Big Stupid News of the Day – White House Terrorizes NYC!

Holy cow. What a stupid government we have.

According to one of the NY Times’ blogs (The City Room), some idiots at the White House were really keen on getting a photo of Air Force One (or it’s lookalike backup) with the Statue of Liberty behind it.  I didn’t realize this, but apparently the recession has put the US in the position of selling Air Force Ones, as I don’t know what other reason anyone would have to put together marketing images of the aircraft.

Anyways, they received all the proper clearances to do this by whatever regulatory bodies (of course there is no regulatory body for common sense) but no one in New York appeared to know about this, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and were a bit prickly as a result of the 10am fly-by.

So when Air Force One (B) (or whatever you call it) went around buzzing New York at very low altitudes, with two F-16s in pursuit (I guess snapping the sexay promotional photos), people began to panic and streamed out of the Manhattan highrises.  The silly New Yorkers apparently were under the impression that what looks like a passenger airliner flying low over New York accompanied by two fighter planes might be a sign of menace, rather than the much more obvious explanation that our government is retarded.

So now the shouting match has started and everyone is “furious” (Bloomberg, Obama, me, everyone in New York) that they weren’t informed and that the government could be this publicly retarded and blah blah blah.

My issue is this:  Why the fuck do we need pictures of Air Force One (B), sans President, in front of the Statue of Liberty?  Even if people were ‘properly’ informed in New York, do you really think it’s a good idea to do this?  Do you really think thousands to millions of less-informed New Yorkers might not still panic?  Beyond the emotional damage it will cause, do they understand that the white collar workers in Manhattan are basically off work for an hour or two as a result of this?  And am I to understand that there is someone at the White House being paid by taxpayers whose responsibilities include getting sexay photos of Air Force One (B)?

Shouldn’t someone in the Obama White House (certainly someone in his campaign/mudslinging team) know how to use photoshop?  Because that would have been a lot easier.

And aren’t we in a goddamn recession?  I have no idea how to calculate this, but reading two F-16s, Air Force One (B), all the staff involved and fuel, plus all the bureacratic nonsense that I’m sure it involved (meetings for months, route plan clearances) probably cost American taxpayers upwards of a million dollars.  For a goddamn photo (that I don’t even know if they got) of Air Force One (B) in front of the Statue of Liberty.  Oh, and millions of loss productivity as thousands of Manhattanites fled what they thought were their soon-to-be-collapsing office towers.  But I’m sure Verizon and Sprint cashed in with all the daytime minutes spent as people frantically called their spouses to tell them they loved them.

Oh, and way to go White House/Defense Department/Group of Idiots We Pay the Salaries Of to Get Sexay Photos of Air Force One (B), you broke the fucking markets too:

“Even the markets dipped shortly after 10 a.m., though it was unclear if the alarm over the planes was a factor. Starting at 10:02 a.m., three main market indexes started dropping precipitously. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 40 points in 10 minutes, starting 10:15 a.m., before it rebounded more than 50 points.”

But I guess I should be thankful for the bureacratic nonsense.  If it weren’t for the procedural delays, I think it’d be safe to say that this fiasco would have taken place about seven and a half months ago.

… and the cow goes moo

NC: Elizabeth Warren not long for the TARP COP?

Crappity.

According to Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, beyond the growing displeasure being expressed by financial industry types at Prof. Warren’s conclusions (which come as no surprise), more substantive moves within the political system may be aligned against Prof. Warren’s continuing work as the lead member of the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s Congressional Oversight Panel.

“I hate to say it, but I think Warren’s days as COP head are numbered. She is clearly now boxed in by being in the weird position of being in the minority. The opposition reports took issue with the very premise of her approach. If, as I suspect, the behind the scenes fight is worse than what can be seen at a remove, the longer she stays on, the greater the risk of being tainted.”

I had celebrated Warren’s appointment as the one Obama appointment I was definitely happy with at the time.  Now it sounds like she will last barely past the first 100 days of the administration, if what Yves Smith says is true.

As the only person working on the financial mess that is not a former industry insider, nor a prospective future industry insider, she offers the only perspective of the industry without the inherent biases towards business as usual.  She was not responsible for any of the past problems nor does she benefit from their continuation.  And, despite being an academic, her background in bankruptcy law allows and obvious intelligence provides her with the capability to comprehend even the most esoteric financial devices at the center of our recession.  As a non-industry player, she can appropriately label these devices as the oft-senseless obfuscations that they are.

