Our Bonds that Blind

Matt Taibbi continues to hound the too big to fail banks, and it's to our advantage. He's done it yet again in an expose' of the rigged game that's government bonds, long held to be the safest investments around. While to some extent that may be true, keep in mind that things have changed over the course of the last few decades as debt loads have exploded at every level. Thinking about buying any Cali bonds? Look at how the governator has shredded our books and then think twice. Then read the last chapter of Michael Lewis' latest and quite excellent book, Boomerang, then think again. Lewis' book -- which profiles the way EM08 played out in different countries such as Iceland and Greece, ominously ends with his home state of California, itself a nation state at about #8 in the world's largest economies. And in case you haven't heard, we are sunk to our eyeballs in debt. And although he wasn't alone, thank you governator, for trashing our future.

Over a year ago I posed a simple question to my good friend Torben who I see eye to eye with on EM08, and while researching over a year and a half ago, I was astounded at the debt loads, not just of credit cards, student loans, car loans... let alone mortgages, but of states and munis. I asked him, "What if Cali defaults on its bonds? Then what?" Torben said, more or less, "Then we're sunk." Cali's far bigger than Greece and as big as Italy's economy! No less than JPMC chairman and ceo (it's a conflict of interest to be both, btw) Jamie Dimon thought the same. And with a self pat on the back, yours truly beat him to the punch. And yet, in spite of a couple of noodnicks like us figuring this out, not a single major mass media merchant I know of has addressed this ticking time bomb.

Personally, I think bonds have been paying off by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is, because of our unified economy, folks in other states will pay for Cali's tragedy, similar to the way Germany has now become the EU's piggy bank. In other words, the federal government will just keep injecting us with money, because *they* know how important it is to keep California from blowing up the entire world. One thing's for sure, after reading Taibbi's piece, the cat's out of the bag on what a rigged game bonds are. Which means that to add to the long roster of welfare money cons, we can now add red, white and blue bonds.

Nothing means "not a thing." Neither is sacred anymore.

=============================================

[Some of the links in Taibbi's piece may be dead/lost; that's why I always supply the link to the original article. if you need to, just click on the title of the piece. -jp]

How Banks Cheat Taxpayers

by Matt Taibbi

Rolling Stone, 12/27/11

A good friend of mine sent me a link to a small story last week, something that deserves a little attention, post-factum.  

The Bloomberg piece is about J.P. Morgan Chase winning a bid to be the lead underwriter on a $400 million bond issue by the state of Massachusetts. Chase was up against Merrill for the bid and won the race with an offer of a 2.57% interest rate, beating Merrill’s bid of 2.79. The difference in the bid saved the state of Massachusetts $880,000.

Afterward, Massachusetts state treasurer Steven Grossman breezily played up the benefits of a competitive bid. "There's always a certain amount of competition going on out there," Grossman said in a telephone interview yesterday. "That's good. We like competition.”

Well … so what, right? Two banks fight over the right to be the government’s underwriter, one submits a more competitive bid, the taxpayer saves money, and everyone wins. That’s the way it ought to be, correct?

Correct. Except in four out of five cases, it still doesn’t happen that way. From the same piece [emphasis mine]:

Nationwide, about 20 percent of debt issued by states and local governments is sold through competitive bids. Issuers post public notices asking banks to make proposals and award the debt to the bidder offering the lowest interest cost. The other 80 percent are done through negotiated underwriting, where municipalities select a bank to price and sell the bonds.

By "negotiated underwriting," what Bloomberg means is, "local governments just hand the bid over to the bank that tosses enough combined hard and soft money at the right politicians."

There is absolutely no good reason why all debt issues are not put up to competitive bids. This is not like defense contracting, where in some situations it is at least theoretically possible that X or Y company is the world’s only competent manufacturer, say, of armor-plated Humvee doors, or some such thing. It’s still wrong and perverse when companies like Halliburton or Blackwater get sole-source defense contracts, but at least there’s some kind of theoretical justification there.

