means the destruction of life and living systems for short term gain – that is its most fundamental relationship to the Earth and to all species – including human beings. Beyond that, in order to survive the competition in the interim before the final bell, every capitalist project must grow in relationship to its competitors or be driven out of business; it must convert more and more of what is living into what is dead, and do so ever more cheaply. As with cancer, the process only stops when the host expires. Capitalism as such, then, is a prescription for global suicide, one that follows its own internal logic, burning down its own house with ruthless, self-reinforcing discipline – like any other death cult. The system is producing exactly what it is designed to produce; Global Death. When the parasitism of profit can no longer expand, due to ecological or political and military limits, or due to its own inherent systemic contradictions, economic growth flips into its opposite, economic contraction – economic depression, it’s called. The disease goes into a temporary period of remission, and reorganizes itself for a new assault on the body of its host.

The next thing we need to grasp to understand the intersecting realities of ecological and economic crisis has already been clearly implied:

Profit = Theft

Profit, by definition, is imbalance, robbery and theft. It can arise only from the long term degradation of life and of the ability of ecosystems to reproduce themselves in balance. Where there is profit, something must become unbalanced, the scales must shift to take from one and add to the other without return.

Of necessity, natural economies, which are local and regional, rely strictly on what is called the solar budget, and they do not involve profit – they involve equitable trade – give and take reciprocal relationships that foster the long term well being of all of life’s communities, and in this they resemble the relationships of all other forms of life to one another; they exist in cooperation and symbiosis, and cannot take more than their “fair share,” lest they diminish or destroy the species and ecosystems upon whose existence and flourishing the natural culture and natural economy immediately depend. If we depend on Buffalo for food, we can’t kill too many of the Buffalo; we can’t destroy or diminish the prairie for our own short term “profit”; to do so would harm the Buffalo, and thus harm ourselves.

Natural cultures understand that the relationship is a tight-knit, close one, a relationship between relatives. They are the Buffalo: The Buffalo people. To destroy the Buffalo would be suicide. For a mountain dwelling people to destroy the mountaintop in order to get at the coal within it would be to, likewise, destroy the minerals, plants, waters and animals on which they directly and immediately depend for their own sustenance. They are the Mountain People. No natural culture or economy is bent on suicide. They are sustainable- which means life-sustaining.

No animal wantonly or systematically destroys other species. In just the same way, no animal wantonly reduces or destroys its own kind: to do so might be called sub-“bestial.” Perhaps “viral” would be the only term, although I know of no virus that attacks itself. Only in the case of the deadliest of conditions – AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and cancer, is there anything remotely approaching such a phenomenon.

But profit is theft. It requires not only the robbery, destruction and diminishment of other forms of life, but it also requires the robbery, destruction and diminishment of humans by humans. No one is immune.

One of the fundamental necessities or laws of capitalism – its whole point – is the generation of profit. But, nowhere in the context of the system in its “normal” operation is a word spoken about where capitalist profit comes from. There’s a reason for that.

Profit comes, in its most immediate, social sense, from the exploitation – the robbery, the diminishment – of “labor” – of human beings who work. In the simplest terms, since it is not the intent to turn this into a lecture on Marxist economic theory, profit is the result of the value added to “raw materials” or “resources” by people’s labor. The value added to the “raw materials” is produced by laborers working together in a social process, but the fruit of the process, the added value embodied in the final product, goes not to those whose labor collectively created it (they are paid a “wage” whose value is less than the value of what they produce with their labor during the time they work) – but, rather, the new value they create goes into the pocket of the capitalist, in the form of profit. Once the machinery (fixed capital) and non-human energy involved in production has been paid for by what it has produced, there is no other source for the extra value that comprises profit, except the human labor that has gone into it. The capitalist, operating at a level of function matched in its baseness by no animal on Earth, wantonly and systematically debases, reduces and even destroys its own kind in order to rob them of their energy. The capitalist functions as a parasite on the Earth and on other life forms, and also stands in the same relationship to its own species.

The subprime mortgage scam that threatens to collapse capitalist finance today is not a fluke: it’s an expression of the most fundamental nature of the capitalist system, a system based in deception, exploitation and robbery. The whole thing is a scam. The whole thing is theft. This brings us to the final understanding we need to grasp in order to put the concurrent appearance of global ecological and economic crisis into the beginnings, at least, of a coherent context. Here it is:

Money is Worthless

Not even parasites feed off of other parasites, but capitalists do. And, sometimes the most shopworn and obvious of truths are among the most profound; like this one: You can’t plant or eat money. For that matter, you can’t plant or eat gold or silver, either.

In the subprime mortgage crisis we see the same principle of rip–off that the capitalist applies to the worker, only in reverse. Rather than paying the worker less than the value of what she has produced, in this case the capitalists lured the workers into buying into what they couldn’t afford, a standard of living beyond what they were (under) paid for their labor. “Get ‘em comin’ and goin’” was the idea. After all, it always seemed to work before – the whole principle behind profit is cheating – getting something for nothing.

And, besides, that’s exactly what money is worth – nothing. Its value is invented, then sustained by faith or belief- by widespread cultural agreement. It has no substantive value in and of itself. The same is essentially true of gold and silver. They are essentially glittering metals of little practical use or value in comparison, to say, iron ore, copper or diamonds. When money was tied to the gold or silver standards, its value was just as much a convention – a matter of suspended thought, belief and common agreement, as the value of unbacked currencies – floating paper money – is today. You can’t eat a treasure chest of gold bullion, and you can’t plant it and grow it. There is hardly a rational way to assess its life-value, in the way that one can decide whether this bushel of corn is worth more to you, for your purposes, tastes and dietary needs, in the context of your natural, local ecology and economy, than that bushel of potatoes. Beyond the aesthetic value of their color, pliability and gleam, gold and silver have little tangible, intrinsic or organic value in any ecosystem or natural economy. And, as relatively rare, soft metals, they have historically had little widespread practical use. But, like the “almighty” paper dollar, they are considered “precious.” It’s a matter of sheer invention, sheer faith, sheer abstraction. It’s sheer invented nonsense – worth little more than the paper a sub-prime mortgage agreement is printed on; worth little more than the electrical energy that encodes a numeric value in a computer.

So, having shipped production of all kinds overseas, where workers produce a greater profit margin with their labor than they can in countries with relatively higher standards and costs of living, U.S. bankers and other capitalists began to scam each other, selling one another the debt owed by workers on mortgages they could not – by design – afford. Really, they were selling one another faith, based on the blank belief that the bill would never really come due – the same lie they sold to the workers who bought the mortgages in the first place. They were selling one another electronically configured squiggles in a computer data base, each preceded by a mathematical minus sign. But, the bill came due, the ripped off worker couldn’t afford it, the debt that had been sold could not be paid, and the whole game began to collapse, just like it does in the last days of any gangster. Like the last, desperate days of Bonnie and Clyde as the law closed in on them, karma is closing in on the banksters. In the meantime, someone else equally desperate ripped the copper (not gold) pipes out of the place, and the mortgaged house of cards could no longer be re-sold – except to you, as worker in the role of taxpayer. The end result is that billions, if not trillions of increasingly worthless dollars are being re- transferred, in a massive, unprecedented re-distribution of wealth, to the very thieves and killers who stole it in the first place, then “lost” it in a maze of lies and fraud.

The most important end result, however, is that socially produced wealth that might have gone toward creating a more Earth centered economy – or to halt, at least, the very worst ravages of the capitalist cancer on the body of the Earth and on all of the millions of species who will be driven to, or over, the edge of extinction – including, quite possibly, our own, will instead be funneled, as unearned profit (there is no other kind of profit), into the hands of the very forces that are destroying us all, to enable them to continue destroying us all, if possible.

That’s the logic. Capitalist civilization is a suicide pact. It’s a suicide cult – one that “profits,” however temporarily, at the expense of all life. Thank the Creator it’s falling apart at the seams, and that its smokestacks – its virtual death camps and crematoria – may fall right along with its financial racket. As Richard Heinberg wrote in an essay entitled The End of Growth that hit my mailbox only moments ago, “The worldwide financial crisis, and the decline in available energy, mean that we may also have seen the final year of aggregate world economic growth.” Let us pray that he’s correct; such a collapse may be the only chance we all have to survive.

Heinberg summed it up this way, “Growth is dead. Let’s make the most of it. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

Talking Heads – Burning Down the House

Watch out
You might get what you’re after
Cool babies
Strange but not a stranger
I’m an ordinary guy
Burning down the house

Hold tight wait till the party’s over
Hold tight we’re in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house

Here’s your ticket pack your bag: time for jumpin’ overboard
The transportation is here
Close enough but not too far, maybe you know where you are
Fightin fire with fire

All wet
Hey you might need a raincoat
Shakedown
Dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees
Burning down the house

It was once upon a place sometimes I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place
People on their way to work baby what did you expect
Gonna burst into flame

My house
’s out of the ordinary
That’s right
Don’t want to hurt nobody
Some things sure can sweep me off my feet
Burning down the house

No visible means of support and you have not seen nuthin yet
Everything’s stuck together
I don’t know what you expect staring into the tv set
Fighting fire with fire


Part 3: For the Earth to Live, Capitalism Must Die

This is the Day of Reckoning. This is the Time of Purification. This is the end of the “world”, the end of the city-state, the end of city life, of “Civilization.” The early Christians called it the “apocalypse,” the unveiling. Now, at last, the truth of what we have been presents itself unclothed. There is nowhere to hide. It is upon us. Like a cancer, capitalism, industrialism – truly the most advanced stage of civilization – “advanced” the way that a cancer is called “advanced” – has ravaged the body of the Earth. Life on Earth is disappearing. Nothing that can be done- or that will be done – under the system of global death called capitalism will save Life on Earth. The capitalist, as Karl Marx rightly noted, is “the soul of capital personified.” – a soul unable to see beyond the limits of its own immediate perception of “gain.” The capitalists as a whole – as a white imperial world-ruling class – understand the depth of the emerging crisis as well as we do. But they advance nothing more than schemes to sustain markets and profits, while life itself is allowed to perish in a holocaust in the making, one whose end is as certain as a nuclear winter.

There are no words to convey the depth of criminal horror and illness of the rulers of a system that would create the conditions not only for genocide on an unimaginable, all but limitless scale, but that would commit the murder of all life – ecocide, biocide and geocide – in order to shield themselves from change and protect and maintain their ability to produce “profit.”

But the holocaust we are entering is not made of a single criminal act – it is not the pushing of a button by a lone madman in a fit of religious mania or suicidal despair, it is, rather, the accumulation of a billion little deaths, the reaching of a critical threshold of death, until death itself boils over, the way that water, when it reaches its threshold of heat, roils over the edges of a pot, waging war on the fire that feeds it. It is the final explosion, the river of blood from the slaughterhouse spilling over its banks, no longer to be contained. It is the millions of children beaten, molested, raped, enslaved and “schooled.” It is the billions who live on less than a dollar a day. It is the slow soul murder of television and of going to “work.” It is a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. It is the homeless and the mad left hungry and frozen in the street. In the US, it is the millions of red, black and brown men locked behind prison bars, the mass terror of a racist system whose aim is to brutally reduce whole peoples to a state of utter subjugation, degradation isolation and immobility. Like the Nazi holocaust or the conquest of the Americas and Africa, it is not a single event, it is an historical process and an all – permeating “way of ‘life.’” It is the “supreme” way of life; the “non-negotiable” way, as GW Bush put it; the “American Way.” The capitalist way.

Marx and Engels had this much wrong. Civilization, slavery-based economies and more efficient forms of production like industrialist capitalism and socialism have not led to “progress,” unless “progress” can be counted as progress toward mass death and destruction, toward the enslavement and grave endangerment of human beings – all of us – and of every living plant, animal, fish and insect. Fundamentally, Marx and Engels believed in “profit” at the expense of the living Earth as much as any industrial capitalist – they just wanted to share the profit more broadly in a different money-system. The fundamental alienation of people from their connection with all life – and the most fundamental exploitation of life – would ultimately remain intact.

The Marxist project has failed, just as capitalism has failed. The state didn’t gradually “wither away” over a protracted period of change called “socialism.” Under the conditions prescribed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao, the state can’t wither away. The state and the city are a single dialectical identity, a unity of opposites – they’re two faces of a single process, and the state can’t “wither away” unless the fundamental process of domination, control, exploitation, ecocide and genocide called the city – “civilization” – also withers away. The city necessitated the state and the state enabled the city. The city and the state arose together and they will die together. No one has remained free anywhere the city-state has arisen or in any area it’s conquered. No one has been free. Not the rulers. Not the ruled.

But that’s all over.

There’s a capitalist maxim: “Grow or die.” The maxim holds true within the limited sphere of the circulation of money and the accumulation of capital in a particular economic system; each individual capitalist project must compete – grow – or be swallowed by other capitalist ventures; in other words, it must “die.”

The system’s true believers never thought they’d reach the limits of growth, but that is just what has happened. They’ve reached the limits of their “resource” base – the ecological and geological limits of what can be destroyed to produce more profit. The game is over. They broke the bank. They were warned. They didn’t listen. They’re still not listening. For them, and for most of us who’ve not shaken our entrainment in the ways of seeing the world they stewed us in as children, we have come to an unimaginable passage. Call it the end of the world as we know it. That’s the deal. The inescapable deal. It’s over. One way or another. Either this
“non-negotiable” way of “life” ends, or the capacity of Earth to sustain life ends. This is not to say that some solutions can’t be found. It is, rather, to say that any “solution” that doesn’t undo the fundamental theft and imbalance inherent in the system of profit is not really a solution at all. The problem is global – total. The magnitude of the solution must equate with the magnitude of the problem. The system of theft and imbalance called profit is simply not sustainable, not on the whole, not in part. Life that can’t be sustained dies. The capitalist equation is now turned right-side up: “Stop ‘growth’ or die.” And it’s not just the capitalist mode of exploitation that must end. We’ve got to eradicate the cancer at its root, and, of course, capitalism, and modern industrialism more broadly, are built on the foundations of earlier, less “efficient” systems of exploitation and destruction. That’s where the roots of modern industrial systems of death lie.

While the psychological and biological functions or dysfunctions – the emotional splits and repressions that lie at the very core of the origins of our cultural dysfunction – have yet to be fully articulated and formulated into a coherent picture that explains their intersections with cultural suppression, economic exploitation, and political oppression, this much is clear. The first and fundamental practical expression of these dynamics in terms of their impact on the life of the Earth lies in this: The acquisition of land title by force and the enshrinement of “property” as social law.

That’s how “civilization” started: a city cannot exist without seizing the land around it. A city is all-but by definition a concentration of people too large to be supported by the land within its own boundaries – it must seize control of nearby lands or its population will starve.

The seizure of land by force – both for agricultural and herding purposes and for mineral extraction – continues as a key link in the survival and expansion of a global human population whose numbers are rapidly outstripping the capacities of the territories it already dominates to sustain any further population increase. The result is the rapidly escalating destruction of the world’s forests (and the concomitant eradication of a huge and increasing number of plant and animal species), along with the bottom trawling of the oceans for fish to feed the spiraling human numbers, with the concomitant eradication of 90% of the world’s large fish populations. Other clear examples include the seizure of the territory of the nation of Iraq for its oil and the seizure of a significant portion of Navajo Nation land and the forced removal of its population for access to the 18 billion tons of coal that lie beneath its surface – basically the same thing that is happening to the indigenous peoples of the Amazon region as their land is seized for farming, ranching and oil interests. “Growth” means an increase in exploitable “resources,” whether those resources are oil, coal, the fertility of the soil itself, or the “resources” for a “green” economy, like the ores to make the steel to build “environmentally friendly” hybrid cars (auto production creates, to cite just one example, 7 billion pounds of un-recycled scrap and waste annually.) The end result of this orientation toward economic “growth” is death for the land base, for the indigenous cultures that care for it, and for the life the land and native peoples support. It is a cancerous growth. Same as it ever was.

A capitalist – or socialist – “green” economy is little more than another step in the evolution of a millennia long series of more “efficient” systems of exploitation and destruction. The fundamental premise behind the concept of a “green” economy and “green” growth is that the exploitation and destruction of life is somehow ultimately sustainable. “He is blind,” as one Hopi elder put it, “So he destroys himself when he tries to save himself.”

“Green” Growth is a mutually exclusive contradiction in terms.

No matter what we call the mode of production and destruction, and no matter how we distribute the “profit” – the “wealth” extorted from life and living systems – continued growth in production and destruction for the sake of human consumption can lead to only one end. Sooner or later – really sooner than later – we are going to crash full bore into the limits of growth – into the absolute limits of the “carrying capacity” of the Earth – the end of its ability to feed one more human, the end of the capacity of ecosystems to endure the disappearance of one more species without a complete and perhaps irreversible collapse.

There is, if we are honest with ourselves about it, only one possible result that offers hope. It’s not, I am sorry to say, social revolution. Nor is it the process of “bringing down civilization” advocated by some anarchist greens and anarcho-primitivists. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that revolutionary movements aimed at an overthrow of the state or at the literal, immediate, physical dismantling of the machinery of death can be developed on a sufficient scale with a sufficient understanding to undo what must be undone – nor could the seizure and wielding of state power do the trick. Not only is the state itself based on the seizure and maintenance of land title by force, but the existence of the state requires the existence of the city – it requires that the fundamental dynamics of empire, “resource” exploitation and “profit” remain intact.

Marx’s postulation notwithstanding, for the state to “wither away” the City must also “wither away”.

It is only the accumulation of wealth at the expense of other forms of life that makes the concentration of power in a state apparatus possible. Only an increasingly radical imbalance in the energy flows of the planet, an imbalance skewed toward humans at the expense of all life, makes for such an accumulation, and the imbalance must grow in concert with the human population’s growth until it reaches the very crossroads we have reached today. The seizing of state power in no way changes the fundamental equation. An ecologist might say that the equations of the solar budget are the only equations – the only bottom lines – that count.

The only way out – which is to say the natural way out – is a population crash. No human-invented scheme can overrule the way – the natural consequences or “laws” – of nature. And what happens to any and every population in overshoot in nature is a population crash. It’s nature’s way.