The coded labelling of Prof. Warren as a commie, as Yves Smith indicates, is clear and expected.  That anyone really sees her lack of compassion for the financial sector as it is as being a problem is the shocker.  She is perhaps the sole member of the hundreds involved in the government management of the recession and bailouts that has is not merely working for the government on a detour from their financial sector careers.  Can we stomach even one dissenting opinion?

I can only hope further public appearances by Prof. Warren (like her somewhat scattered but very enjoyable interview on The Daily Show on April 15th that can be viewed here by Canadians, or somewhere in here by Americans) puts her name and face to the fore, and makes her forcing out politically expensive for those who wish to neutralize the single dissenting voice in the entire bailout operation.

… and the cow goes moo

Even Krugman is working on a 2-5 year time frame

Or so it appears, judging by his latest blog entry.  It’s a short post so just click and read it, but here’s the ending and where I have a serious beef with Krugman:

“you could argue that the president shouldn’t feed the bogus claim that we can close fiscal gaps by eliminating a bit of waste.”

I had commented on this before, and I still think it may be the most important aspect of the debate regarding fiscal stimilus not being addressed.

There certainly is substantial debate about whether or not fiscal stimulus and massive deficit spending by the US Gov is a good (necessary) or horrible idea.  I don’t believe anyone is proposing permanent deficit spending though, even if it looks like we may be heading there.  It is implied but rarely said that eventually, these deficits may return to surpluses that allow us to service and paydown our $11.2 trillion national debt.

As I said in my previous post linked to above, the key to that is exactly what Obama is proposing and Krugman seems to be disparaging:  Spending money not to actively correct inefficiencies and improve enforcement, providing stimulus to our depressed economy while putting the economy on better footing to pay off our growing debt in the future.

If you believe that fiscal stimulus is necessary or helpful, the key to success in a 10+ year time frame would be spending money where returns will outweigh current costs.  That would be found in promoting education to make our workforce more competitive, improving our energy grid and energy sources to reduce the need for expensive imported energy products (and perhaps expensive wars and expensive obsequious relationships with oil-heavy nations), and removing inefficiences, government waste, and perhaps $300 billion of taxes being evade annually to replenish government coffers (I believe Obama’s administration knows a thing or two about the rich’s approach to paying taxes).

Removing waste may not be sufficient to balance the budget in the face of the massive spending outlays being used to buffer the effects of the current recesion, but removing waste is absolutely necessary to restoring some fairness in government, faith in government’s efficacy, and digging out ever-indebted nation out of it’s credit burden.

… and the cow goes moo

NYT a bit late to recognize that voiding Ted Stevens’ conviction had nothing to do with his alleged crimes

Well, well, well.

I posted about this minor issue a few days back, but it seems the old grey lady has come around to agreeing with me.

The New York Times has an article expressing the views of numerous sources that would concur with my opinion that the evidence was enough to convict former Alaskan SuperSenator Ted Stevens, but the trial was ravaged from within by prosecutorial incompetence.

Colleen Walsh, one of the jurors who convicted Mr. Stevens, said on her personal blog of the trial’s collapse, “The only thing this proves is that the prosecution messed everything up.”

Ms. Walsh, a church secretary, wrote on the blog as if speaking to Mr. Stevens, saying: “You may be innocent on corruption charges which were never brought up. But you are still guilty of not disclosing some of your major gifts to the public.”

I fear much of this will be long forgotten in a few months or years and Mr. Stevens might regain his Senate seat as a result, once again able to distribute taxpayer funds to those who buy him fancy things.  Without repercussion, of course.  It took the Public Integrity Section 40 years to catch on to him this time around (and only a few months to set to fire all they had collected), and I doubt Mr. Stevens will live to perpetrate his particular brand of mean corruption to allow the PIS to accumulate another 40 years of evidence to use against him.

… and the cow goes moo

The $100 million diamond heist

Just a link post today.  Check out Wired magazine’s article “The Untold Story of the World’s Biggest Diamond Heist”.  Enthralling.  I would have much preferred they made The Bank Job about this heist.  Though I don’t imagine for a second that Hollywood producers aren’t putting together a project based on this robbery now.  Do you think Geoffrey Rush could play an hasidic diamond dealer?

It seems odd to me to see an exhaustive, hardly technical article on a diamond vault robbery in Antwerp, Belgium in Wired Magazine, but they gave it an excellent treatment.  Even if you have little interest in crime, heists, or technology, anyone with an ounce of ingenuity or curiousity should find the article enthralling.