But this is a bond issue, not rocket science. In most cases, all the top investment banks will offer virtually the same service, with only the price varying. Towns and cities and states lose billions of dollars every year allowing financial services companies to overcharge them for underwriting.

It gets even worse in the derivatives markets, where banks routinely overcharge state and local governments for things like interest rate swaps, for one very obvious reason – swaps are not traded on open exchanges, so only the banks know how to price them.

Imagine what NFL gambling would be like if the casinos didn’t publish the point spreads every week, and you’ll get a rough idea of how the swap market works. If you couldn’t look it up, how many points would you give the Dolphins against the Jets next week? Two? Five? Seven? The big casinos know, because they’re taking all that action, that the real number is one point.

In the same vein, exactly how accurately do you think some local county treasurer might be able to guess the cost of an interest rate swap for his local school system? Answer: he’d probably do about as well as you or I would, guessing the odds on a Croatian soccer match.

The big banks know this, which is why there should never, ever be non-competitive bids for those sorts of financial services. In a sole-source contract for a swap deal, you’re trusting a (probably corrupt) Too-Big-To-Fail bank to give you a good deal for a product whose price is not publicly listed anywhere.

There have been numerous investigations and lawsuits across the world connected with this sort of systematic overcharging, from Erie, Pennsylvania to the notorious Jefferson County, Alabama case, to Milan, Italy (which sued Chase and four other banks for misleading them about derivative prices).

In the Erie case, Chase recommended to the locals that they hire a financial adviser to review the deal. What they didn’t tell the local government was that Chase had paid a fee to this adviser, a firm called Investment Management Advisory Group Inc., or IMAGE. They pulled the same scam with the school district of Butler County, Pennsylvania.

And in the oft-discussed Jefferson County case alone, Chase reportedly overcharged the locals $100 million for the crooked swap deals that, in a completely separate outrage, will probably leave Birmingham bankrupt for the next generation.

All of which is exactly what people like the OWS protesters are complaining about when they talk about greed and excess on Wall Street. Nobody is begrudging a bank’s desire to make money, and nobody is saying a bank shouldn’t be allowed to make money, even a lot of money, performing legitimate services for the state and the taxpayer.

But when you put a thumb on the scale in a financial services contract, the costs start to get outrageous very quickly. The banks would still do a very crisp, almost effortlessly lucrative business if they just stuck to submitting competitive bids for legitimate work – but instead of that, they for some reason have to game the system, grease politicians, rig bids, and stick the taxpayer with overpriced products. Which sucks, of course. Hopefully politicians will catch on and go the Massachusetts route more often.

What Do You Want?

There's one question that pundits and politicians keep posing to the Occupy gatherings around the country: What are your demands?

I have a suggestion for a response: We demand that you stop demanding a list of demands.


-Robert Jensen (1)




If ever there was a lens through which to watch paternalistic, reactionary privilege play out on center stage, it's with Occupy Wall Street. The presumably befuddled establishment pundits and requisite pie holes like billionaire know-it-all Mikey Bloomberg.


Anyway, here's a little toon I conjured up to express my eye-rolling.

Juke

KD was busy doin' work during the lockout.

Occcupy Oakland General Strike Nov 2

Another long day at OO. I don't think I'll be participating formally anymore, for various reasons I may or may not reveal. I will be engaged though, and am meeting a bunch of friends for the strike next Wednesday. In the meantime, here's a logo I made up in commemoration.

This will be available on shirts soon. Email withdrawnow@gmail.com if interested.

The initial proto per the example below was the OLD version that went viral because it was leaked. Too bad.

Cuts for Cooky: Amalia Rodrigues, Mariza, Cristina Branco

I've a work in progress on Occupy, but it'll have to wait, as it's way too involved. I've a lot to say, as befits me prolix.

But one of the weird things about EM08 is the far reach, indeed, infecting virtually all corners of the world. I heard an interview today with a Portuguese man, and he was very angry yet plaintive about the state of things, as Portugal's just one more in the line of suckers with Greece, Italy, France and Spain who were looted by Goldman and the rest of the American thugs. The interviewer said that the situation looked grim, and the man verbally shrugged; "that's why we have fado."