It can’t be improved upon. It can’t be subverted. It can’t be avoided, although, perhaps, the severity of the collapse can be softened. Blame is irrelevant, except to the extent that in identifying causes, we are able to learn and avoid their repetition. But, a human population crash will do nothing more than delay even worse results – like utter extinction – unless it is accompanied by a profound process of identifying and learning from what went awry in what has gone before.

Under the best of circumstances the global economy and the global system of dominance that rests on it will run into limits it cannot transform – so that it cannot continue until the point that the global ecosystem – life itself – collapses all around us and within us. In the best case scenario, peak oil will prove just such a limit, a limit that sinks the system of production and destruction to such a degree that it prevents it from resurrecting itself.

This formulation can, of course, be denounced as Malthusian. It can also be denounced by revolutionaries of all kinds. But here’s the simple fact. All we can do is hope, and to the best of our ability, align ourselves spiritually and strategically with the forces of life. Yes, as Derrick Jensen suggests, hope is what you do when you have no agency, no power, no control. But then, it is precisely our drive to control and reorder nature that has brought us to this point, and it is that drive for control, and the pain that drives it, that must be healed, transformed and left behind. But, while we may not be able to control outcomes, make a revolution or “bring down” civilization, we can align ourselves spiritually and strategically with the forces of Life.

By the same token and the same logic, the key tasks before us lie not in saving the global economy, not in creating a “green” economy, not in inventing new ways to exploit new energies in order to continue to mine the life of the Earth, nor in any other activity that would seek to preserve this system in any form whatsoever.

The key task before conscious people today is the forging of a profound understanding of what has gone wrong – a sweeping and utter re-evaluation of all values that will be tantamount to a new renaissance, a conscious re-creation and co-creation of culture. Much of that work began to be undertaken in the 1960s, and has borne important fruit, like William Kotke’s work, The Final Empire. It is ours to forge an authentically sustainable culture, even in the midst of this civilization’s fast approaching end – by relying on and integrating the deepest, clearest and most coherent teachings of traditional indigenous cultures, of students of the ecology, and of the multivalent healing practices of both indigenous cultures and of the new therapies that have arisen in the last 50 years. Such a movement – one that is intent on restoring the Earth and fostering social justice and renewing our cultures by incorporating the values and vision of indigenous peoples – is already underway on a global scale. Paul Hawkens, in his important book Blessed Unrest, calls it an “unstoppable movement to re-imagine our relationship to the environment and one another.” His research shows that it is the largest movement in human history, involving some 2-3 million organizations worldwide and some 200 – 300 million people whose cultural, ethical, political and ecological creativity are already impacting billions. That the processes of renewal – of healing, rectifying and relearning – will best be fostered among those in living in direct contact with, and in a caretaking relationship with the Earth and other, non- human living beings should, I hope, be self evident.

Juan Santos is a Los Angeles based writer and editor. His essays can be found at: http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/. He can be reached at: JuanSantos@Mexica.net.

The System


Dropped cases make 'a mess' of Canada's courts

'Courts are a mess'

by Shannon Kari

As originally published: National Post
February 20, 2009


If you are facing a criminal prosecution in Canada, there is a one-in-three chance your charges will be dropped before you ever face a trial.

About 30% of all criminal cases in the country are stayed, dismissed or withdrawn by the Crown or a judge each year, according to Statistics Canada data obtained by the National Post.

In Ontario, the problem is particularly acute: The average of cases stayed, dismissed or withdrawn is consistently nearly 40%, and it has had the highest rate of failed prosecutions in the country for each of the past five years.

Almost all of the dropped cases across the country involve relatively minor charges. (One case can involve multiple individual charges against the same person.) But they come with a significant cost to taxpayers. The police investigations and subsequent prosecutions use up hundreds of millions of dollars of public money each year in cases that end up without any findings of guilt.

Anthony Doob, a criminologist at the University of Toronto and a member of an advisory panel created by the Ontario government to address the burden on the justice system, is blunt in his assessment.

"The courts are a mess," he said. "It seems to me there is a significant waste of resources. We need to hold all of the people making decisions accountable."

One way to address the mess, some experts note, is a move toward the system used in B.C., Quebec and New Brunswick, where a "screening" Crown attorney approves almost every charge before it is laid.

The statistics on the thousands of dropped cases each year suggest change is needed. The figures are almost entirely from provincial court, where more than 95% of prosecutions take place.

They include drug offences, which make up about 10% of prosecutions in Canada and are the responsibility of federal prosecutors. Nearly all other cases are handled by provincial Crown attorneys.

More than 109,000 cases across the country were stayed or dismissed in 2006-07, according to figures released by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, a branch of Statistics Canada.

Those figures are not a result, however, of police, prosecutors or judges being soft on crime.

Of the cases that do go to trial each year, only a fraction - less than 4% - result in an acquittal.

So why are so many cases simply wiped out before they get to trial?

Observers say cases are dropped because the Crown has determined there is no reasonable prospect of conviction - in British Columbia the charge standard is substantial likelihood of conviction - after reviewing the evidence the police present.

In Ontario, the province has not only the dubious distinction of the highest rate of failed prosecutions, it often takes months for any final decision to be made. A charge of mischief took an average of 224 days and 10 court appearances in Toronto in 2007 to be resolved, according to figures released by the provincial Ministry of the Attorney-General.

"Even in a tiny case, it has to go through the bureaucratic gauntlet," said Gary Grill, a Toronto defence lawyer.

Statistics raise questions about whether all provinces should move toward the system in place in B.C., New Brunswick and Quebec. In these three provinces, the approval of a Crown attorney is required in virtually every case before a criminal charge is laid. They also have some of the lowest percentages of cases dismissed or stayed. In most other provinces, including Ontario, it is the police who lay charges.

The B.C. situation is quite different. Even on minor offences, there must be approval by the Crown before charges are laid after police have made an arrest.

"When the Crown does not follow the recommendations of police there is a potential for acrimony," agreed Neil MacKenzie, a senior prosecutor and acting spokesman for the Criminal Justice Branch in B.C.

"But the collaborative relationship we enjoy with police agencies affords open lines of communication, which avoids disagreements in the overwhelming number of cases," Mr. MacKenzie explained.

The percentage of non-drug prosecutions that are stayed in B.C. has remained constant at about 25% over the past five years. As well, about 20% of all of its cases are completed within 30 days.

In response to the delays in dealing with even minor cases, Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley announced his ministry's "Justice on Target" initiative last summer. It aims to reduce by 30% the time it takes to complete cases in the system.

It is not known if the initiative is also trying to determine why so many cases do not go to trial. Kenneth Anthony, co-chair of the project and a senior Crown attorney in Ontario, declined a request for an interview with the National Post.

A spokesman for the ministry also referred to the Justice on Target initiative when asked for an explanation about the number of failed prosecutions each year and suggested comparisons with other provinces are not necessarily valid. "We are aware of differences in how each province administers criminal justice. These different approaches make it difficult to compare criminal case outcomes system-wide," said spokesman Brendan Crawley.

Mr. Doob, the criminologist, noted the Attorney-General does deserve credit for posting the figures online from each courthouse on the average length of time it takes various charges to work their way through the system so the public can see the extent of the problem.

Mr. Grill said it often takes two to four months before a defence lawyer receives disclosure of evidence from the Crown, even in a relatively minor case. Often, it depends on when police provide the information to the prosecutor.

"In my experience, if a case is weak, it is not dropped until the day of the trial. This is time wasted," said Mr. Grill. He notes judges routinely conclude their work by lunch, because short trials scheduled for that day did not go forward as a result of a last-minute stay and a court may sit empty during the afternoon.

While there is a clear need for improvements to ensure that cases "move more expeditiously through the system," the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police warned against adopting the B.C. model.

"We do not believe it will improve the system," said Ian Davidson, Chief of Police in Sudbury and another member of the Justice on Target advisory panel. "It would be cumbersome. The ability of the police to act independently is very important," he said.

According to data provided by the Criminal Justice Branch in B.C., nearly 50% of all criminal cases are screened by the Crown within 24 hours of police making an arrest to determine whether charges should be laid.

The B.C. model has been adopted in part in recent years in Winnipeg, which has more than three-quarters of the criminal cases in Manitoba. Unless it is a domestic complaint or a case where police are seeking to keep someone in jail until trial, the Crown will engage in pre-charge screening, explained Don Slough, Assistant Deputy Attorney-General in Manitoba.

"The problem before was no one was responsible for the file at an early stage. We have moved to an ownership system," said Mr. Slough, explaining decisions can be made by the Crown on a timely basis. "What I would be concerned about is charges that are stayed on the day of trial."

Pre-charge screening is the norm in New Brunswick, where the percentage of stays and dismissed cases is also relatively low. "It is a working relationship with police," said Glen Abbott, the provincial director of public prosecutions. "If police object to our opinion, we provide the means to look at it again."

There is a similar appeal process for police in B.C. and the issue of pre-charge screening was one of many aspects of the justice system that was examined by Stephen Owen, in a 1990 report to the provincial government.

The former federal Liberal Cabinet minister and Deputy Attorney-General of B.C. said in an interview with the National Post that the policy is not a case of the Crown "overpowering" the police. "They are the lead at the investigative phase. As soon as you want to get the charge accepted, the prosecutor is the lead. It becomes a learning process so police know what is needed for a charge."

"By all accounts I think the B.C. system has worked well," said Mr. Owen, who is now a vice-president at UBC. "The goal is to get high-quality [charge] assessment at the gate and cut down on the cost of trials."

National Post

skari@nationalpost.com

21 February 2009

The Harper Conservatives


Taxpayers pick up Tory tab

Thousands billed as ministers split time between official duties, filling party war chests

by Kevin Donovan

As originally posted on: TheStar.com
June 16, 2008


When Defence Minister Peter MacKay flew to British Columbia in January, he split his time between government business and two Tory fundraising gigs. Taxpayers footed the bill.

When then-Indian affairs minister Jim Prentice flew to Nova Scotia to meet with provincial chiefs, he headlined a Conservative fundraising dinner in Prince Edward Island. Taxpayers paid for the trip.

And when Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn jetted off from a Quebec fisheries forum to attend a government meeting in Manitoba, he also guest-starred at a local Tory fundraising banquet.

The federal Conservatives – elected on promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest.

The Star easily found 25 examples of Tory ministers mixing fundraising and department business, each trip typically costing taxpayers several thousand dollars, though complete costs are not disclosed.

The fundraising events are usually advertised a month in advance, but ministers maintain key government business was the reason for each journey. None provided proof of this, but some said the political events were just a happy coincidence. Besides, spokespeople say, this is the way it has always been done and the Liberals did it too.

Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher wants the government to clean up its act.

"It's a privilege to travel the on taxpayers' dime, not a right. The (political) party should be paying for part of these trips," said Conacher, whose group seeks greater honesty and accountability from government. "They also should be required to prove that proper government business was the reason for the trip and the auditor general should audit this every year."

The Star found its examples by comparing government expense records with Conservative party notices of fundraising events.

Here's one journey:

MacKay, a senior political aide and a military adviser travelled from Toronto to Victoria on Jan. 10. Arriving at 4 p.m., they went to their hotel and were briefed by Canada's top Pacific admiral for 90 minutes. Then it was off to the McMorran Beach House in Victoria to guest star at a posh evening affair at which 200 Conservative faithful hobnobbed with MacKay. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, who is from the area, worked the Thursday fundraiser into his schedule as well, bringing along a political aide. A Conservative party report said the event "more than met its financial goals."

The next morning, MacKay and his aides toured the local dockyard, received an Olympic security briefing, and took a military helicopter to visit a search-and-rescue facility. By late afternoon, MacKay and an aide flew to Kelowna, where there was no government business, but where he guest starred at another fundraiser, telling party supporters: "We are getting ready for a campaign that could come quite soon."

All told, two ministers and at least three staff went on the western trip. The total cost of these trips for all parties is tough to nail down because ministers and staff charge different costs to different accounts and only some are publicly accessible. It certainly cost the Department of National Defence at least $10,000. (MacKay's aide paid for the Kelowna leg of the trip out of his own pocket, while MacKay, whose riding is in Nova Scotia, covered the Kelowna leg from his House of Commons travel allowance, a fund typically used for travel related to the minister's constituency).

For the Conservative party, the trip cost nothing, though about $40,000 was raised in Victoria and Kelowna.

MacKay spokesperson Dan Dugas, who was on the trip, defends the practice. "If the minister is going to, say, Winnipeg to be briefed on something, once that is known, someone from (the Conservative) caucus will say, 'can you give a speech to my riding association?'"

Dugas said ministers have always "mixed business travel with party fundraising after their ministerial work is done."

In the first quarter of 2008, the Conservative party has raised $5 million – outstripping both the Liberals and NDP with a dollar ratio of about five to one.

In looking into expense reports since 2006, the Star tried to find out which came first, the decision to hold a fundraiser or the need for a government trip to be taken by a minister and a political aide. In one case, the Star found three ministers converging on the Harrison Hot Springs resort hotel in British Columbia for a major regional Conservative conference last fall that was about a year in the planning.

Stockwell Day (public safety); Chuck Strahl (Indian affairs) and Gary Lunn (natural resources) gave keynote speeches at the conference, and the theme was getting ready for the next election.

Strahl billed taxpayers about $5,000 for a five-day period that included the Tory conference. His expense report says he had "First Nations meetings" in Vancouver.

When the Star raised this, spokesperson Ted Yeomans said a "clerical error" was made and he said the department of Indian and northern affairs should not have paid for the portion of travel for the fundraiser. Strahl's Commons travel budget has now paid the money back.

Expense reports show Day was in the area to make a "national crime prevention centre announcement" in Vancouver. When the Star told Day's staff that his crime prevention announcement was actually the following month, they checked and agreed. They blamed an "error on the website" and said Day was actually making a Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements announcement in Squamish, north of Vancouver, then travelled to the Conservative conference.

"No public money was used to transport Minister Day to political events," spokesperson John Brent said.

Day's expense report shows only a $295 travel expense for the day prior to the Tory conference. However, three political assistants who state they accompanied him charged taxpayers about $3,000 in expenses for the conference period. Two state on their expense reports they went to Harrison Hot Springs, a 90-minute drive east of Vancouver, where the conference was held. Questions about this issue were not answered.

The Star had a hard time getting answers from ministers, even though Stephen Harper vowed to make accountability "one of the major pursuits of our new government" before he was sworn in as prime minister in February 2006. Some staffers were evasive, some dragged their feet, some refused to answer questions and one hinted that nothing could be released without approval from the Prime Minister's Office.

Conacher said published government expense reports (they are on the federal government's website under a heading "Proactive Disclosure") raise more questions than they answer. Since there is just a dollar figure given for meals, travel and hotel, and a vague description of the government business, the public can't tell how public money is being spent.

In the case of Lunn's expense reports for the Conservative conference, the problem is clear.

Lunn's expense reports show a $10,000 expense for several trips in a short period, leading up to the conference, and ending in British Columbia. His assistant, who typically travels with him, shows on her expense report a $5,000 bill to taxpayers for a five-day period that includes the three-day conference in Harrison Hot Springs. Lunn's office, which was contacted almost two weeks ago, has not responded to detailed questions.

Late Friday, spokesperson Bernadette Murphy issued this response: "Minister Lunn travels for government business, and taxpayers did not and do not pay for him to attend political events."

In November 2006, Hearn, a Newfoundland MP, was attending a Quebec forum on the future of fishing. Spokesperson Steve Outhouse said Hearn and a political aide flew from Quebec to Manitoba where Hearn had a packed day of meetings with groups including the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp. He went to the Tory fundraising event and the next morning watched a scientific presentation on Lake Winnipeg.

"Minister Hearn travels for government business, and taxpayers did not pay for him to attend political events," Outhouse said. He noted the trip was on a weekend. Expense reports for the Quebec-Manitoba trip, for Hearn and his aide, total about $5,500.

Former Indian affairs minister Prentice, a Calgary MP who is now industry minister, travelled in February 2007 to Nova Scotia to take part in negotiations with Mi'kmaq chiefs in the province. He then attended a Conservative fundraising dinner in Malpeque, P.E.I. According to reports disclosed by the department, the total cost for Prentice and his political aide for the eastern trip was just under $7,000. A charter flight was included; the documents don't explain the destination. Hearn was also in Nova Scotia and attended the fundraiser. Hearn's assistant said Hearn rented a car at his own expense to drive to P.E.I. for the political event.

Prentice's staff were asked about several of his trips and said Friday they are working on their response.

With data analysis by the Star's Andrew Bailey

United States Senator Roland Burris and Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich


Ill. governor joins calls for Burris resignation

by Deanna Bellandi

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 20, 2009


CHICAGO - U.S. Sen. Roland Burris kept out of sight Friday as longtime friend Gov. Pat Quinn joined the roster of fellow Democrats calling for his resignation, while the White House urged the senator to take the weekend to consider his future.

Burris began the week with passionate defenses, proclaiming he had nothing to hide even as revelations mounted about his attempts to raise money for his disgraced patron, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and failures to disclose multiple conversations with Blagojevich advisers.

By Friday, Burris eluded reporters and only repeated pleas through his spokesman to "stop the rush to judgment."

Quinn praised Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, as an honorable man and said Friday it would be a "heroic act" for him to put the interests of the state and his constituents ahead of his own.

"It takes a great deal of fortitude and courage to do that and I think people will recognize that," Quinn said. "It's never easy to step aside and resign from anything in life, especially something as important as United States Senate."

Burris, meanwhile, gave no indication he would heed the chorus of calls to give up the coveted seat.

The junior senator scheduled private visits Friday to a veterans medical center and naval training center north of Chicago. He did not speak publicly.

"Like he said before, he's asked the public and officials to stop the rush to judgment and to allow all of the facts to come out," Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor said.

Burris testified before the Illinois House committee that recommended Blagojevich's impeachment in January that he hadn't contacted key Blagojevich staffers or offered anything in return for the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. Blagojevich faces federal charges he tried to sell the seat.