(Though the wire cutting theory apparently espoused by the diamond police seems beyond unusual and actually baffling to me.  Someone explain to me how stripped wires suggest they were to be cut?  Personally, I don’t strip wires before cutting them…  And it sounds like the wires themselves were discrete, so there would be no reason to strip them prior to cutting them.  I need an explanation!)

And if you like this sorta howtheydunit crime story, check out one of my favorite documentaries, Cocaine Cowboys.

In both the Wired article and the documentary, it still  shocks me that the journalists (I guess) involved were able to find such forthcoming criminals, or coax such exposition from the subjects of their stories.

Do you think we’ll see this sort of exposition from Bernie Madoff, Hank Paulson, or Dick Cheney in a few years?

… and the cow goes moo

Why Ted Stevens is innocent: Paying for things is elective

I just can’t get over this dumb trial.  The whole world of finance remains in the crapper, my own work is getting crazy, and yet all I can think about is Ted ‘Fucking’ Stevens.

As I am anything-but-loath-to-mention, I expected ex-Senator Stevens [R-AK] to get out of seeing prison one way or another.  According to the New York Times, the method for his escape was prosecutorial incompetence (massive incompetence, actually) or bald-faced concealment of evidence:

Even before Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. moved last week to throw out the conviction, the trial record was filled with instances of serious prosecutorial mistakes that dismayed the large corps of Washington lawyers who followed the case, including former prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Most alarming to these lawyers was the prosecutors’ repeated failure to disclose information that might have helped the defense despite the sanctity in which lawyers are taught to hold those obligations.

…

The most important question that remains largely unanswered, said officials and veteran lawyers, is whether the corner cutting, especially the serial concealment of information damaging to the government, was a result of flawed judgments and heavy workloads or an intentional step by prosecutors to increase their chances of a high-profile conviction.

A New York Times article published the next day provides a bit more detail in what appears to be the most relevant and egregious failures to disclose information:

During the trial, defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stevens had written a letter to Bill Allen, a onetime friend and the owner of a huge oil services company, asking for a bill for all the goods and services that Mr. Allen had provided. Mr. Allen, the chief prosecution witness, discredited that letter, testifying that he had been told by Bob Persons, an emissary from Mr. Stevens, to ignore the letter because the senator was just seeking to provide a false record to protect himself.

But recently discovered notes showed that prosecutors who interviewed Mr. Allen on April 15, 2008, heard him say that he did not remember any such conversation with Mr. Persons.

Mr. Stevens’s defense lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, told the court Tuesday that he had been blindsided by Mr. Allen’s testimony about the letter. “It was the most explosive testimony in the case,” Mr. Sullivan said.

Mr. Sullivan said that had he known of the prosecutors’ notes, he would have been able to argue that Mr. Allen’s account of the conversation with Mr. Persons was fabricated.

Paul O’Brien, chief of the new prosecution team that discovered the latest impropriety by the original prosecutors, said in court that “we deeply regret that this has occurred.”

Quick recap:  The reason why Ted Stevens was under investigation was that he received some $250,000 (estimates vary) worth of unpaid-for services from one of the major beneficiaries of his legislative acts as a Senator, the former CEO of VECO Corporation — an Alaskan oil services company — Bill Allen.  Apparently, receiving personal payment from someone who made millions based on your legislative acts is a bit too briberyish for the prudes at the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.

So here’s where things make my brain hurt:  Ted Stevens receives a ton of stuff he didn’t pay for from Bill Allen (no real argument there).  Bill Allen corroborates that.  The prosecutors — for whatever reason — fail to disclose evidence that would contend that Ted Stevens did try to pay for those services already rendered.  Apparently, due to the prosecutions failure to share that evidence with the defense team, the seven convictions handed down to Ted Stevens for corruption are voided.

I don’t argue that the prosecution didn’t make egregious errors: that seems beyond argument.  And I don’t think anyone even on the nuttiest virtual cabin-in-the-woods corners of the internet is making that claim.  But how the fuck does that particular instance of hiding evidence prove anything other than the prosecution is incompetent?

Why does it matter that Ted Stevens tried to pay for the renovations to his chalet?