Last weekend, however, Burris released an affidavit saying he had spoken to several Blagojevich advisers, including the former governor's brother and finance chairman, who Burris said called three times last fall asking for fundraising help. Burris just this week acknowledged trying, unsuccessfully, to raise money for Blagojevich.

Illinois lawmakers have asked local prosecutors to look into perjury charges, and a preliminary U.S. Senate Ethics Committee inquiry is under way. Illinois state Rep. Jack Franks, a Marengo Democrat, has introduced a resolution urging the Senate Ethics Committee to expel Burris.

In the event Burris resigns or is expelled, Quinn has implored lawmakers to quickly pass legislation, already introduced by Franks, to fill any Senate vacancy by special election rather than gubernatorial appointment.

Quinn wants the Illinois Legislature to allow him to name a temporary replacement to a vacant seat until a special election could be held. He declined to say who he might appoint if Burris steps aside.

"At no time should our state go without full and fair representation in the United States Senate," Quinn said.

Illinois Republicans don't want to wait for Burris to quit and are calling for a May 26 election even if he doesn't resign.

The GOP argues Burris' appointment is only good until the next election, so they want to move up the next one up and let voters decide - effectively kicking him out of office if he doesn't win.

Quinn doubts the legality of that plan.

Quinn is "relying on Roland Burris' good judgment to resign in this instance before giving the people the chance to fill that Senate seat and I think that reliance is misplaced," GOP state Sen. Matt Murphy said Friday.

Murphy said he would ask Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to issue an opinion on the matter.

Illinois lawmakers had considered stripping Blagojevich of his Senate appointment powers after his Dec. 9 arrest on federal corruption charges, but they couldn't agree on legislation. Blagojevich shocked everyone by naming Burris to the seat Dec. 30.

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton's spokeswoman, Rikeesha Phelon, said Cullerton is "open" to special elections but has not committed to a proposal. The Democrat also has not called for Burris' resignation, saying he wants investigations to play out, Phelon said.

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's spokesman, Steve Brown, said they're reviewing proposed legislation, including where special election funding would come from.

Murphy has estimated a special election could cost $5 million to $25 million.

Quinn said that's no reason not to let the people pick their next senator.

"In a Democracy, you don't say we don't have the voice of the people heard because it costs too much," Quinn said.

Quinn's pleas for Burris to resign joined numerous others in recent days, including Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and other elected officials. The White House did not go so far, but said Burris must explain conflicting statements.

"I think it might be important for Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has been said and - and certainly think of what lays in his future," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs added.

Also Friday, Burris' interim chief of staff left to return to work as a senior adviser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

------

Associated Press writers Tammy Webber in Chicago and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.

20 February 2009

United States Senator Roland Burris


APNewsBreak: Black pastors to ask Burris to resign

by Tammy Webber

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 19, 2009


CHICAGO – A group of black ministers who previously supported U.S. Sen. Roland Burris now plan to ask for his resignation, one of the ministers told The Associated Press on Thursday. Many of the city's influential black pastors supported Burris because of his scandal-free reputation — even though he was appointed by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich after the governor was arrested.

But, prompted by revelations Burris attempted to raise money for Blagojevich while seeking the Senate job vacated by President Barack Obama, some of those pastors will ask Burris to resign, according to the minister, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a meeting with Burris had not yet been scheduled.

Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell the Senate appointment.

Sentiment in the black community is not unanimous, but the clergy's silence as the maelstrom of criticism swells around Burris "speaks volumes," said another minister, Ira Acree, of the Greater St. John Bible Church.

"I'm a little disturbed, but because of his track record, don't want to rush to judgment," Acree said Thursday. "But neither will I attempt to defend his actions."

Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor would not say whether the senator would meet with the ministers, and referred to Burris' previous pleas that fellow politicians and constituents alike "stop the rush to judgment."

Burris is accused of lying to an Illinois House committee in January when he testified that he hadn't had contact with key Blagojevich staffers or offered anything in return for the seat.

Last weekend, Burris released an affidavit saying he had spoken to several Blagojevich advisers, including Robert Blagojevich, the former governor's brother and finance chairman, who Burris said called three times last fall asking for fundraising help. This week, Burris admitted trying, unsuccessfully, to raise money for Blagojevich.

So far, Burris has resisted a growing chorus of calls for his resignation, including from within his own party.

19 February 2009

"The God Obama (TGO) and His Worshippers"


The phony diversity of Obama and his flock

by James Ostrowski

As originally posted on: Political Class Dismissed
January 25, 2009


I’ve had enough of the so-called new diversity of The God Obama (TGO) and his worshippers.

To them, people are black, brown, yellow, and red; male and female, gay, straight, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.

That is, to the left, YOU ARE one of the 100 or so permutations of this list of group characteristics.

Diverse simply means different.

Let’s see who supports a philosophy of greater diversity, Obama or PCD.

To libertarian, every single person on the plant is unique and different from any other. That is true even of so-called identical twins. They are not in fact identical.

We support the diversity of individuals wherein there are 6.7 billion separate and unique persons with unique lives, goals, histories and rights.

Obama should really call his view groupersity because that is where he locates rights. Women have rights. Blacks have rights, gays have rights.

Hey, Barack, uh, no they don’t!

Individuals have rights and they all have the same damn rights, listed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Nor have they changed a bit. Natural laws don’t change unless the entities they concern change. People haven’t changed.

You don’t gain any rights by being black and you don’t lose any. Same with being gay.

Now, Obama and his flock reject all this. They reject the notion that individuals have rights that trump the group. They are therefore only too willing to sacrifice unique individuals to the group. That’s off course not diversity but groupersity.

Remember “spread the wealth around”? Again, an example of how Obama could care less about actual concrete persons whose hard-earned wealth he will steal. No diversity there.

To Obama and his ilk, individuals are an abstraction; the group is real. They are simply blips on a statistician’s radar screen; aggregates of wealth to be taxed away to pay for his silly stimulus plan. I recently posted about costs and how they cannot be aggregated. But again, individuals are an abstraction to these people, just a source of energy like those comatose bodies in the Matrix.

To the cult of Obama, I say this: we will not go quietly into that good night, suckas!

18 February 2009

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Current British Prime Minister / Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown


Secret papers reveal Tony Blair’s F1 tobacco deal

New documents reveal No 10’s role in the first scandal to hit Labour in office in 1997

by Jonathan Oliver and Isabel Oakeshott

As originally posted: Times Online
October 12, 2008


Tony Blair personally ordered an exemption for motor racing from a tobacco sponsorship ban after Labour received a secret £1m donation from Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss.

New documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show he demanded a change of policy within hours of a meeting with Ecclestone on October 16, 1997, and his aides went on to blur the truth.

The affair was the first sleaze scandal of the new Labour era. At its height, Blair feared the episode would end his premiership and went on television to defend his reputation, saying he was a “pretty straight kind of guy”.

The new documents expose the extent to which he was the driving force behind plans to exempt F1 from Labour’s manifesto pledge to end tobacco sponsorship of sport, pushing a reluctant Department of Health into agreeing. Before Ecclestone’s £1m donation, Labour had planned a universal ban.

Tessa Jowell, a health minister at the time, emerges as having had serious reservations about the move. But a Whitehall memo written on October 31, 1997, states: “The prime minister has made clear his wish to see a permanent exclusion for Formula One from the scope of the tobacco advertising ban.”

The documents show how mandarins warned Blair that he could be misleading MPs over the sequence of events.

At the height of the scandal, the Tory MP John Maples put down a written parliamentary question asking when Blair told Frank Dobson, the health secretary, of his plans to exempt F1.

A briefing note to the Cabinet Office outlining possible responses to the question reveals that the date was October 16. It also reveals Blair ordered Jonathan Powell, his senior aide, to ring Jowell to discuss the issue that evening, shortly after meeting Ecclestone.

However, the note suggests Blair wanted to name October 29 as the date, to be consistent with his previous public claims that the decision was not taken until two to three weeks after the crucial meeting with Ecclestone.

Civil servants warned: “The draft reply is strictly true in terms of the final decision . . . but critics could argue that the answer was disingenuous in that the prime minister’s views had been clearly conveyed by the telephone call on October 16.”

The papers also suggest No 10 set out to mislead the public, via the media, about the prime minister’s role in the affair. A briefing note for Alastair Campbell, then Blair’s press secretary, offers guidance “to dispel the notion that the F1 approach was dictated by the PM alone, after meeting Ecclestone”.

Blair defended the plan for a dispensation on the grounds that the ban could lead to big job losses in Britain’s motor racing industry. However, it has emerged that the then Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) cast doubt on this claim. A memo from the DTI to the health department, sent in November 1997 when the government was still trying to decide how to implement the ban, says: “We believe it is unlikely that if F1 should leave the UK there would be an immediate effect on the industry as a whole.”

The episode took place before political donations had to be publicly declared. For days, Labour refused to reveal whether Ecclestone had given money to the party. As the controversy raged about whether government policy had been influenced by a donation, Gordon Brown, who knew of the gift, found himself denying all knowledge in a radio interview. He was later reported to have returned to the Treasury in anguish, claiming his credibility would be “in shreds” if anyone discovered he had lied.

17 February 2009

Capitalism and the Capitalist State


Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse

by Michael Parenti

As originally posted on: Michael Parenti Political Archive
January 2009


After the overthrow of communist governments in Eastern Europe, capitalism was paraded as the indomitable system that brings prosperity and democracy, the system that would prevail unto the end of history.

The present economic crisis, however, has convinced even some prominent free-marketeers that something is gravely amiss. Truth be told, capitalism has yet to come to terms with several historical forces that cause it endless trouble: democracy, prosperity, and capitalism itself, the very entities that capitalist rulers claim to be fostering.

Plutocracy vs. Democracy

Let us consider democracy first. In the United States we hear that capitalism is wedded to democracy, hence the phrase, “capitalist democracies.” In fact, throughout our history there has been a largely antagonistic relationship between democracy and capital concentration. Some eighty years ago Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Moneyed interests have been opponents not proponents of democracy.

The Constitution itself was fashioned by affluent gentlemen who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to repeatedly warn of the baneful and dangerous leveling effects of democracy. The document they cobbled together was far from democratic, being shackled with checks, vetoes, and requirements for artificial super majorities, a system designed to blunt the impact of popular demands.

In the early days of the Republic the rich and well-born imposed property qualifications for voting and officeholding. They opposed the direct election of candidates (note, their Electoral College is still with us). And for decades they resisted extending the franchise to less favored groups such as propertyless working men, immigrants, racial minorities, and women.

Today conservative forces continue to reject more equitable electoral features such as proportional representation, instant runoff, and publicly funded campaigns. They continue to create barriers to voting, be it through overly severe registration requirements, voter roll purges, inadequate polling accommodations, and electronic voting machines that consistently “malfunction” to the benefit of the more conservative candidates.

At times ruling interests have suppressed radical publications and public protests, resorting to police raids, arrests, and jailings - applied most recently with full force against demonstrators in St. Paul, Minnesota, during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

The conservative plutocracy also seeks to rollback democracy’s social gains, such as public education, affordable housing, health care, collective bargaining, a living wage, safe work conditions, a non-toxic sustainable environment; the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, freedom from compulsory pregnancy, and the right to marry any consenting adult of one’s own choosing.

About a century ago, US labor leader Eugene Victor Debs was thrown into jail during a strike. Sitting in his cell he could not escape the conclusion that in disputes between two private interests, capital and labor, the state was not a neutral arbiter. The force of the state - with its police, militia, courts, and laws - was unequivocally on the side of the company bosses. From this, Debs concluded that capitalism was not just an economic system but an entire social order, one that rigged the rules of democracy to favor the moneybags.

Capitalist rulers continue to pose as the progenitors of democracy even as they subvert it, not only at home but throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Any nation that is not “investor friendly,” that attempts to use its land, labor, capital, natural resources, and markets in a self-developing manner, outside the dominion of transnational corporate hegemony, runs the risk of being demonized and targeted as “a threat to U.S. national security.”

Democracy becomes a problem for corporate America not when it fails to work but when it works too well, helping the populace move toward a more equitable and livable social order, narrowing the gap, however modestly, between the superrich and the rest of us. So democracy must be diluted and subverted, smothered with disinformation, media puffery, and mountains of campaign costs; with rigged electoral contests and partially disfranchised publics, bringing faux victories to more or less politically safe major-party candidates.

Capitalism vs. Prosperity

The corporate capitalists no more encourage prosperity than do they propagate democracy. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is neither prosperous nor particularly democratic. One need only think of capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Indonesia, capitalist Thailand, capitalist Haiti, capitalist Colombia, capitalist Pakistan, capitalist South Africa, capitalist Latvia, and various other members of the Free World - more accurately, the Free Market World.

A prosperous, politically literate populace with high expectations about its standard of living and a keen sense of entitlement, pushing for continually better social conditions, is not the plutocracy’s notion of an ideal workforce and a properly pliant polity. Corporate investors prefer poor populations. The poorer you are, the harder you will work - for less. The poorer you are, the less equipped you are to defend yourself against the abuses of wealth.

In the corporate world of “free-trade,” the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world’s population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.

Consider the United States. In the last eight years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels.

It is only in countries where capitalism has been reined in to some degree by social democracy that the populace has been able to secure a measure of prosperity; northern European nations such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark come to mind. But even in these social democracies popular gains are always at risk of being rolled back.

It is ironic to credit capitalism with the genius of economic prosperity when most attempts at material betterment have been vehemently and sometimes violently resisted by the capitalist class. The history of labor struggle provides endless illustration of this.

To the extent that life is bearable under the present U.S. economic order, it is because millions of people have waged bitter class struggles to advance their living standards and their rights as citizens, bringing some measure of humanity to an otherwise heartless politico-economic order.

A Self-devouring Beast

The capitalist state has two roles long recognized by political thinkers. First, like any state it must provide services that cannot be reliably developed through private means, such as public safety and orderly traffic. Second, the capitalist state protects the haves from the have-nots, securing the process of capital accumulation to benefit the moneyed interests, while heavily circumscribing the demands of the working populace, as Debs observed from his jail cell.

There is a third function of the capitalist state seldom mentioned. It consists of preventing the capitalist system from devouring itself. Consider the core contradiction Karl Marx pointed to: the tendency toward overproduction and market crisis. An economy dedicated to speedups and wage cuts, to making workers produce more and more for less and less, is always in danger of a crash. To maximize profits, wages must be kept down. But someone has to buy the goods and services being produced. For that, wages must be kept up. There is a chronic tendency - as we are seeing today - toward overproduction of private sector goods and services and underconsumption of necessities by the working populace.

In addition, there is the frequently overlooked self-destruction created by the moneyed players themselves. If left completely unsupervised, the more active command component of the financial system begins to devour less organized sources of wealth.

Instead of trying to make money by the arduous task of producing and marketing goods and services, the marauders tap directly into the money streams of the economy itself. During the 1990s we witnessed the collapse of an entire economy in Argentina when unchecked free marketeers stripped enterprises, pocketed vast sums, and left the country’s productive capacity in shambles. The Argentine state, gorged on a heavy diet of free-market ideology, faltered in its function of saving capitalism from the capitalists.

Some years later, in the United States, came the multi-billion-dollar plunder perpetrated by corporate conspirators at Enron, WorldCom, Harkin, Adelphia, and a dozen other major companies. Inside players like Ken Lay turned successful corporate enterprises into sheer wreckage, wiping out the jobs and life savings of thousands of employees in order to pocket billions.

These thieves were caught and convicted. Does that not show capitalism’s self-correcting capacity? Not really. The prosecution of such malfeasance - in any case coming too late - was a product of democracy’s accountability and transparency, not capitalism’s. Of itself the free market is an amoral system, with no strictures save caveat emptor.

In the meltdown of 2008-09 the mounting financial surplus created a problem for the moneyed class: there were not enough opportunities to invest. With more money than they knew what to do with, big investors poured immense sums into nonexistent housing markets and other dodgy ventures, a legerdemain of hedge funds, derivatives, high leveraging, credit default swaps, predatory lending, and whatever else.

Among the victims were other capitalists, small investors, and the many workers who lost billions of dollars in savings and pensions. Perhaps the premiere brigand was Bernard Madoff. Described as “a longstanding leader in the financial services industry,” Madoff ran a fraudulent fund that raked in $50 billion from wealthy investors, paying them back “with money that wasn’t there,” as he himself put it. The plutocracy devours its own children.

In the midst of the meltdown, at an October 2008 congressional hearing, former chair of the Federal Reserve and orthodox free-market devotee Alan Greenspan confessed that he had been mistaken to expect moneyed interests - groaning under an immense accumulation of capital that needs to be invested somewhere - to suddenly exercise self-restraint.

The classic laissez-faire theory is even more preposterous than Greenspan made it. In fact, the theory claims that everyone should pursue their own selfish interests without restraint. This unbridled competition supposedly will produce maximum benefits for all because the free market is governed by a miraculously benign “invisible hand” that optimizes collective outputs. (“Greed is good.”)

Is the crisis of 2008-09 caused by a chronic tendency toward overproduction and hyper-financial accumulation, as Marx would have it? Or is it the outcome of the personal avarice of people like Bernard Madoff? In other words, is the problem systemic or individual? In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism breeds the venal perpetrators, and rewards the most unscrupulous among them. The crimes and crises are not irrational departures from a rational system, but the converse: they are the rational outcomes of a basically irrational and amoral system.

Worse still, the ensuing multi-billion dollar government bailouts are themselves being turned into an opportunity for pillage. Not only does the state fail to regulate, it becomes itself a source of plunder, pulling vast sums from the federal money machine, leaving the taxpayers to bleed.

Those who scold us for “running to the government for a handout” are themselves running to the government for a handout. Corporate America has always enjoyed grants-in-aid, loan guarantees, and other state and federal subventions. But the 2008-09 “rescue operation” offered a record feed at the public trough. More than $350 billion was dished out by a right-wing lame-duck Secretary of the Treasury to the biggest banks and financial houses without oversight - not to mention the more than $4 trillion that has come from the Federal Reserve. Most of the banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon, stated that they had no intention of letting anyone know where the money was going.

The big bankers used some of the bailout, we do know, to buy up smaller banks and prop up banks overseas. CEOs and other top banking executives are spending bailout funds on fabulous bonuses and lavish corporate spa retreats. Meanwhile, big bailout beneficiaries like Citigroup and Bank of America laid off tens of thousands of employees, inviting the question: why were they given all that money in the first place?

While hundreds of billions were being doled out to the very people who had caused the catastrophe, the housing market continued to wilt, credit remained paralyzed, unemployment worsened, and consumer spending sank to record lows.

In sum, free-market corporate capitalism is by its nature a disaster waiting to happen. Its essence is the transformation of living nature into mountains of commodities and commodities into heaps of dead capital. When left entirely to its own devices, capitalism foists its diseconomies and toxicity upon the general public and upon the natural environment - and eventually begins to devour itself.

The immense inequality in economic power that exists in our capitalist society translates into a formidable inequality of political power, which makes it all the more difficult to impose democratic regulations.

If the paladins of Corporate America want to know what really threatens “our way of life,” it is their way of life, their boundless way of pilfering their own system, destroying the very foundation on which they stand, the very community on which they so lavishly feed.

16 February 2009

Manitoba Lawyer Peter Richard Stefanyshyn (a/k/a Richard Stefanyshyn)


Case 99-09

PETER RICHARD STEFANYSHYN
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Called to the Bar
June 25, 1976

Particulars of Charges
Professional Misconduct (3 counts)

  • Conflict of Interest (x2)
  • Failure to discharge duties towards other lawyers with integrity and good faith

    Dates of Hearing
    July 28, 1998, February 25, March 3, 4 and 18, April 5 - 9, May 10 - 12, November 8 and 17, and December 15, 1999

    Panel
    D. G. Douglas, Chair
    R. C. Krause
    J. W. Hedley

    Disposition

  • Four month suspension commencing December 17, 1999;
  • Fine of $40,000.00;
  • Costs of $40,000.00;
  • Resumption of practice subject to the Society receiving a $20,000.00 payment of the fine on or before April 17, 2000;
  • Payment of $6,000.00 on or before April 1, 2001, and an annual payment of $6,000.00 on or before April 1 each year thereafter until the fine and costs are fully paid;
  • In the event of default of any annual payment, the entire amount then outstanding would immediately become due and owing; and
  • Practising certificate cancelled and to be reissued annually upon compliance with the repayment schedule.

    Counsel
    R.B. McNicol, Q.C. and E.B. Eva for The Law Society of Manitoba
    B.G. Gorlick Q.C. for the Member


    Conflict of Interest



    Facts

    Between about March 1993 and May 1994, Mr. Stefanyshyn acted on behalf of Client T or various businesses or corporations owned or controlled by T as the purchaser and subsequent vendor of thirty-six separate residential properties. Mr. Stefanyshyn also acted for the individuals who ultimately purchased those properties from T and, as well, acted for the lenders who were providing mortgage loan proceeds to the purchasers.

    The thirty-six properties were "flipped" by T, who sold the properties for a total of $633,000.00 more than he originally paid for them.

    Mr. Stefanyshyn failed in his duty to provide the thirty-six purchasers and the lenders with adequate disclosure before accepting the retainer to act on their behalf and also on behalf of T when there was or was likely to be a conflicting interest between the parties. He also failed in his duty to disclose all material facts and to be both honest and candid when advising the purchasers and lenders in that:

    1. He failed to advise the purchasers and lenders that he had also been retained to act for T in the same matter;
    2. He failed to advise the purchasers and lenders that he had a continuing relationship with and regularly acted for T, and he failed to recommend that they obtain independent representation; and
    3. He failed to advise the purchasers and lenders that he acted on behalf of T with respect to a recent purchase of the property for a significantly lower price than what the purchasers were paying for the property.

    Mr. Stefanyshyn also failed in his duty to obtain the consent of the purchasers and lenders before accepting a retainer to act on their behalf and for T in the same matter. He also failed in his duty not to act in a conflict of interest in that he preferred the interests of T over the interests of the purchasers and lenders.

    In each of the thirty-six transactions, Mr. Stefanyshyn failed in his duty to serve the purchasers in a conscientious and diligent manner. He failed in his duty to protect their interests while, at the same time, he preferred the interests of T over those of the purchasers in that he failed to obtain a declaration as to possession sworn on behalf of T in respect of the sale of the said properties.

    In three of the thirty-six transactions, Mr. Stefanyshyn failed to discharge with integrity his duty owed to the clients and failed in his duty to conduct himself towards other lawyers with good faith in that:

    1. He forwarded letters to each of the solicitors for the vendors enclosing a trust cheque and representing such amount to be his client's cash to mortgage when, in fact, no such mortgage had been arranged;
    2. He failed to comply with the trust conditions imposed upon him by each of the solicitors for the vendors in that he failed to make registrations forthwith and in series with a mortgage that he represented had been arranged; and
    3. He gave an undertaking to each of the solicitors for the vendors to register his client's mortgage immediately and upon completion of the registration to request mortgage proceeds and to pay the amount outstanding as at the date of possession, with interest thereon payable at the same rate as his client's mortgage, when he knew or ought to have known that he could not fulfill such an undertaking as no such mortgage had yet been arranged.

    In one of the thirty-six transactions, a dispute arose between T and the purchaser. Mr. Stefanyshyn failed in his duty in that he continued to act for both parties after the contentious issue arose. He also failed in his duty to the purchaser in that, in continuing to act, he preferred the interests of T over the interests of the purchaser. In the same matter, Mr. Stefanyshyn failed in his duty to be both honest and candid when advising the purchaser and failed in his duty of integrity by concealing material facts from the purchaser.

    The hearing into these matters initially proceeded on a contested basis, however, after approximately ten days of hearing and after the Society had closed its case, Mr. Stefanyshyn changed his plea to guilty, following which both counsel presented a joint recommendation as to disposition.

    Decision and Comments

    On the basis of the evidence and Mr. Stefanyshyn's guilty plea, the Committee found that Mr. Stefanyshyn was guilty of professional misconduct.

    The Committee noted after careful consideration that it was unable to fully accept the joint recommendation particularly as to the amount of the fine and the terms of payment of the fine and costs. The Committee considered the conduct of Mr. Stefanyshyn to be reprehensible. The number of transactions, the common nature of the transactions and the persons involved in the short period of time within which this all transpired made it impossible for the Committee to believe that Mr. Stefanyshyn was not aware of, or at the very least, willfully blind to the impact or potential impact that his acts or omissions would have on both the purchasers and mortgagees he purported to represent. The Committee found clearly that Mr. Stefanyshyn grossly preferred the interests of T over those of his other clients, and that T's scheme could not have succeeded without the involvement of Mr. Stefanyshyn. The Committee felt that it was necessary for the member, the clients and the profession to know that Mr. Stefanyshyn had truly been punished for his wrongdoing and that there had to be some real deterrent beyond the suspension from practice.

    Penalty

    The Committee imposed the following penalty:

    • Four month suspension commencing December 17, 1999;
    • Fine of $40,000.00;
    • Costs of $40,000.00;
    • Resumption of practice subject to the Society receiving a $20,000.00 payment of the fine on or before April 17, 2000;
    • Payment of $6,000.00 on or before April 1, 2001, and an annual payment of $6,000.00 on or before April 1 each year thereafter until the fine and costs are fully paid;
    • In the event of default of any annual payment, the entire amount then outstanding would immediately become due and owing; and
    • Practising certificate cancelled and to be reissued annually upon compliance with the repayment schedule.

  • 15 February 2009

    Canadian Federal Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre


    "Backdoor" Pierre Poilievre

    by James Bowie

    As originally posted on: Bowie's Blog
    February 14, 2009


    For those of you in Nepean Carleton keeping track, Pierre Poilievre, your MP, who speaks for you:

    1. Said "Fuck you guys" on the record in a House of Commons committee.

    2. Lied, saying that “We need not provide that evidence because it was already provided in court," referring to the tape of a conversation between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk discussing the alleged bribery of MP Chuck Cadman with "financial considerations" for his vote on the budget.

    3. Rather than explaining that lie to reporters waiting for him outside the house, fled Parliament's back door.

    4. Was forced to apologize for saying that Aboriginal Candians are lazy and don't work hard.

    Just a few things to consider next time he shows up at your door, folks.

    As for this most recent thing, him running away from Parliament, I think it's the worst news for PP yet. Sure, his leader has been accused of bribery. Sure he lied to Parliament about court proceedings. Sure his party dropped their lawsuit. Sure he has publicly confessed his disdain for Aboriginal Canadians, who he says don't engender his conservative notion of hard work, but this is new.

    For the first time, we're seeing a Pierre Poilievre who chickens out from a fight - a fight he picked. Voters might tolerate many of Poilievre's shortcomings, but nobody wants to be represented by a chickenshit MP.

    Canadian Senator / Former Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) National Chief Patrick Brazeau


    New senator lagged on $100 child support

    Harper's controversy-plagued appointee repeatedly fell behind on payments for his son

    by Joanna Smith

    As originally posted on: TheStar.com
    February 10, 2009


    OTTAWA – Three times in the past five years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most controversial new Senate appointee fell behind in support payments for a son he has not spoken to in eight years – payments that totalled less than $100 per month.

    Patrick Brazeau, the 34-year-old former aboriginal leader who was appointed to the Senate in December, missed one payment as recently as 11 months ago at a time when he was earning a six-figure income.

    In an interview yesterday, he said he did not want to air any personal "dirty laundry," but he acknowledged he had been late on some payments and said he would consider larger monthly payments for the well-being of his 14-year-old son now that he was earning more than $130,000 as a senator.

    Brazeau, who is scheduled to give his maiden speech in the Senate today, has faced a series of allegations since his appointment, including a sexual harassment complaint and a draft audit of expenses at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the congress he led, which resulted in a demand that at least $54,678 in expense claims be repaid.

    Brazeau's style and penchant for luxurious trappings have also raised eyebrows, particularly his 2006 Porsche SUV.

    "The child support payments are basically less than $100 a month," the son's mother, Dena Buckshot, said from her Gatineau, Que., home last week.

    A spokesperson for Harper last night declined to comment on a "private matter," but a litany of charges against Brazeau has raised questions about how thoroughly the Prime Minister's Office vetted the young aboriginal leader before making the appointment.

    Brazeau says many of the allegations are being brought by those who are pushing back against his bid to bring more transparency to the country's aboriginal leadership.

    As national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Brazeau was widely viewed as a smart and articulate voice for aboriginal people living off-reserve, stirring the pot with talk of abolishing the Indian Act and bringing more accountability to native governments.

    The former model with a black belt in karate was portrayed as a family man and spoke eloquently in the House of Commons the day Harper apologized for abuses in Indian residential schools.

    Buckshot said she dated Brazeau briefly in 1993 but broke up with him soon after she discovered she was pregnant with the first of her three children.

    She said she was concerned that Brazeau's visits with their son were inconsistent, so she sought to regulate matters through the Quebec courts in 2001.

    The Star cannot publish information contained in documents from Quebec family court.

    As a result of that process Buckshot said she began receiving bi-weekly child support, which is now $46.90 after it was raised by 2.5 per cent at the beginning of this year. Brazeau sends cheques to Revenue Quebec and the ministry sends a cheque to Buckshot twice a month.

    Revenue Quebec has suspended these payments three times – twice in 2004 and once in 2008.

    "We are writing to inform you that the debtor of support has not paid the amounts required under the act to facilitate the payment of support and that the (ministry) is taking steps to rectify the situation," says a letter dated Feb. 10, 2004. "In the meantime, however, the (ministry) has had to suspend your support payments."

    She received a letter with an identical message dated Dec. 10, 2004 and a letter dated March 6, 2008 again says her support payments were suspended.

    The letter lists a number of reasons why Revenue Quebec could not forward the payments – such as the debtor not having any income or the creditor not living in Quebec – but do not specify which applied to her situation.

    Buckshot said gives her son the child support to use as pocket money. "I remember telling him this is how much he pays and I think (my son) was upset because he couldn't believe he drives a Porsche," she said.

    The vehicle made waves when Brazeau started driving it around Parliament Hill but he said it is second-hand and he bought it before he learned of his appointment.

    Brazeau said he does not want to discuss the issue of his relationship with his son.

    "I'm not going to use the media from my vantage point to try and iron out this dirty laundry, so to speak," he said.

    "My goal is still to develop a relationship with my son in the future, because it is true that I have not seen him in the last eight years, but the reasons for that are beyond my control and so I don't think that this is in the best interests of my son," he said.

    He said he was aware some payments have been late "in terms of processing, but I have always issued cheques to Revenue Quebec in which they internally deal with forwarding the payment to the mother of my child."

    He added that he has been paying the amount he was ordered to "and if there's any adjustments that need to be made in the future. ... I will pay accordingly."

    Buckshot said friends and family have told her over the years to take Brazeau – who now makes $130,400 as a basic Senate salary – to court to increase his payments. She started the process when he first started working as a legal researcher at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but decided it would cost her too much time, stress and money.

    14 February 2009

    Past United States President George W. Bush


    A Political Valentine for America

    by Rosaria Atwater

    The following poem was originally posted on Novakeo.com on February 13, 2009.


    There once was a president who was a great fool,
    Made everyone wonder what he’d done in school.

    His speech and his grammar were always a blunder,
    As audiences cringed while the language he’d plunder.

    This great fearless leader ruined all, bit by bit,
    If I had the chance in his face I would spit!

    Though I can’t and I won’t for he is hiding now,
    If given the chance I would ask him just how

    He could make such a mess
    And cause so much duress.

    What on earth was he thinking
    Without so much as blinking?

    Bankrupting the country for him was a must
    His ugly, dumb face I would so love to bust!

    Though my feelings for him no mere words can tell
    He has caused so much pain and made life living hell.

    You ask what inspired this political rhyme?
    The horrors that stem from a chilling subprime.

    While his buddies on Wall Street live high off the hog
    The rest of us bastards are left in a fog.

    Cheap oil for our cars and our goods to be trucked,
    Regardless of whether our planet gets f*cked!

    Though he feels what he did was so mighty and high,
    You and I can begin kissing our old lives goodbye.


    Rosaria Atwater is a social and environmental commentator / activist living in New York. With pacifist leanings, she has no intention of ever badgering anyone and has absolutely no desire to meet Mr. Bush. She can be contacted at medxcripts@aol.com

    The Harper Conservatives


    Harper's 4 Per Cent Solution

    by "leftdog"

    As originally posted on: Buckdog
    February 13, 2009


    News that the Harper Conservative's have only released 4% of the total funds promised for infrastructure projects over the last two years has everyone wondering what the hell is going on?

    Allow me to lay out three possible reasons for the Tories complete inaction:

    1) They are incompetent as an administration and don't have a clue what they are doing.

    2) They are so geared towards approving funds ONLY for projects in constituencies that they hold or hope to hold, that they have bogged down with micro-political management.

    3) They had NO intention of ever delivering on the money they promised in the first place, hoping to win a headline or positive news story going into last fall's election.


    Your pick .... which one of these reasons is it?

    -Ottawa Citizen

    13 February 2009

    United States President Barack Obama and "the Ruling Class"


    Obama, The Ruling Class and the Future of Secession

    by Keith Preston

    As originally posted on: Attack the System
    February 3, 2009


    Thus far, the Obama presidency has moved along lines similar to what one might expect. The significance some would assign to his mulatto ancestry notwithstanding, Mr. Obama is very much an Establishment Man. The actions of the Obama administration in its earliest days indicate that the policies of this administration will largely be a continuation of those of the Bush administration. On economic policy, Obama has surrounded himself with neoliberals and called for deficit spending on additional bank and corporate welfare in the form of the “stimulus package.” The so-called “stimulus” is really just Phase Two of the extravagant “bailout” program enacted under President Bush. This should not be surprising, given that Obama’s primary financial backers during his campaign were Goldman-Sachs and other principal beneficiaries of the bailout, which Obama supported as a Senator. Of course, the “stimulus” program includes some additional social spending for the sake of appeasing various Democratic Party constituencies. This is the reason, along with sheer partisanship, that the Republicans are opposing the stimulus, which they are correct to do, even if they are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

    On foreign policy, it appears that the Obama administration, whose foreign policy team is comprised mostly of recycled Clintonites, will continue to pursue the same set of foreign policy goals as the Bush administration. Obama has called for increased military spending, expanding the war in Afghanistan, perhaps to Pakistan, and it appears renditions will also continue. Obama does seem to be scaling back operations at Guantanamo, yet only as a public relations maneuver so far as world opinion is concerned. It’s not like the prisoners at Guantanamo are going to be released. Indeed, it would appear that the only real difference between Bush and Obama on foreign policy is that the Obama government will be less bellicose in its formal rhetoric. As a protege’ of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama represents the liberal internationalist wing of the foreign policy elite, who are just as committed to the preservation of the Empire as the neoconservatives, but who are more cautious about openly giving the finger to allies, client states, and world opinion. Liberal internationalists realize that this is not conducive to the efficient administration of the Empire or its maintenance over the long haul, particularly given the current dependence of the U.S. economy on Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Arab lenders.

    Obama also kowtows to the Israel Lobby, as illustrated by his appearance before AIPAC prior to his election to the presidency and his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel. James Petras has observed that the Obama administration contains as many arch-Zionists as any previous administration. There is also some indication that Israel will go to war with Iran under Obama’s watch, which could likely lead to actual U.S. participation in such a war. In fact, the overall amount of U.S. military intervention may escalate under Obama, as it did under Bill Clinton.

    On “culture war” issues, Obama predictably leans somewhat to the left of the Bush government. So far, he has lifted the abortion-related “gag rule” and eased restrictions on stem cell research, and Obama has also signed an “equal pay for equal work” law as a reward for his middle-class feminist constituency. Yet Obama is far from being an ACLU civil libertarian. For instance, he voted as a Senator to authorize warrantless wiretaps and provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies engaged in such actions.