If trying to pay for things that beneficiaries of your legislation provide to you is all that is required to conceal corruption, isn’t this criterion set ridiculously low?  Let’s say I’m Senator Ted Stevens, and I attach an earmark to the 2009 Defense Budget allotting $15 billion for a new commercial airplane development program at Boeing, and Boeing sends me my own private jet… and I send them a letter:

“Hey Boeing! Thanks for the awesome jet!  Btw, how much do I owe you?

xoxoxo

-Ted Stevens”

… and Boeing doesn’t reply, I’m still good?  And we don’t have to worry about any undue influence from Boeing on my legislative actions?  Is that all it takes to not-quite-bribe someone?  Just give them tons of cash, have them request a bill of sale, then just never request payment?  But I guess that isn’t Ted Stevens’ fault anyways.  It’d be too much to ask for a sitting Senator to understand how a retail transaction works.

For the non-Senatorial example, let’s say I’m buying a refershing Coca-Cola at the local convenience store.  I line up to pay for it but the person staffing the register is chatting on his cellphone and ignores me.  I count to ten Mississipis.  Can I just walk out with it since the retailer failed to allow me to pay for it?  Why should I be without mouth-watering refreshment due to a cashier’s incompetence?

Can you fucking believe that Ted Stevens, awesomely corrupt for 40 goddamn years at the cost of BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars siphoned to his favored retinue of friends and companies, is going to evade justice and perhaps regain his seat in the Senate because the prosecution either forgot to share this bullshit, inconsequential evidence… or felt they were unable to argue that a sitting Senator had more of a responsibility to pay for services already rendered to a company that profits directly from his lawmaking than sending a letter asking whether or not they wanted the quarter million dollars he owed them?

And why the fuck don’t The Daily Show or the Colbert Report — our leading journalistic institutions by default — find this as absoludicrous as I do?  This deserves a full 8 minute segment with John Hodgeman, Wyatt Cenac, or Stephen’s Formidable Opponent.

… and the cow goes moo

Ted Stevens’ voided conviction update

I’ve been half-ranting about the failure in prosecution and half-celebrating the accuracy of my prediction that Ted Stevens would find himself escaping punishment in some of my previous posts.

The process of voiding his conviction on seven felony counts is incomplete, but the tone of the articles I have read recently suggest that it is simply a matter of time.  According to the New York Times:

“That victory was short-lived. Shortly after he was sworn in as attorney general on Feb. 3, Mr. Holder took the unusual step of removing the entire Stevens trial team from the case and replacing those lawyers with three new prosecutors. Last week, after discovering yet another instance of what the Justice Department concluded had been misconduct by the original prosecution team, Mr. Holder said he would seek to drop all charges.

Judge Sullivan is expected to approve the motion to dismiss in a hearing scheduled for Tuesday.”

The article goes into some more detail about the possible reasons for the prosecutions fail (bungling from all involved, conflicts between prosecutors of different ranks and law enforcement, disorganization, or perhaps a deficit in resources) but I wonder if we should be surprised.  As I have cheerfully stated several times, I have been expecting this outcome since last fall.

I simply cannot imagine that those charged with investigating the most powerful members of our government could possibly be of the highest caliber, or provided with support commensurate with the magnitude of their task.

If you are a skilled and ambitious lawyer, would you choose to work for government as opposed to higher-paying private jobs?

Would being a high-profile aggressive prosecutor for the government improve your chances at landing profitable private-sector jobs in the future?

Would a public corruption prosecutor be able to advance into careers in government through prosecutorial successes, which would undoubtedly place the prosecutor on opposing sides to many powerful politicians?

I am too cynical to even imagine that a very skilled prosecutor would choose this career path.  Does patriotism and fidelity to the law exist in any individual enough to doom themselves to such an under-appreciated role?

And even if there were a handful of individuals who, despite more promising career opportunities being available to them, opt for the limited compensation and David-versus-Goliath battles of public service, how long would those individuals last in an environment with few equally capable or similarly-motivated peers, all the while suffering exposure to the overwhelming corruption that permeates Washington?

I am quite frankly surprised that any success prosecutions come out of the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.  It seems to me the department is designed with a propensity to fail.

And it would appear even my cynicism may discount the actual degree of failure.  Even beyond the likelihood that the conviction would be voided, Polizeros posts that the prosecution team itself may face criminal charges for its handling of the Stevens case (they link to this AP/CQ Politics story). And from what has been revealed during the debacle of a trial, and since the conviction was handed out, an investigation should be conducted without question.

“”I was sick in my stomach,” attorney Brendan Sullivan said Tuesday, recalling seeing the new evidence for the first time. “How could they do this? How could they abandon their responsibilities? How could they take on a very decent man, Ted Stevens, who happened to be a United States senator, and do this?”"