    I’ve written before that the election of Obama signifies a demographic, cultural and generational shift among the American electorate. The left side of the “culture war” now has the upper hand, if it did not already. The Democrats will likely be the dominant political party for the forseeable future due to the fact that those groups who vote Democratic are growing in number and those who vote Republican are shrinking. The Obama coalition includes the left-wing of the “old elite” (demonstrated by the Kennedys support for Obama), the New Class center-left welfare state professionals, the “bourgeois bohemians” that David Brooks has written about, upwardly mobile members of the traditional outgroups now in ascension (blacks, immigrants, Jews, feminists, gays), newer ideological movements like environmentalism, younger people and a wide variety of public sector dependents. This coalition will probably prove to be stable enough to sustain itself over the next few decades even if matters like economic downturn occasionally produce a victory for the Republicans.

    Because the liberal side of the culture wars is gaining does not mean that the culture wars are over. While there is not enough of a constituency for the kind of cultural conservatism represented by the religious right or the right-wing Republicans for these to achieve a majority in a national election, proponents of such an outlook are a large and vocal enough group to continue to be a force for political and cultural polarization for some time, even if their prospects for long-term victory are dim.

    Indeed, the evidence indicates that the U.S. Congress of 2008 was the most polarized of any Congress in 120 years! The degree to which Americans are polarized has increased even in the last five years. Further, as Bill Bishop has shown, Americans are becoming more and more geographically segregated along cultural, ideological, religious, economic, ethnic, racial and generational lines.

    As an old-fashioned anarchist who wishes to see an end to the U.S. empire internationally and the end of the Big Brother state domestically, I see this polarization as a welcome phenomenon. It is difficult for a state to survive when there is no consensus on primary values. If the cultural Left is going to be in the ascendency, then let’s hope that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et.al. turn up the volume even louder and keep the polarization coming. Those guys really aren’t my cup of tea, but I’m all for increased divisiveness.

    Divisiveness will likely escalate for a variety of reasons. One of these will be the widening gap between socio-economic classes, which Obama shows no signs of doing anything about. Another will be the social conflict associated with increased statism as politics becomes a spoils system for different groups looking to plunder one another. Increased diversity will likely result in increased disharmony in many ways, and the massive American police state will likely be used to squelch economic unrest and sharpening demographic conflict.

    If secession by regions and communities is the most viable method of dissolving the Empire, as I believe it is, then it would seem that we revolutionaries should devote ourselves to the following tasks:

    1) Continue to popularize the idea of secession. A Zogby poll taken last year showed that twenty-two percent of Americans support the right of secession, with eighteen percent saying they would support a secession movement in their area. Additionally, forty-four percent say the U.S. political system is broken and cannot be fixed. We need to get these numbers up.

    2) Continue to develop actual secession movements and build constituencies for these movements. For instance, the dominance of the cultural Left is likely to increase support for separatist ideas on the Right. There is a prototype for this in the rise of the militia movement during the Clinton era. Likewise, Obama is likely to prove to be a disappointment to many on the Left, both blacks and whites, and this combined with increased economic misfortune may generated secession movements from the Left. The nationwide, continent-wide proliferation of secessionist tendencies from the Right and Left against the ruling class Center would be a highly welcome event.

    3) Encourage greater polarization. In some ways, we should think of Limbaugh, Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Barney Frank and Arianna Huffington as the public relations arm for a future pan-secessionist movement as it is figures such as these who serve to create the polarization likely to result in eventual political splintering.

    4) Build cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the ruling class common enemy whenever feasible. If Afro-centrics, Black Muslims, militiamen and Ku Klux Klansmen can engage in common action, then what the hell is wrong with the rest of us?

    Canadian Senator / Former Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) National Chief Patrick Brazeau


    Brazeau blames 'powerful enemies' for hits to reputation

    by Sue Bailey

    THE CANADIAN PRESS
    February 10, 2009


    OTTAWA – Patrick Brazeau's landing in the plush red chamber of sober second thought hasn't exactly been a soft one.

    In his maiden speech to the Senate, the new Conservative appointee blamed "powerful enemies" in the "native establishment" for attacks on his reputation.

    He also evoked the memory of his mother, who died of cancer in 2005. Her wisdom and strength, he said Tuesday, have echoed in his mind "as I have endured the repeated public assailing of my character."

    Brazeau, 34, is a self-described champion of fiscal accountability. But the former head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been awash in bad PR since his controversial Senate appointment just before Christmas.

    The bruising headlines began with his initial bid to stay on as national chief of the congress while serving as a senator.

    Brazeau abandoned the plan to collect two six-figure salaries at public expense after conceding a potential for conflict of interest.

    He has also fended off unproven allegations of sexual harassment by a former congress worker, now before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. He says an independent report cleared him of the claims involving phone calls and text messages, but those findings have not been made public.

    Health Canada raised questions in a draft audit about how the congress spent federal funds while Brazeau was vice-chief, though he says such matters have since been resolved.

    And the novice senator defended himself Tuesday as a loving and responsible father. This, after the mother of his 14-year-old son, whom he hasn't spoken to for eight years, reported three instances in the last five years when she did not receive support cheques of less than $100 per month.

    Brazeau says he sent the money, and blamed bureaucratic snags.

    The father of two other children, with a baby on the way, says he is open to increasing support for his estranged son now that he is earning $130,000 a year as a senator.

    He has also dismissed any suggestion that his cultivated image as a poverty-fighting native leader clashes with his arrival on Parliament Hill in a 2006 Porsche SUV.

    Many Liberal senators quietly filed out of the chamber as Brazeau cited his efforts to "dismantle the native establishment" as the likely source for such personal attacks.

    He went on to praise Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his work to gradually undermine the Indian Act in favour of "a more reflective, pragmatic, inclusive and collaborative way forward. . .

    "Hope is not something we should dream of. Hope is something we should create."

    The Prime Minister's Office has steadfastly deflected criticism of Brazeau and the Senate vetting process that led to his appointment.

    Many senators earlier declined to discuss Brazeau as they arrived for the daily sitting.

    Independent Senator Marcel Prud'homme, who was celebrating 45 years as an MP and then a senator, said he made a point of drawing his young colleague aside to stress the responsibility now on his young shoulders.

    Young aboriginal people especially need role models, he said.

    "I think he's young. And we need young people like him to be extremely active all across Canada with his own people. I think he could be influenced by the judgment of older senators."

    Brazeau described one of his own role models: Brian Mulroney.

    Brazeau recalled being a 10-year-old boy struck by the charisma of the then-prime minister who, he said, emanated leadership traits "that I sincerely wished to emulate."

    12 February 2009

    "Lincolnism"


    Lincolnism Today: The Long Marriage of Centralized Power and Concentrated Wealth

    by Daniel Larison

    The following essay is reprinted from Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (February 2009).


    In the Anglo-American experience, the partisans of concentrated wealth and advocates for political centralization have long been connected. Over the last three centuries, that connection has grown stronger, and in the United States this process accelerated dramatically during and after the Lincoln administration. Lincolnism, the idea that the central state can and should use its coercive apparatus to serve the narrow interests of an economic elite at the expense of the commonwealth, prevailed decisively in the War of Secession and during the decades that followed, with high tariffs, railroad subsidies, and the apportionment of public lands. Times have changed and so, too, have the specific policies that Lincolnists champion. But their basic goal remains the same, and the interests being served by Lincolnism over the years are remarkably similar in kind to those championed by Lincoln himself. In the end, Lincolnism is essentially a form of state capitalism, which Clyde Wilson has defined as “a regime of highly concentrated private ownership, subsidized and protected by government.”

    Most of the commentary and reporting on the federal government’s financial-sector interventions remarked on the supposed irony of a “pro-market” administration embracing an expansive role for government in response to the crisis, but throughout its tenure the Bush White House consistently geared its policies and regulations to suit large financial firms. Adopting costly measures to socialize the risk of lending institutions and shore up large, overleveraged banks at public expense, the Bush administration stayed faithful to its state-capitalist roots, shaping policy according to the particular interests of major corporations and the financial industry. With the bailout, the confusion of public and private interests can be said to have reached a new level, but the cooperative relationship between Washington and Wall Street did not fundamentally change—it merely intensified.

    Economic centralization and consolidated power are thriving in the wake of the financial crisis, as both tend to increase when the public is panicked and willing to cede more power and control to the very institutions that have already egregiously abused what power they previously possessed. Opponents of the bailout were fragmented and easily cowed by market turmoil. No common set of principles or objections animated the odd right-left alliance of convenience that voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and the slightest pressure was sufficient to break the limited resistance of many House members to the bill. Paradoxically, many of the opponents of the largest Wall Street bailout came from the party of Lincoln. In a rare moment of clarity, even if they lacked the language to describe it, a majority of House Republicans recognized that state capitalism and the free market were in conflict and that the interests their party leaders served truly had no connection to their purported principles.

    There is scarcely any coherent opposition to the collusion of government and what Lord Bolingbroke and Jefferson identified as “the moneyed interest.” They were referring to the combination of financial and commercial power that found its political defenders among the Whigs of both Britain and America. Today, the moneyed interest enjoys the support of the leadership of both U.S. political parties. Those who expect anything different from the newly inaugurated protégé of George Soros and Warren Buffett are bound to be disappointed. Nor is there much more awareness of the severe dependency to which government policy, past and present, has reduced American citizens and which will facilitate ever-greater consolidation in the future. One of the crucial reasons for this lack of awareness is a general loss of understanding of the relationship between economic and political independence. Most Americans believe that they are enjoying economic liberty when they yoke themselves to increasingly large-scale firms.

    Over 40 years ago, Canadian philosopher George Grant said that American conservatives must oppose economic centralization if they seriously hope to pursue political decentralization. The opposing tradition, the Country tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, always held that this alliance of wealth and government has been antithetical to political and economic liberty as well as to the proper functioning of constitutional government. That tradition also held that permitting this collusion privileged the interests of a relative few with access and ties to the centers of power. When Jackson fought the Bank and other Southerners later declared their fear of “bank rule,” they were opposing the same sort of collusion in another form.

    Over the last few months, we have become all too familiar with the phrase “too big to fail,” which acknowledges that economic centralization on such a large scale, whose efficiency and virtues we have heard praised for decades, represents a grave threat to the health of the national economy during a normal correction. Having become dependent on a few large institutions, we are told that we must prop up the same institutions and trust the same government that singularly failed the public. Instead of seeing the necessity of more broadly distributing wealth and power, Lincolnists insist that the collusion that helped create the current crisis must be deepened rather than abandoned.

    It is perhaps fitting that the only other man elected president from Illinois has already embraced many of the tenets of Lincolnism. Barack Obama’s attempt to connect himself to Abraham Lincoln goes well beyond his publicity stunt of announcing his candidacy at the statehouse in Springfield. Obama, like many of his predecessors, embraces state capitalism, which is why so many of his early appointments have won praise for their “centrism” and “pragmatism.” From what we can gather so far, Obama’s Treasury Department is likely to be even more active in intervening in the financial sector. As head of the New York Federal Reserve, Obama’s nominee for treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, endorsed each of Secretary Henry Paulson’s and Chairman Ben Bernanke’s bailout decisions, and Obama himself supported the bailout legislation in the early fall. One of the consequences of the bailout debate in the months since the financial crisis became particularly acute has been that the Democratic Party, already reconciled to financial interests during the Clinton years, has become even more closely allied to Wall Street.

    Given Obama’s appointments and his own record, it’s a safe bet that the Obama administration will be as wedded to Lincolnism as the past three administrations. Though his top nominee for U.S. trade representative, Xavier Becerra, is known for having second thoughts on his support for NAFTA, President Obama is not going to renegotiate NAFTA in any significant way, and he will likely attempt to resurrect the Doha round of international trade talks. As the global recession unfolds, we can expect Obama to modify and institutionalize the ad hoc G-20 coordination of economic policy that began at the tail end of 2008, and we will see an attempt to use existing international institutions to secure the interests of multinational corporations. An ambitious internationalist such as Obama will pursue a more coordinated global state capitalism, building on the example that the WTO has already provided and spreading Lincolnism worldwide.

    In his April 2007 Chicago Global Affairs Council speech, Obama famously said that the security of the United States is inextricably tied to the security of every other nation; practically speaking, this was a theoretical justification for intervention everywhere. Obama’s statement also revealed his view of international relations in terms of extensive interdependence. With respect to economic policy, this special emphasis on interdependence implies that his administration may push for coordinated, transnational mechanisms for bailing out failing multinational firms. As we become more and more dependent on foreign investors to buy our debt, we may be told by future administrations that stabilizing vulnerable European or Chinese or other foreign financial sectors will be necessary to the functioning of our own economy.

    Lincolnism’s corporate-government alliances also create incentives for firms with vested interests in foreign and domestic government contracts to support policies that promise to bring them additional business. The most straightforward example of the state taking on additional, unnecessary risks to “open new markets” is the ongoing push for NATO expansion ever eastward for the benefit of defense contractors. Corporate-government alliances also create opportunities for the government to co-opt corporations in the name of national security, which we have seen most recently in the use of telecommunications companies to conduct illegal surveillance operations and the subsequent granting of immunity to the firms that helped the government break the law.

    Healthy republican government and Lincolnism are entirely incompatible. Through its support for concentrated wealth, Lincolnism establishes an oligarchy that dominates the polity, whether formally or informally, and makes self-government impossible. Classical republicanism requires the subordination of private interests to the good of the commonwealth. A republic must not become captive to one faction, whereas it is advantageous to both state and private factions to reduce citizens to dependency on one or both. For all of Lincoln’s misleading rhetoric of preserving “government by the people,” Lincolnism has always meant the rule of the few who are qualified primarily by their wealth and proximity to power. It is natural, then, that such an oligarchic, state-capitalist system fears above all things the mobilization of a populist protest against its misrule and usurpations. This fear acknowledges the basic illegitimacy and misrepresentation at the heart of the entire enterprise, which is vulnerable to losing all credibility once critics begin to probe beneath the surface.

    Lincolnism today is the attempt to maintain the antithesis of the Country tradition, that of the Court, in a country whose people are still somewhat attached to the ideals of Jeffersonian republicanism insofar as they believe that they, and not the princes of Washington and New York, ultimately control their government. The good news for populists is that the Wall Street bailout was such an obvious and transparent swindle that many more citizens have become suspicious of the federal government’s exploitations of crisis and invocations of emergency powers. The instinctive revulsion of at least a plurality of the people at the prospect of the bailout suggests a healthy level of distrust of both government and corporate leaders. Lincolnists consistently frame government giveaways and gifts to private interests as vital for the national interest and the common good. In so doing, they conceal the antirepublican character of the ideology of the first Republican president.

    Halliburton Company and KBR, Inc.


    Halliburton, KBR Plead Guilty to Cheney-Era Bribery Charges

    by Jason Leopold

    As originally posted on: The Public Record
    February 11, 2009


    Halliburton and its former subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), pleaded guilty Wednesday to five-counts of violating federal bribery laws and will pay the federal government $402 million to settle a decade-long criminal investigation into claims the company paid off intermediaries of the notoriously corrupt Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and some of his subordinates to win a lucrative construction contract for a natural gas liquefaction plant while former Vice President Dick Cheney headed the corporation, the Justice Department announced.

    KBR entered guilty pleas to a five-count criminal information in federal court in Houston before U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison. KBR pleaded guilty to conspiring with its joint-venture partners and others to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by authorizing, promising and paying bribes to a range of Nigerian government officials, including officials of the executive branch of the Nigerian government officials and others in exchange for securing construction contracts.

    KBR also pleaded guilty to four counts of violating the FCPA related to the joint venture’s payment of tens of millions of dollars in "consulting fees" to two agents for use in bribing Nigerian government officials.

    Under the terms of the plea agreement, KBR agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for a three-year period to review the design and implementation of KBR’s compliance program and to make reports to KBR and the Department of Justice. KBR also agreed to cooperate with the agency in its ongoing criminal investigation investigations. The fines, the second largest ever recorded under the FCPA, will be paid in installments, according to federal court documents.

    "Today's guilty plea by KBR ends one chapter in the Department’s long-running investigation of corruption in the award of $6 billion in construction contracts in Nigeria. This bribery scheme involved both senior foreign government officials and KBR corporate executives who took actions to insulate themselves from the reach of U.S. law enforcement," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita M. Glavin of the Criminal Division. "The successful prosecution of KBR, and its agreement to pay a more than $400 million fine, demonstrates that no one is above the law, and that the Department is determined to seek penalties that are commensurate with, and will deter, this kind of serious criminal misconduct."

    Additionally, KBR’s parent company, KBR Inc., and its former parent company, Halliburton Company, also reached a settlement of a related civil complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's complaint charged KBR Inc. with violating the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, and charged KBR and Halliburton with engaging in books and records and internal controls violations related to the bribery. KBR Inc. and Halliburton jointly agreed to pay $177 million in disgorgement of profits relating to those violations.

    "This case, which represents the second largest fine ever in an FCPA prosecution, demonstrates the FBI’s continued commitment to aggressively investigate violations of this law," said Andrew R. Bland III, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Houston Field Office. "We will continue to investigate these matters by working in partnership with other law enforcement agencies, both foreign and domestic, to ensure that corporate executives who have been found guilty of bribing foreign officials in return for lucrative business contracts, are punished to the full extent of the law."

    "FCPA violations have been and will continue to be dealt with severely by the SEC and other law enforcement agencies," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "Any company that seeks to put greed ahead of the law by making illegal payments to win business should beware that we are working vigorously across borders to detect and punish such illicit conduct."

    Neither Halliburton nor KBR, which was spun off into a separate company two years ago and is now known simply as KBR, spokespeople would comment. Spokespeople for both firms issued a prepared statement that said, “Halliburton has agreed to pay in eight installments over the next two years $382 million of $402 million in criminal fines payable by KBR as part of KBR's resolution of the DOJ investigation, with KBR consenting to pay the remaining $20 million.”

    “With respect to the SEC, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Halliburton consented to the entry of a final judgment that permanently enjoins Halliburton from violating the record-keeping and internal control provisions of the FCPA,” according to Halliburton’s statement. “As part of Halliburton's settlement, Halliburton agreed to be jointly and severally liable with KBR for and, as a result of the indemnity, to pay to the SEC, $177 million in disgorgement. KBR has agreed that Halliburton's indemnification obligations with respect to the DOJ and SEC investigations have been fully satisfied.”