[Sidenote:  That AP/CQ Politics story quotes 'attorney' Brendan Sullivan for his response to the news, without ever mentioning that he was Ted Stevens' chief defense lawyer.  Kind of important omission there...]

Now that I wouldn’t guess:  A senator may abuse his office and corrupt government for forty years and the lawyers who (far too vigorously, perhaps) pursue his conviction are the ones that may end up jobless, or worse:

“The investigation carries the threat of prison time, fines and disbarment.”

Oh, and btw… Stevens, who lost his Alaska Senate seat to a Democrat shortly after his conviction, might have the chance to win the seat back if calls for a re-election succeed.  Hurray.

… and the cow goes moo

I called it! Ted Stevens conviction might be voided!

This is a bittersweet personal victory for me.  Kinda sucks when your cynicism is proven apt.

For background on some of the ridiculousness that has transpired during the trial (and if it takes decades to gather enough evidence to prosecute a dim-witted loudmouth Senator for corruption, should we expect anything other than breathtaking incompetence from the prosecution?) please see a post about Ted Steven’s ex-BFF Bill Allen, the prosecution’s key witness, here.

An update, including some “I dare you to call me on my bullshit” testimony from Mrs. Catherine Stevens, Ted’s wife, can be found here.

My own personal congratulations (a bit premature, perhaps, but still appropriate) for Mr. Stevens’ acquittal from October can be found here (God bless the internet and self-serving personal blogging.  Proof that I was right, recorded for posterity.)

I celebrate his late-October conviction here, as well as mentioning the likelihood of successful appeal.

One incidence of ridiculousness at the trial can be found here (a new juror was needed to replace a Ms. Marian Hinnant who just had to watch the Breeders’ Cup during deliberation.  And who lied about her dad dying so that she could do so.  Fishy.  I’d like to see some before and after photos of her house, pre- and post-trial).

And here’s a re-cap of some of the oddities and prosecutorial blunders, including the sexy sexy revelation that perhaps a female FBI agent was getting all hot and bothered for star witness and apparent sex god, ‘Big’ Bill Allen.  Re-capping my favorite quote from FBI Agent Chad Joy, who is central to the allegations of misconduct by the prosecution (I’d also like to see a before and after photo of his house, not that I doubt the validity of his claims, just the motivations):

“Mr. Joy said his colleague, Mary Beth Kepner, almost always wore pants but on the day the witness, Bill Allen, took the stand, Ms. Kepner donned a skirt, which Mr. Joy said she described as “a present” to Mr. Allen.

…

In its court filing, Mr. Stevens’s defense team has magnified Mr. Joy’s complaint about an improper relationship between Ms. Kepner and Mr. Allen, asserting that they appeared to have had a sexual relationship. Mr. Joy did not raise that possibility in the redacted version of his statement, but did say Ms. Kepner had improperly gone alone to Mr. Allen’s hotel room.”

Bow-chika-wow-wow.

And here’s what you’ve all been waiting for…  The New York Times today reports that the Justice Department is now looking to void Teddy’s conviction!

“The Justice Department moved on Wednesday to drop all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who lost his seat last year just days after being convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations.”

Congratulation, Ted Stevens!  Due to massive incompetence by prosecutor Brenda K. Morris, among others, and the irresistible sexiness of star witness, Bill Allen, as well as what must be by-design universal retardation at the special ed section of the Justice Department (the Public Integrity Section), you will probably live to 120 as a free man rather than see a day of prison.  And you probably have a fair chance at re-election in the asshole-of-a-state, Alaska, in 2012, at age 88.

Who else thinks that perhaps the Public Integrity Section’s staffing and funding is influenced by the very people they are meant to police?  I cna’t imagine why the department might be designed in manner that would allow it to do its job without impedance from the powerful members of Congress it is likely to investigate.  There’s no reason why anyone in power would want the dirty laundry aired.

… and the cow goes moo

What do you buy for a Queen? The same thing you buy for someone you don’t know vey well

In a continuation of our ongoing national embarrassment that is Barack Obama’s gift-giving, we have Obama and the Queen of England (so says The Telegraph):

“Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.”

At least her gift was equally thoughtless and a bit more self-absorbed even, but in her defence, she’s an old lady and there’s apparently a room full of those framed photos in Buckingham palace somewhere.

Prediction:  Obama’s next gift to a visiting dignitary or a host country’s leader will be a $50 Best Buy giftcard.

… and the cow goes moo