    The plea deal and settlement between the government and KBR as outlined in Friday’s court documents was arranged at the same time KBR awarded a new $35 million defense contract to build a power plant and electrical distribution center in Iraq even though the company is under criminal investigation over the electrocution of two U.S. Soldiers who allegedly were killed as a result of KBR’s shoddy electrical work. KBR announced last week that the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the company the contract.

    KBR also has handled lucrative U.S. government support contracts for U.S. troops in other countries. In 2002, Halliburton, now based in Dubai, was on the brink of bankruptcy related to a massive financial settlement it paid out to settle asbestos litigation. But in November of that year, Halliburton’s financial troubles disappeared.

    At the urging of unnamed officials in the Office of the[n] Vice President [Dick Cheney], according to Defense Department documents, the DoD recommended the Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to KBR to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires in addition to "assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations."

    That was a deal hatched five months before the start of the Iraq war, when the Bush administration said publicly that it had not been working on war plans.

    "The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 2003," the Army Corps of Engineers said on its web site. "This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential requirements to the business community."

    A March 6, 2003 internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official says "action" on the multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" within Cheney's office.

    The e-mail says Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, received authorization from then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to “execute” the Restore Iraqi Oil contract to Halliburton in 2002.

    Feith was one of the architects of the Iraq war who operated the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that exaggerated the Iraqi threat and provided the White House with bogus information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

    The email said Feith approved elements in the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office."

    Two days after the email was sent, the Army Corps of Engineers formally awarded Halliburton’s KBR unit the contract, without reviewing bids from other companies.

    Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, said the Halliburton/KBR Iraq deal represented “the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse, who testified before Congress in June 2005, was demoted for speaking out about contract fraud.

    In the case of the bribes paid to Nigerian officials, a formal investigation was launched in 2003 when Georges Krammer, a former executive French company Technip, a member of the consortium for the Bonny Island project, informed French magistrate Renaud Van Ruymbeke that the contracts his group obtained came as a result of payments Tesler made to Nigerian officials from a slush fund the lawyer allegedly managed.

    In a quarterly filing last October, Halliburton said it was subpoenaed by the Justice Department and SEC over the use – by a KBR-led consortium known as TSKJ – “of an immigration services provider, apparently managed by a Nigerian immigration official, to which approximately $1.8 million in payments in excess of costs of visas were allegedly made between approximately 1997 and the termination of the provider in December 2004 and our 2007 reporting of this matter to the government.”

    Last September, Albert “Jack” Stanley, KBR’s former chief executive, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Justice Department said he paid more than $180 million in bribes to Nigerian government officials so KBR could win the Bonny Island liquefied natural gas plant contract.

    Stanley is a close associate of Cheney who was promoted by the former vice president in 1998 to head Kellogg, Brown & Root, Halliburton’s engineering and construction subsidiary. Stanley faces seven years in prison and nearly $11 million in restitution payments. His sentencing is scheduled for May 6.

    According to last year’s plea deal, Stanley started paying bribes began in 1995, the year Cheney was named chief executive of the corporation, and ended when Stanley was fired in 2004.

    As part of the plea deal, Stanley cooperated with the federal government’s investigation into the matter, which may result in criminal charges against other KBR executives in the months ahead.

    The Justice Department said Wednesday that at crucial junctures before the award of the consortium contracts, KBR admitted that Stanley, and others met with three successive former holders of a top-level office in the executive branch of the Nigerian government to ask the office holder to designate a representative with whom the joint venture should negotiate bribes to Nigerian government officials.

    Stanley and others negotiated bribe amounts with the office holders’ representatives and agreed to hire the two agents to pay the bribes. According to court documents, the joint venture paid approximately $132 million to the first agent, a consulting company incorporated in Gibraltar, and more than $50 million to the second agent, a global trading company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, during the course of the bribery scheme. KBR admitted that it had intended for these agents’ fees to be used, in part, for bribes to Nigerian government officials.

    Documentary evidence showing Cheney was aware that the bribes took place during his five years he spent as Halliburton’s CEO has not surfaced. But his role in the scheme was scrutinized by one foreign judge.

    According to previous published accounts of the bribery scandal, the bribes Stanley paid was laundered through UK lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, who served as a consultant to KBR after it was formed in a 1998 merger that Cheney engineered between Halliburton and Dresser Industries.

    For more than a year, a French magistrate poured over evidence to determine whether Cheney may have been responsible under French law for at least one of four bribery payments to the Nigerian officials.

    Under French law, “the head of a company can be charged with ‘misuse of corporate assets’ for bribes paid by any employee – even if the executive didn’t know about the improper payments.” Authorities in the UK and Switzerland also have been investigating the matter.

    However, during Cheney’s tenure, Halliburton did expand operations in Nigeria despite human rights abuses by Gen. Abacha’s regime and environmental damage to the Niger Delta caused by international oil companies, Shell and Chevron, both of which signed contracts with Halliburton subsidiaries.

    In April 2000, Brown & Root Energy Services, a business unit of Halliburton, was selected by Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria to work on the development of an offshore oil and gas facility, the first of its kind for Shell.

    The deal, valued at $300 million, has been questioned by activists who have tried to hold Shell accountable for the pollution and the human rights abuses that have harmed Nigerian indigenous groups in a part of the Niger Delta known as Ogoniland.

    In its four-plus decades of oil exploration in Nigeria, Shell has been responsible for repeated environmental calamities, involving oil spills, noxious gas flares, cleared forests, despoiled farmland and pipeline blowouts.

    Gen. Abacha’s appreciation for the money that Shell’s operations put into his coffers made him an eager ally when the oil industry faced popular protests, which were crushed by the dictator’s army and security forces.

    In 1995, the year Cheney joined Halliburton, renowned writer and environmental advocate Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his colleagues were hanged by the Abacha government for their efforts to prevent Shell from continuing to poison the environment of the Niger Delta.

    It is estimated that more than 2,000 people have been murdered for their involvement in protests against Shell’s activities in the Delta. Most of those murdered were Ogoni who had rallied behind Saro-Wiwa in the early 1990s.

    In 1998, Gen. Abacha died of an apparent heart attack.

    Last year, oil field services company Baker Hughes Inc. paid $44.1 million and agreed to hire an outside monitor to oversee its compliance activities to settle claims related to a federal bribery probe of its operations in Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan.

    The governments of Switzerland and the United Kingdom launched their own investigation into Halliburton and KBR over bribes paid to Nigerian government officials. Those probes are still ongoing.

    11 February 2009

    Manitoba Lawyer Paul Walsh


    Case 02-09

    PAUL VICTOR WALSH, Q.C.
    Winnipeg, Manitoba

    Called to the Bar
    June 26, 1968

    Particulars of Charges
    Professional Misconduct

  • failure to serve client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner
  • failure to observe a proper standard of conduct

    Date of Hearing
    January 22, 2003

    Panel
    H. Leonoff, Q.C. (Chair)
    A. Sweatman, Q.C.
    R. Krause

    Disposition

  • Fine of $4,000.00
  • Costs of $2,000.00

    Counsel
    D. Senft for The Law Society of Manitoba
    D. Margolis, Q.C. for the Member



    Failure to Serve / Failure to Observe a Proper Standard of Conduct



    Facts

    In April, 1997, a client retained Mr. Walsh on a civil litigation matter where previous counsel had retained a business valuator to provide expert advice. In September, 1997, the client sought assistance from Mr. Walsh in dealing with the business valuator's outstanding accounts for services rendered. During the period from July, 1997 to February, 1998, Mr. Walsh was involved in discussions with both the client and the business valuator regarding the outstanding accounts and he received some of the correspondence that had been exchanged between the two parties.

    In February, 1998, the client faxed to Mr. Walsh a copy of a demand letter that had been received from the valuator's lawyer and sought Mr. Walsh's immediate attention and advice. In April, 1998, a Statement of Claim was filed between the business valuator and the client, seeking judgment for the outstanding accounts.

    In June, 1998, an Order for Garnishment (Before Judgment) was granted by the Court of Queen's Bench and, a few days later, on June 29, 1998, Mr. Walsh's firm was served with a Notice of Garnishment (Before Judgment).

    On or about July 24, 1998, the client terminated Mr. Walsh's retainer in the related civil litigation matter. As of that date, Mr. Walsh had not informed the client that his firm had been served with the Notice of Garnishment (Before Judgment).

    At the time when Mr. Walsh's firm was served with the Notice of Garnishment (Before Judgment), Mr. Walsh was acting as counsel for the client in the related litigation matter. At the time of service of the Notice on Mr. Walsh's firm, the firm was holding funds to the credit of the client in its pooled trust bank account.

    Mr. Walsh failed to comply with the requirements of Queen's Bench Rule 60.08(9) or 60.08(11), which are made applicable to garnishment (before judgment) by Queen's Bench Rule 46.14(5) when he did not pay to the plaintiff valuator or into the Court of Queen's Bench, within 7 days, the sum that he was holding in his trust bank account at the time his firm was served with the Notice. He also failed to file a Garnishee's Statement with the court.

    As of April, 2000, the date when counsel for the valuator complained about Mr. Walsh's conduct to the Law Society, Mr. Walsh had neither paid the sum in his pooled trust bank account to the valuator or the court, nor had he filed a Garnishee's Statement in compliance with the Queen's Bench Rules.

    Decision and Comments

    Mr. Walsh entered a plea of guilty to the charges of professional misconduct. The Committee accepted Mr. Walsh's admissions and found that his actions constituted professional misconduct. The Committee noted a particular concern about the fact that Mr. Walsh had a number of previous convictions for failing to serve clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner.

    Penalty

    The Committee accepted the joint submission of counsel and ordered that Mr. Walsh pay a fine of $4,000.00 and costs to the Society in the amount of $2,000.00 as a contribution towards the cost of the investigation, prosecution and hearing of the matter.

  • 10 February 2009

    The City of Winnipeg


    What does 500K a year buy

    by "Mr. Nobody"

    As originally posted on: A City Trapped by it's Past
    February 1, 2009


    For that matter what would 250K a year buy. Seems to me, if a process was initiated at City Hall to return tax dollars to Wards, I am sure people in those communities could use the money more wisely.

    If somehow a few hundred thousand bucks could be sent to each Ward every single year, I think communities would become healthier and the money could be targeted by grass roots volunteers better the City inspired boards.

    The idea is a little far out but, when you think of it, its your tax dollars benefitting your community directly. No red tape, just cash for projects that need to be done NOW.

    In too many situations there are strings attached to fund raising and projects take along time to come to fruition.

    Personally, I am amazed how very little is contributed by Councilors, MLA's and MP's from their discretionaty funding.

    I think grass roots organizations can stimulate the economy while cleaning up their 'hoods if they took more responsibility. Its time for the trickle down economics to finally reach the last rung....Tax Payers.

    The fund would have to generate at least 7 million dollars a year in interest to meet the high end of 500K. Whats the primer, about 120 million. Not to much for a City our size, especially when you consider the lifelong benefits. Of course, this would be on top of a reorganized parks system, which would still be responsible for ongoing programs.



    Some benefits

    - Happier Citizens
    - Healthier Communities
    - Economic stimulation
    - Less Bureacracy
    - Ability to plan for the years ahead
    - Targetted programs for Youth and Seniors
    - A sense of control and responsibility for your neck of the woods

    Just a random thought and looking 50 to 100 years out.

    09 February 2009

    Manitoba Lawyer Paul Walsh


    Case 96-29

    PAUL VICTOR WALSH, Q.C.
    Winnipeg, Manitoba

    Called to the Bar
    June 26, 1968

    Particulars of Charges
    Professional Misconduct

  • failure to server clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner (2 counts)

    Date of Hearing
    January 23, 1997

    Panel
    Douglas G. Ward (Chair)
    Renate C. Krause
    George E. Chapman, Q.C.

    Disposition

  • Fine of $6,000.00
  • Costs of $5,000.00

    Counsel
    Randy B. McNicol, Q.C. and Joe R. Gallagher for the Law Society
    Richard J. Wolson, Q.C. for the member


    Failure to Serve Clients


    Facts

    Mr. Walsh entered a guilty plea to two counts of failing to serve his clients in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner.

    Client A retained Mr. Walsh to oppose an application brought by the client's wife to vary an order of joint custody of the child of the marriage.

    On two separate occasions, Mr. Walsh undertook in writing to provide the wife's solicitor with an affidavit from Mr. Walsh's client in opposition to the wife's application. He failed to comply with those undertakings.

    Thereafter, because Mr. Walsh had noted an incorrect date in his diary, he failed to attend court to represent his client when the wife's application to vary the order of joint custody came on for hearing. In the absence of Mr. Walsh and his client, the court made an order granting the wife sole custody of the child of the marriage.

    Mr. Walsh then failed to proceed with an application to set aside that variation order on a timely basis and he was ultimately discharged by his client.

    In respect to Client B, Mr. Walsh was retained to represent that client in connection with divorce proceedings and a concurrent application for interim maintenance that had been brought by the client's wife.

    After accepting the client's retainer, Mr. Walsh failed to attend court on behalf of the client when the wife's application for interim relief was heard.

    Mr. Walsh also failed to file an answer to the divorce petition or take any other steps to protect the interests of his client.

    Finally, Mr. Walsh failed to attend court on behalf of his client when the divorce petition came on for hearing.

    In both instances, orders were made against Mr. Walsh's client in his absence.

    Decision and Comments

    Mr. Walsh admitted the allegations in the citation and conceded that they constituted professional misconduct.

    While the Committee noted that lawyers are not and cannot be expected to be perfect, and that diarizing systems are not infallible, the Committee was of the view that Mr. Walsh's failure to take action on a timely basis to redress the harm caused by his omissions was not understandable or excusable.

    Penalty

    The Committee imposed a fine of $6,000.00 and further ordered Mr. Walsh to pay costs of $5,000.00.

    The fine and costs are to be paid at a rate of $1,000.00 per month, without interest, commencing April 1, 1997.

  • 08 February 2009

    "The Kleptocracy"


    Instead of a manifesto

    by Thomas Knapp

    As originally posted on: Repudiate the Debt!
    February 3, 2009


    A spectre is haunting America — the spectre of debt repudiation.

    For a growing number of Americans, the era of complacency has come to an end.

    The housing and banking collapses of 2008 forever shattered their confidence in the ability of government bureaucrats and regulators to protect whatever measure of hard-earned wealth regular citizens might amass.

    The ongoing “bailout” drama has likewise shattered their confidence in the intent of those bureaucrats to serve any interests which conflict with the demands of their Wall Street masters, the corporate kleptocrats who seek their profits not through the voluntary mechanisms of the market but through the coercive powers of the state.

    Not content with their seizure of a large percentage of Americans’ income year after year, our politicians and their corporate masters have built up a mountain of debt now exceeding $10 trillion and set to contiue growing at a future rate of more than $1 trillion per year according to the recently inaugurated President of the United States.

    Helpless in the face of looming economic collapse, more and more Americans long to seize control of their own destinies but fear that they lack the means to do so.

    That means, however, exists. It is the Achilles’ heel of the kleptocracy, and it is nothing more than a word:

    “No.”

    No, President Obama, we will not tolerate further unbalanced budgets. The era of deficit spending is over.

    No, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, we will not tolerate continued service of the “national debt.” You and your predecessors ran it up, but we’re not going to pay it off.

    No, Congressman or Congresswoman or candidate, we will not elect or re-elect you if you vote to raise the debt ceiling, or vote in favor of an unbalanced budget, or vote in favor of appropriations for debt service, or fail to support a constitutional amendment for repudiation of the debt.

    No, speculators in government debt, you’re not going to get over. You loaned money to the politicians in full knowledge of the fact that it could only be paid back by the sweat of our brows and on the labor of our children’s backs. Our labor and our children’s labor is neither yours nor theirs to dispose of. Take notice and act accordingly. Cut your losses while you can.

    We are, at present, a minority — but as Samuel Adams said, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds.” We will set those brushfires and we will become the majority that the kleptocrats fear.

    We refuse responsibility for their debt, and we will express and implement that refusal by all available and necessary means.

    They will hear our refusals from the soapbox.

    They will count our refusals when their elections officials open the ballot box each November, and when their Internal Revenue employees check the mailbox each April.

    And if they press the issue too far, our forefathers taught us that the cartridge box remains available as a last resort.

    07 February 2009

    Newfoundland and Labrador Lawyer Ernest Gittens (a/k/a Ernie Gittens)


    Discipline Notes

    As originally published: Benchers' Notes
    June 2001


    Suspension

    Ernest L Gittens was suspended by Order of Benchers dated June 7, 2001. Benchers found Mr Gittens guilty of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a solicitor and of violating principles contained in the Code of Professional Conduct, mainly failure to act with integrity, failure to maintain impartiality, failure to avoid conflict of interest and failure to avoid questionable conduct.

    Benchers Ordered that Mr Gittens be suspended for a period of two months, commencing July 1, 2001 and imposed a fine of $5,000. Benchers also Ordered that Mr Gittens pay the expenses incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint.

    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Harper Conservatives


    Harper drops suit against Liberals over Cadman allegations

    by Daniel Leblanc

    As originally published in: The Globe and Mail
    February 7, 2009


    OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has abandoned his $3.5-million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over allegations that he knew of Conservative efforts to bribe a dying MP in 2005.

    Friday's move was in direct contradiction with Mr. Harper's past vows to take the matter to a total victory in front of a judge.

    "The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party has ever made," Mr. Harper said last March, speaking about Stéphane Dion.

    The matter was settled, without an apology or a trial, and with all sides refusing to comment.

    Joseph Magnet, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said the decision fuels the impression that the lawsuit was an attempt by Mr. Harper, who last fall was about to fight an election, to "deflect attention" from the furor, which has since subsided.

    "These defamation suits … manage a crisis by mounting an offence," Prof. Magnet said. "They push the problem down the line in time, and it's maybe what happened here."

    The B.C. reporter whose biography of former MP Chuck Cadman was at the heart of the controversy said he did not see the move coming.

    "It's completely anti-climactic," Tom Zytaruk said in an interview.

    He added that he is now waiting to see if he will receive an apology for Conservative allegations that he doctored a tape in which Mr. Harper spoke of "financial considerations" involving Mr. Cadman.

    "Do I expect an apology? No, but it would be nice to have one," Mr. Zytaruk said.

    The reporter from Surrey, B.C., said he was not in a financial position to defend himself against oft-repeated allegations that he fabricated quotes attributed to Mr. Harper in his book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story."

    "What this shows … is that people in positions of power in this country can say anything they want about Joe Average and there is nothing he or she can do about it," he said.

    In a first for a sitting prime minister, Mr. Harper sued the Liberal Party last March over statements that he knew of alleged attempts to bribe Mr. Cadman with a $1-million life-insurance policy in return for a vote against the then-Liberal government.

    The Conservative case was weakened last October when it emerged that one of the party's own experts raised doubts over the tape-doctoring allegation. According to an analysis by a former FBI sound expert hired by the Conservatives, the micro-cassette of the interview was not altered, except for an over-recording that started after any contentious statement.

    The revelation left party officials squirming, and bolstered the Liberal case.

    The Conservative lawsuit hit another bump when lead lawyer Richard Dearden inexplicably quit last November.

    In a joint statement Friday, the Liberal Party and the Conservatives said the matter was dropped and that no other comments would be made.

    06 February 2009

    The Harper Conservatives


    78 per cent of Building Canada Fund announcements made in Conservative ridings

    As originally posted on: Liberal.ca
    February 5, 2009


    OTTAWA – A review of the first billion dollars of project-specific announcements made under the Building Canada Fund since 2007 shows that more than three-quarters of projects were in Conservative-held ridings, Liberal Infrastructure Critic Gerard Kennedy said today.

    “Given this government’s history of partisan tactics, this latest revelation can hardly be seen as mere coincidence,” said Mr. Kennedy. “Mr. Harper continues to erode his credibility – particularly in his approach to infrastructure funding – with these kinds of practices.”

    Of specific infrastructure projects announced across Canada in 2007 and 2008, 77.8 per cent of them were in Conservative ridings (see attached backgrounder). In contrast, the Conservatives represent only 46.4 per cent of the ridings in Canada.

    “It’s bad enough that the Conservatives sat on billions of dollars of earmarked infrastructure funds while the economy was suffering and Canadians were losing their jobs, but now we find out that of those funds they plan to dispense, they made sure they took care of their own political backyards first,” said Mr. Kennedy.

    “This is the worst form of pork-barrel politics, and it’s no way to run a federation. Federal funding must flow fairly across regions and between communities regardless of political support,” he said.

    Mr. Kennedy said that it is for reasons like this that Liberals have required accountability reports in March, June and December to be tabled in Parliament showing how much money has been spent and where.

    In the first year following the launch of the $8.8-billion Building Canada Fund, the Conservative government flowed zero funding to infrastructure projects. Worse, last week officials at Infrastructure Canada admitted that of the $1.5 billion announced in its first two years of budgeted spending, only $80 million has flowed for municipal infrastructure projects across the country.

    “Putting the government on probation as we have done is our way of ensuring that Mr. Harper’s budget allocates money where it is needed most – and is not simply used as a political tool to gain votes,” said Mr. Kennedy.

    To view the backgrounder, click here.

    Manitoba Lawyer Paul Walsh


    Case 06-09

    PAUL VICTOR WALSH, Q.C.
    Winnipeg, Manitoba

    Called to the Bar
    June 26, 1968

    Particulars of Charges
    Professional Misconduct (3 counts)

  • Breach of Chapter 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct [failing to serve client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner]
  • Breach of Chapter 16 of the Code of Professional Conduct [failing to act with courtesy and good faith)
  • Breach of Chapter 3, Commentary 11 of the Code of Professional Conduct [failing to be honest and candid when advising client]

    Date of Hearing
    May 1, 2006

    Panel
    Bjorn Christianson, Q.C. (Chair)
    William G. Haight
    Lawrence R. McInnes, Q.C.

    Disposition

  • 6 mo. Suspension
  • Fine of $25,000.00
  • Costs of $3,910.52

    Counsel
    Darcia A.C. Senft for The Law Society of Manitoba
    Neil H. Kravetsky for the Member


    Failure to Serve Client / Breach of Professional Duties



    Facts

    Mr. Walsh was retained to represent his client with respect to a domestic matter. He attended with his client at a Case Conference in June, 2003, at which time the terms of a final order under the Divorce Act were agreed upon. The Respondent's counsel was responsible for preparing the Order and it was expected that the Consent Order would be filed before July 1, 2003.

    In June, 2003, Mr. Walsh received from the Respondent's counsel a draft of a revised Final Order which was sent to his client for her review. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Walsh received from his client a letter expressing her concerns about the draft Final Order. The client requested that Mr. Walsh contact the Respondent's counsel as soon as possible to correct the Final Order. Mr. Walsh failed to convey his client's concerns respecting the form of the Final Order to the Respondent's counsel.

    In early July, 2003, Mr. Walsh received a letter from the Respondent's counsel inquiring as to whether the Final Order was acceptable. The Respondent's counsel requested an immediate response from Mr. Walsh with respect to the draft order and advised of her intention to file the Order without Mr. Walsh's consent in the event that he did not provide his response by a given date. Mr. Walsh failed to respond to the said letter.

    At the end of July, 2003, Mr. Walsh received a further letter from the Respondent's counsel as to whether the Final Order was acceptable. The Respondent's counsel advised Mr. Walsh of her intention to file the Final Order for signing, along with copies of her correspondence to Mr. Walsh and that she intended to do so on a given date. Mr. Walsh failed to respond to the further letter from the Respondent's counsel.

    In early August, 2003, the Respondent's counsel filed the Final Order with the court, without the consent of Mr. Walsh. The said Final Order was signed by the Court in early September, 2003. Upon receipt of the Final Order from the Court of Queen's Bench, Mr. Walsh forwarded a copy to his client. Mr. Walsh failed to advise his client that the Final Order was filed and signed without her concerns having been addressed as a result of his error in failing to convey those concerns to the Respondent's counsel and in failing to respond to inquiries from the Respondent's counsel.

    By way of a facsimile transmission, the client again advised Mr. Walsh of her concerns respecting the Order. The client also left telephone messages for Mr. Walsh requesting that he contact her. Mr. Walsh did not return the client's telephone calls.

    Plea

    Mr. Walsh entered a plea of guilty to each of the charges.

    Decisions and Comments

    The panel found Mr. Walsh guilty of professional misconduct based on his admission to the charges. The panel noted that, standing in isolation, each charge might be characterized as falling on the scale somewhat closer to the "less serious" end of it. The panel recognized that it had a duty not to impose penalties that are disparate with penalties imposed in like situations. However, the panel further noted that overshadowing everything else on the issue of penalty was Mr. Walsh's prior discipline record. It was noted that Mr. Walsh had been disciplined by the Society, in some fashion, on 9 prior occasions. Significantly, many of these past convictions included similar breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. The fact that Mr. Walsh's record had involved no greater penalty than a fine was the sole factor that dissuaded the panel from disbarring him.

    Penalty

    The panel ordered that Mr. Walsh be suspended from practising law for a period of 6 months for his conduct in this matter and that he pay a fine to the Society in the amount of $25,000.00. An order for costs in the amount of 3,910.52 was also made.

    Mr. Walsh filed an appeal to the Manitoba Court of Appeal from the panel's decision with respect to sentence. The appeal was dismissed on December 13, 2006.

  • 05 February 2009

    The United States National Science Foundation (NSF)


    Science foundation's funding eyed amid porn claims

    by Henry C. Jackson

    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    January 30, 2009


    DES MOINES, Iowa - The ranking GOP member of the Senate Finance Committee wants Congress to reconsider new funding to the National Science Foundation amid allegations that top staffers spent long stretches of their day surfing the Internet for pornography.

    Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to the foundation's Office of Inspector General on Tuesday seeking all documents it has related to the inappropriate use of the foundation's network.

    The foundation is the major source of federal backing in fields such as mathematics, computer science and social sciences.

    Grassley told The Associated Press on Thursday he wants Congress to reconsider $3 billion in NSF funding that is included in the current stimulus bill until his questions are answered.

    "I think they ought to. I think they need to," he said.

    The senator said he sought the information after a team of staffers led by his finance committee aide discovered numerous investigations into the misuse of the Internet by science foundation employees. The investigations were buried inside a semiannual report on NSF's activities, he said.

    According to the report, one senior staff member spent as much as 20 percent of his time during a two-year period at lurid sites and in sexually explicit chat rooms. That time cost taxpayers more than $40,000, the report stated.

    Other employees were also alleged to have watched, downloaded and e-mailed porn.

    Agency spokesman Jeff Nesbit said the foundation takes the report and Grassley's inquiry seriously. He said the foundation is cooperating and has already taken steps to address the inspector general's report.

    "NSF immediately implemented additional IT systems controls to focus in particular on enforcement of the foundation's long-standing policy prohibiting the use of its IT systems to access sexually explicit, gambling and other inappropriate Web sites," Nesbit said in a written statement.

    He said several employees were disciplined and at least three staffers were fired because of their inappropriate use of the Internet.

    Grassley is renowned in Washington for using his position on the Finance Committee to practice a particularly aggressive brand of oversight. His staff has previously scrutinized megachurches and the Smithsonian, among other targets.

    Grassley said he is pushing for more information about the National Science Foundation because he's concerned the issues in the report speak to a wider, cultural problem at the agency. He also cites the foundation's large budget.

    The foundation was created as an independent federal agency in 1950 to promote science. It has an annual budget of more than $6 billion and funds, by its own estimate, about 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by the nation's colleges and universities.

    04 February 2009

    Canadian Federal Member of Parliament / Human Resources Minister Diane Finley


    Finley under fire for jobless comment

    by Norma Greenaway

    CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
    February 3, 2009


    Opposition MPs tore a strip off Human Resources Minister Diane Finley yesterday over her comments to Canwest News Service that the Conservative government has no interest in increasing employment-insurance payments and making it "lucrative" for jobless workers to sit around the house.

    NDP leader Jack Layton led the verbal assault in the Commons, accusing Ms. Finley and the Conservatives of being out of touch with the problems of real people.

    "If they spent some time with the hundreds of thousands of people that are losing their jobs now, they might understand that," Mr. Layton said during a raucous exchange in the Commons. "They are not trying to sit at home and get paid. They're trying to protect their homes."

    Mr. Layton was among opposition MPs who took umbrage at Ms. Finley's statements that she is opposed to raising EI benefits and to making it easier to qualify for the insurance payments.

    "Our goal is to help people get back to work, and get back to work quickly in jobs that will last," Ms. Finley said in an interview with Canwest News Service. "We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skill shortages in many parts of the country."

    Ms. Finley was commenting on measures unveiled in last week's federal budget that, among other things, extend EI benefits by five weeks to 50 weeks and also pump $4 billion into job training programs over the next two years.

    Critics said the government's reforms to EI, which leave the maximum payment at $447 a week, are not good enough, and that it is still too difficult for too many laid off workers to qualify. Currently, the working hours needed to qualify range from 420 hours in areas where unemployment is very high to 700 hours were unemployment is very low.

    Liberal MP Michael Savage called Ms. Finley's remarks insulting to legions of unemployed workers and echoed Mr. Layton's demands for an apology. "Is the minister suggesting that some workers would choose to be unemployed, and earn just a fraction of their working wage? How out of touch is that?" the Nova Scotia MP asked.

    Ontario New Democrat Irene Mathyssen said the five-week extension of benefits ignores the reality that two-thirds of women work in contract and part-time jobs that do not give them enough working hours to qualify for EI benefits.

    The United States National Science Foundation (NSF)


    Porn Part Of Job At U.S. Agency

    As originally posted on: Corruption Chronicles: A Judicial Watch Blog
    January 28, 2009


    Employees at the multi billion-dollar federal agency that promotes science and national health spend substantial amounts of work hours viewing pornography on government computers yet a chunk of economic stimulus money is coming its way.

    With an annual budget of $6.6 billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science, advance national health, prosperity and welfare and to secure national defense. The NSF has about 1,700 employees at its Arlington Virginia headquarters, including about 150 scientists from research institutions.

    According to a 68-page semiannual report published by the NSF Inspector General, many of them spend quite a bit of time—often significant portions of their workdays—watching, downloading and e-mailing pornography. Investigators found “numerous reports” and more than half a dozen investigations into “abuse” of NSF information technology resources.

    The abuse took place over periods of months or even years, according to the report, which states that one “senior official” spent as much as 20% of his working hours over a two-year interval viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online chats with various women. The estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers for that one case was nearly $60,000, investigators said.

    A selective sample of a single internal server at the agency found even more NSF workers harboring hard-core porn images on their government computer hard drives, according to the report. Overwhelmed investigators say the number of “inappropriate use” cases was too large to thoroughly probe them all.

    The limited nature of the sampling—its restriction to only one computer drive—cannot therefore measure the actual extent of the misbehavior, the report points out. Yet, on the heels of this shameful revelation, the NSF will get $3 billion from the Democrat-sponsored economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress this week.

    03 February 2009

    Wall Street


    Earth to Wall Street: McCaskill's Right, the "Masters of the Universe" Live on Another Planet

    by Robert Creamer

    As originally posted on: The Huffington Post
    February 2, 2009


    Senator Claire McCaskill took to the Senate floor last week and put into words what most Americans know, but much of the economic and media elite systematically ignore: there is no economic or social justification for the massive incomes earned by the barons of Wall Street - especially when their companies continue to exist solely because of massive infusions of taxpayer dollars.

    Last week it was announced that Wall Street gave out $18.4 billion in bonuses - presumably to reward executives for their performance in 2008 when the markets lost 30% of their value - and when their irresponsible risk-taking threw the world economy into a nose dive.

    This comes on the heels of the spectacle of Wall Street firms coming with tin cups to Congress while it rewarded itself with million-dollar CEO bathroom make-overs, swank executive get-aways, $35,000 office couches and new $50 million corporate jets.

    What are they thinking? The answer is that they live on anther planet - one where they tell each other that they actually "deserve" their massively disproportionate share of the society's good and services. The decades-long explosion of executive compensation - especially on Wall Street - has convinced many of them that the gravy train can - and should - go on forever. It's about time that someone like Senator McCaskill made it clear that the executive compensation "emperor" has no clothes.

    Some facts:

    * The CEO of the average company in the Standard and Poors Index makes $10.5 million. That means that before lunch, on the first workday of the year, he (sometimes she) has made more than the minimum wage workers in his company will make all year. That translates to $5,048 per hour - or about 344 times that pay of the typical American worker.

    * Most people would consider a salary of $100,000 per year reasonably good pay. But the average CEO makes that much in the first half-week of the year.

    * And that's nothing compared to some of the kings of Wall Street. In 2007 the top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers averaged $588 million in compensation each - more than 19,000 times as much as the average U.S. worker. And by the way, the hedge fund managers paid a tax rate on their income of only 15% - far lower than the rate paid by their secretaries.

    There is simply no moral or economic justification for this kind of greed. This kind of executive compensation comes out of the pockets of other Americans, or - as it turns out - out of the mountain of speculative "wealth" that turned out not to really exist, and which sent the economy careening toward disaster.

    In her Senate floor speech, Senator McCaskill proposed that none of the executives of the Wall Street firms receiving taxpayer money should be compensated at a level higher than the $400,000/year that the taxpayers pay the President. After all, it's pretty hard to justify why any of them have more responsibility than the President of the United States even in the best of times - but especially when their decisions just sent the economy into the trash heap.

    The Hedge Fund Manager who makes $588 million a year makes 1,470 times more than the President. Isn't it ridiculous that the taxpayers should shell out their money to pay CEO's more - much less 1,470 times more - than the President of the United States?

    Yet on this week's Sunday talk shows, you could hear "experts" and media commentators explaining that they need to do a better job of showing the rest of us why the best solution to our economic problems is more of the same kind of "benefit the rich" economics that lead to the economic collapse in the first place.

    When you think about it, these people should be described by a word that they might be surprised to hear: Parochial.

    Many of these Wall Street insiders, CEO's, commentators and "experts" think of themselves as being more "sophisticated" and "cosmopolitan" than ordinary Americans. In fact, they spend their time in the isolated cocoon of corporate jet travel, luxury condos, private schools, exclusive resorts, private clubs, and fancy cocktail parties. They talk to other people like themselves who are perfectly happy to validate their view that they "deserve" multimillion dollar compensation - that they deserve to be driven around in limousines and live in estates that are valued in eight figures.

    They convince themselves that if the benighted masses just knew all that they know about credit default swaps or mark-to-market accounting practices, they would understand why it is somehow in America's interest that they should continue to be given a massively disproportionate share of the wealth created by our economy.

    It would probably do them some good to become "cosmopolitan" enough to get out and talk to ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans who work hard every day have a hard time justifying why the very people who caused the economic disaster - that may have cost them their job or their home - deserve to be paid millions and millions of dollars.

    They might also take time to study some history. Marie Antoinette would be a good place to start. She and her husband, King Louis XVI of France, shared their "cosmopolitan" attitudes. It didn't work out so well for them.

    Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

    "The Big Banks"


    Rahm's Doctrine And Breaking Up The Banks

    by Simon Johnson

    As originally posted on: The Baseline Scenario
    February 1, 2009


    According to David Leonhardt, writing in today's New York Times magazine,

    TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, appeared before an audience of business executives and laid out an idea that Lawrence H. Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, later described to me as Rahm's Doctrine. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Emanuel said. "What I mean by that is that it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." (Links in the quote are from the on-line original.)

    Leonhardt explains how this Doctrine can be applied to issues ranging from health care costs to education, and some of this is already apparent in the fiscal stimulus details currently before Congress.

    Can the same approach also guide actions regarding our deeply broken and broke financial system? There are three possible answers.

    1. No. If you support this view, you presumably think (a) there are no powerful vested interests on Wall Street, (b) these vested interests are not a first order reason why we are in so much trouble, (c) these same interests are doing a good job leading us towards economic recovery. My guess is that this is currently the view of only a small minority; perhaps it is limited just to people who received large TARP-funded bonuses.

    2. Yes in principle, but the situation is now so dire that we really don't have the opportunity. In this view, the Wall Street interests are a problem, but we need to get credit flowing again as fast as possible, and this requires being nice to banks and bankers. If you think that maintaining or increasing the amount of nominal credit in the economy is the number one issue (e.g., for February), then this view may have some validity. But if credit is falling in part because creditworthy people don't want to borrow as much as before and because desired savings are increasing almost everywhere in the world, then the case is weaker. Most likely, we have some time to sort out the banking system properly.

    3. Yes, but how? Members of the incoming Administration have spent years thinking ahead about controlling health care costs and reforming education; no one really anticipated there would be an opportunity - let alone a potential need - to restructure the financial industry. Perhaps we should leave this to G20 reregulation, meshing with the Dodd-Frank legislative agenda at the national level? This might be part of the answer, but it doesn't seem to match other proactive uses of Rahm's Doctrine or the scale of the financial catastrophe.

    Recent prominent actions on Wall Street - excessive risk taking, pervasive mismanagement, failure to take responsibility, mind-boggling bonus behavior - all point to a deeper underlying problem: no real owners. Large banks operate on the fundamental principle that it is all, "other people's money."

    So it has been and so it is - except now it is very much taxpayer money, from the Treasury and from the Fed, that keeps large banks alive. In essence, the government is already the primary provider of capital to this part of the banking industry, i.e., we are in some fundamental sense already the owners, and if we provide more capital or insure/purchase more bad assets then we really own the store. (If anyone from a large bank would like to do without taxpayer support at this stage, please step forward.)

    What should we do with our ownership rights? We will, no doubt, attempt to exercise greater control over executive compensation and bonuses - and the industry, no doubt, will evade the spirit of these controls quite effectively. We might impose some other symbolic restraints over corporate jets and the like, but none of this will be meaningful.

    The only real way to apply Rahm's Doctrine is to break the overly powerful vested interests in this part of the economy, and that means to break up the banks. The government needs to sell its effective control rights over large banks to private investors - providing them with at least temporary permission to become concentrated owners. Antitrust provisions must ensure that the large banks are dismantled in this process. Whether the executives stay or go is a matter for the new owners to decide. (For an example of how to organize the technical details of acquiring and disposing of government ownership, see our previous suggestions; there are other ways to do this that would also be quite straightforward.)

    One pushback response to this proposal is: it's too different, too risky, and there's a good reason we've never been able to do this before. Fortunately, we have a serious crisis and Rahm's Doctrine is in effect. And, really, it's just an application to the US context of what other well-run countries have done when faced by a collective breakdown of bank executive competence.

    Progress on the healthcare and education fronts will take many years, and the right way to measure success may well prove controversial. Progress on banking can be swift and the relevant metrics are straightforward - are the big banks broken up and placed under new, more effective ownership? And does the taxpayer finally get some upside?

    02 February 2009

    Manitoba Lawyer Paul Walsh


    Case 04-04

    PAUL VICTOR WALSH, Q.C.
    Winnipeg, Manitoba

    Called to the Bar
    June 26, 1968

    Particulars of Charges
    Professional Misconduct (5 counts)

  • conflict of interest and failing to refer client for independent legal advice
  • entering into a business transaction with client and acting in a conflict
  • stipulating a fee that is not fully disclosed, fair and reasonable
  • failing to discharge duties with integrity (x2)

    Date of Hearing
    March 3, April 8 and August 6, 2004

    Panel
    D.J. Miller, Q.C. (Chair)
    P.L. Fraser
    D.E. Finkbeiner, Q.C.

    Finding

  • Guilty of Charges 1 and 5
  • Acquitted of Charges 2, 3 and 4

    Disposition

  • Fine of $6,000.00
  • Costs of $12,000.00

    Counsel
    D. Senft for The Law Society of Manitoba
    D. Margolis, Q.C. for the Member


    Conflict of Interest / Failing to Act With Integrity



    Facts

    Mr. Walsh represented his client on the sale of his house. The purchaser's lawyer had imposed a trust condition that he hold back the sum of $10,000.00 pending the completion by the vendor of outstanding work to the property. In breach of that trust condition, Mr. Walsh inadvertently disbursed all of the sale proceeds either directly to his client or in payment of his obligations. When the purchaser's lawyer subsequently made a demand for the monies that were to have been held back, Mr. Walsh requested that his client return the sum of $10,000.00. The client advised that he no longer had the money to pay this amount. Mr. Walsh then deposited the sum of $10,000.00 from his general account into his pooled trust account and thereafter paid those funds to the purchaser's lawyer.

    As security for the debt owing to Mr. Walsh, the client signed a Transfer of Land in favour of Mr. Walsh in relation to another property owned by him. Mr. Walsh was aware that the value of the equity in this property greatly exceeded the amount owing to him. Mr. Walsh did not advise the client in writing to obtain independent legal advice prior to the execution of the Transfer of Land nor did he obtain his client's consent in writing prior to the execution of the Transfer of Land.

    Mr. Walsh wrote two letters to the client following the signing of the Transfer of Land. In the first letter, Mr. Walsh stated that the Transfer of Land would be used as security. He said it would remain unused until the end of the year at which time he would act on his security, if necessary. Mr. Walsh further advised that if he received the amount owed to him by the end of the month, that would end the matter. Otherwise, he noted that the client had agreed to pay a fee of $2,000.00 for services rendered relating to the advance of the funds. A second letter written weeks later stipulated that if Mr. Walsh did not receive the full amount owing by the end of the month, he would file the Transfer of Land at the beginning of the following month.

    Plea

    The member entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges and a hearing was conducted.

    Decision and Comments

    The Panel found Mr. Walsh guilty of professional misconduct in that he knowingly acquired from his client an ownership, security or other pecuniary interest and did not at any time advise his client to seek independent legal advice pertaining to the execution of the Transfer of Land. The Panel found that there was no written consent to the transaction before the client signed the Transfer of Land and that the transaction was not fair and reasonable given the disparity between the value of the land and the amount of the debt.

    With respect to the allegation that by having the client execute a Transfer of Land in the circumstances the member had breached the provisions of Chapter 6(b) and (c) of the Code of Professional Conduct, the Panel concluded that the member had not entered into a "business transaction" with his client within the meaning of Chapter 6 of the Code of Professional Conduct and that the complaint was not proved. The Society further alleged that the $2,000.00 fee contravened Chapter 11 of the Code of Professional Conduct because it was not fully disclosed, fair and reasonable. Alternatively, the Society alleged that Mr. Walsh had charged his client a sum that amounted to a usurious rate of interest on funds advanced on his behalf, in breach of his duty to act with integrity. The Panel dismissed those charges.

    The Society also charged Mr. Walsh with failing to discharge his duties with integrity, by obtaining the Transfer of Land and threatening in correspondence to act upon it in order to recover the amount owed to him by his client. The Panel concluded that this complaint had been proven, and found these actions by Mr. Walsh to be particularly egregious in light of the fact that his client continued to regard him as his lawyer and, therefore, a person who would protect his interests.

    Penalty

    The Panel decided that Mr. Walsh be ordered to pay a fine in an amount which would reflect the seriousness with which the Panel viewed the conduct as well as his discipline history. It ordered a fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and costs in the amount of $12,000.00.


  • Wall Street


    Obama calls Wall Street bonuses 'shameful'

    by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton

    As originally published: International Herald Tribune
    January 29, 2009


    WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama branded Wall Street bankers "shameful" on Thursday for giving themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation's most prominent financial institutions.

    "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. "Now's not that time. And that's a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them."

    It was a pointed — if calculated — flash of anger from the president, who frequently railed against excesses in executive compensation on the campaign trail. He struck his populist tone as he confronted the possibility of having to ask Congress for additional large sums of money, beyond the $700 billion already authorized, to prop up the financial system, even as he pushes Congress to move quickly on a separate economic stimulus package that could cost taxpayers as much as $900 billion.

    This week alone, American companies reported as many as 65,000 job cuts, and public anger is rising over reports of profligate spending by banks and investment firms that are receiving help from the $700 billion bailout fund. About half of that $700 billion is still available, but the new administration has yet to announce how it will use it, and many analysts think it will take far more money to stabilize the banking system.

    Should Obama have to go to Congress to seek more money for the bailout fund to avert the failure of more banks, he would most likely encounter opposition within both parties and demands for tighter restrictions on pay for executives of institutions that receive government assistance.

    Geithner has already signaled a willingness to impose stricter compensation limits as part of a revamped approach to dealing with the banking crisis, but with his strong words on Thursday, Obama seemed intent on reassuring Congress and the public that he would step up the pressure on bankers before granting them additional assistance.

    Obama was reacting to a report by the New York State comptroller that found financial executives had received an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for 2008, less than for the previous several years but the same level of bonuses as they received in 2004, when times were flush.

    "That is the height of irresponsibility," Obama said. "It is shameful. And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility."

    The Obama administration and lawmakers have begun to consider ways to control executive pay; the bailout fund, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would be the main vehicle for exerting such control. The administration of former President George W. Bush issued guidelines last October to try to control executive pay at companies receiving government help, but so far they have done little to curb large salaries.

    During his confirmation hearings, Geithner said the administration is preparing rules that would require executives at companies receiving taxpayer money to agree that any compensation above a certain amount — he did not specify how much — be "paid in restricted stock or similar form" that could not be liquidated or sold until the government had been repaid.

    Some lawmakers, meanwhile, have said they are considering so-called "clawback" provisions that could be invoked by the government to take back bonuses and executive pay from officials at companies that encountered problems.

    In the meantime, public outrage is already forcing some companies to rein in their lavish spending. John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch executive who was forced out of Bank of America, said this week he would reimburse Bank of America for an expensive renovation of his office that included an $87,000 area rug and $35,000 commode.

    But it took the urging of the Obama administration to force Citigroup, which received an infusion of taxpayer funds last year, to abandon plans to buy a $50 million corporate jet. On Thursday, Obama made reference to the jet, without singling out Citigroup by name; his remarks came one day after the president met at the White House with business leaders, including Richard Parsons, the new chairman of Citigroup.

    On Capitol Hill, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, issued his own warning on Thursday, saying companies would be summoned to Capitol Hill if taxpayer money was involved.

    "Whether it was used directly or indirectly, this infuriates the American people and rightly so," Dodd said. "So I say to anyone else who does it, if you do it, I'm going to bring you before the committee."

    There is also political pressure to rein in pay in industries beyond banks and investment firms. The pressure reflects the substantial disparities between pay increases for senior executives, the low rate of wage growth for workers and the frequent disconnect between compensation and the long-term strategic success or failure of corporations.

    Obama's message on Thursday was reinforced by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who pledged in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times that the government would spend the remaining $350 billion of the troubled assets money "wisely and prudently and transparently."

    Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives.

    "I'd like to throw these guys in the brig," he said. "They're thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They're thinking, 'Take care of me.' "

    John Harwood contributed reporting.

    01 February 2009

    "His Father"


    Quiet revolution

    by Rachel Westfall

    The following poem was originally posted on The Waxing Moon (http://www.thewaxingmoon.blogspot.com) on January 30, 2009.


    When he was little he learned the hard way
    that each small act would never
    make a difference

    Just to be sure
    his father drilled it in:
    you ain’t never gonna amount
    to nothing


    Fifty years down the road after a series
    of bleak disappointments
    he decided to give it a try anyway,
    so he went out one morning
    and stood on the street corner
    talking
    to anyone who would listen

    This one crossed over
    so he wouldn’t have to hear him
    and maybe smell his stink

    That one coughed an old cough,
    and quietly offered to hear him out
    if he’d buy a copy of the Watchtower

    This one stopped and bantered
    just looking for trouble, until his pit bull
    dragged him off so she could take a crap
    on the thin dirty strip of grass

    That one curled his mouth, swore
    in his big-man suit
    and told him to get a job

    This one folded her umbrella,
    stopped and listened with soft eyes
    then put a hand on his shoulder
    and told him to buy himself a nice supper

    So he went back out there tomorrow
    and started again, his stories
    drowning out his father’s voice
    at long last:
    You may as well not bother

    Because it doesn’t take that many pebbles
    to cause a landslide


    Rachel Westfall
    January 30, 2009

    Manitoba Lawyer Paul Walsh


    Case 95-21

    PAUL VICTOR WALSH, Q.C.
    Winnipeg, Manitoba

    Called to the Bar
    June 26, 1968

    Particulars of Charges
    Professional Misconduct (1 count)

  • failure to serve client

    Date of Hearing
    September 12, 1995

    Panel
    Reeh Taylor, Q.C. (Chairperson)
    Heather Leonoff, Q.C.
    John Menzies

    Disposition

  • fine of $1,000.00
  • costs of $200.00

    Counsel
    Daniel Dutchin for the Law Society
    William Olson, Q.C. for the Member


    Failure to Serve Client



    Facts

    Mr. Walsh, who was called to the Bar on June 26, 1968, appeared before the Discipline Committee on September 12, 1995.

    Mr. Walsh represented a client on a criminal matter. A discretionary warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Walsh's client due to the client's non-appearance. Arrangements were then made for a personal appearance by the client in Provincial Court, however, Mr. Walsh failed to advise his client of this required personal appearance. As a result, the client did not appear and the discretionary warrant was executed resulting in the arrest of the client.

    Comments of the Discipline Committee

    Mr. Walsh admitted to the charge of professional misconduct. The Committee noted that the client subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the charge and received a minimum fine and expressed satisfaction with Mr. Walsh's services.

    The Committee noted that Mr. Walsh should have made the appropriate arrangements for handling his client's matter and should have dealt with correspondence that was received from the Crown Attorney's Office.

    Findings and Penalties

    The Committee found that Mr. Walsh was guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of his admission to the charge and imposed a fine of $1,000.00 and ordered that costs be paid in the amount of $200.00.

  • The System


    Case puts focus on justice system's 'dirty little secret'

    by Kirk Makin

    As originally published in: The Globe and Mail
    January 14, 2009


    In light of overwhelming evidence from then-respected pathologist Charles Smith, lawyer Robert Graydon knew that his client, Richard Brant, would be a fool to pass up a Crown offer of just six months behind bars for the shaking death of his two-month-old baby, Dustin.

    However, there was one serious obstacle to Mr. Brant accepting the plea bargain. The mourning father insisted he had done absolutely nothing to cause Dustin's death - in direct contradiction of findings by the now-discredited Dr. Smith.

    After several anguished conversations with Mr. Graydon - now an Ontario Court judge - Mr. Brant said he would concede to having jostled Dustin accidentally during a physical struggle with his wife, according to an affidavit filed in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

    By asking the appeal court last week to reopen and overturn his 10-year-old conviction, Mr. Brant also reopened a troubling debate about the role lawyers play in arranging guilty pleas for clients who may be innocent. In Mr. Brant's case, it is very hard to see how his lawyer could have known whether his client was innocent, but he did know the strength of the evidence against him. Judge Graydon declined to be interviewed on the topic.

    "I think it's a dirty little secret," University of Windsor law professor David Tanovich, a veteran defence lawyer, said of the role of defence counsel in such cases. "Very few people talk about it."

    Michael Code, a defence lawyer who teaches ethics at the University of Toronto law school, said lawyers cannot be party to a client they know is innocent pleading guilty, yet they often feel a tremendous temptation to help a client procure a light sentence.

    "It is the hidden underbelly of the justice system, and it does need to be talked about and dragged into the open," Prof. Code said.

    Experts say two categories of defendant engage in these so-called pleas of convenience. The first are those who face testimony from a virtually unassailable Crown witness, such as Dr. Smith. The second are those who are denied bail pending a trial.

    "They don't want to spend the time in the cramped and overcrowded cells," Prof. Tanovich said. "They want to plead guilty because they can get out right away with time served."

    Andras Schreck, a Toronto defence lawyer, said many defendants jump at the chance to end proceedings and go home. "How many people are going to say no to that?" he asked. "I would think that it probably happens hundreds of times a day."

    Mr. Schreck said the solution to these pleas of convenience is simple: "Just don't deny bail as often."

    For an accused person facing a serious charge, the worry of being found guilty after a trial provides a powerful inducement to accept a bargain-basement offer from the Crown.

    Typically, defence lawyers convey these offers using "a whole bunch of nods and winks" in order to skirt ethical boundaries, Prof. Code said: "It won't be a proper discussion. It will be a plea of convenience in disguise."

    "Personally, I never do it," Mr. Schreck said. "But some other lawyers will say: 'Look, you really should plead guilty. I'm not going to act for you if you don't.' "

    Notwithstanding two significant high-court decisions that brushed over the issue, the courts have remained strangely silent about the role of lawyers.

    In a 2003 case - R. v. Taillefer and Duguay - the Supreme Court set aside a guilty plea in a murder case in which one of the defendants pleaded guilty to manslaughter just to end the legal proceedings. "Yet remarkably, nothing was said about whether this was ethical or not," Prof. Code said.

    In a 1995 ruling in the case of R. v. S. K., the Ontario Court of Appeal stressed that defence counsel must be careful not to "mislead" the courts about plea bargains, but it went no further.

    Mr. Schreck said the role of Crown prosecutors also cries out for scrutiny. "It happens far too often, where the Crown realizes their case is weak and, instead of withdrawing the charge, that they try to induce a guilty plea," he said. "If you do have a case, don't go offering a ridiculously lenient sentence."

    In Mr. Brant's case, his ultimate six-month sentence for aggravated assault was a far cry from the six- to eight-year manslaughter sentence he would likely have gotten had he lost at trial.

    In an affidavit to the Court of Appeal last week, Mr. Brant recalled: "For many months, Mr. Graydon told me it was in my best interests to plead guilty. He said he would tell the court that Dustin's injuries had been caused during a struggle with Mary on the Friday evening. He urged me to accept the offer."

    In fact, Mr. Brant emphasized, he did nothing that could have caused Dustin's death.

    "There are no easy answers to this," Mr. Schreck said. "But right now, we are all turning a blind eye to the problem - which is not a good starting point."