I thought it was an artistic answer.

First up, the doyenne, the late Amalia Rodrigues, then the beautiful Mariza, and, in one of my favorite kind of formats, Cristina Branco in an informal chamber setting; a living room. She kills it.

Lessons in Privilege: Initiatives, Black Power Mixtape and Moneyball

credit: Meme generator. Funny stuff.

THOSE WHO KNOW

I'm helping a group of associates here in Berkeley investigate the initiative process toward participatory budgeting, whereby everyday people will have a direct say in where tax dollars will be spent, and, by implication, oversight of the process. Like the foregoing run-on sentence, it's a long slog, but that's the nature of the fight.

Recently, several of this group attended an event organized by Zocalo, who I know a thing or two about as they've been churning in LA for some time. When I learned of this event, I thought of my past experiences with Zocalo, a group given to theory and not unique in that respect, but with a fine veneer of polish.

The first thing that struck me upon looking at the Zocalo panel was they were all wonksters in one form or another.

I braced myself. Expectations were lowered, expectations were met. It's my own personal coping mechanism.

Subsequent to that event, a participatory budgeting group member forwarded an announcement about another event with the theme of "slow money", which piqued my interest, given my stake in researching and keeping abreast of EM08, the economic meltdown of '08. Then I noticed that the lowest entrance fee was about $600.

So, in light of these developments, I think keeping in mind the history of the way the so-called left has consistently been shot through with elitist values should be talked up.

Those "thought leaders" that are Zocalo or the slow money event permeate just about everything in our society, from new media to, yes, resistance movements. It's one of the reasons, for example, when someone starts waxing poetic about ted conferences I roll my interior eyes. Or when Esther Dyson begins one of her diatribes about the Net, let alone when Paul Krugman pontificates about economics.

NOTHING NEW
One key thing to remember is that this is nothing new. Power in whatever form obviously has a generative goal which implies surviving and prospering. The history of the left is ripe with internal strife and infiltration, but an important distinction must be made; just as the NOI or the BPP were infiltrated and disrupted, it's impossible for, say, my group of everyday people to infiltrate the board of Goldman or B of A, much less to monitor them at a level that would make us satisfied. Right now, a group of protesters is "occupying" Wall Street, and it's gone viral. Will it reach Goldman's board room? I'll give 3 to 1 on that not happening.

If it's one thing I've learned it's that framing conveys a lot, and I don't just mean rhetorically. The Zocalo event was a "serious" environment, just as any large college lecture hall is. "Real" thinking happens there, and if knowledge springs forth from the streets, well, how can those who "know" pontificate, theorize and profit? More, how can those who "know" take seriously those from the streets? Finally, why should those from the streets take what those who "know" seriously? It's an assumption at best to even think that those in the barrio take seriously those who "know", and yet, those "knowers" act as if it doesn't matter because of the privileged places they occupy. In other words, the "bubble of knowing" accords insulation; they have certainty that the evil empire they are (ostensibly) fighting up above is a noble if not strategically and morally correct fight, and since "they know" are only doing what's best for those who do not know below them.


BLACK POWER MIXTAPE & MONEYBALL
Over the weekend I saw both Black Power Mixtape and Moneyball, and the more I thought about it, the more I was impressed by the latter and just kind of indifferent toward the former. On the surface, BPM is the kind of flick right in the boomers' wheelhouse; big names, big times. And while the footage is great and in good condition, it's a pastiche, and I came away thinking it was just a walk down memory lane, nice in its nostalgia, but fairly tame stuff. Angela Davis, the poster child of the 60's black power movement, is given prominence, occupies the poster for the film, and yet was never involved with movement building. She was an intellectual, and very good at it, but never involved in the day to day work of building a grassroots movement the way the BPP was. It also comes off as contrived; having Talib Kweli, Eryka Badu and Questlove ruminating on the crucible of the 60's/70's is like Britney Spears talking about the merits of Steal This Book. Ok, maybe not like that, but....

Which brings me to a point; for progressives who are truly concerned with changing the system, if everyday people's voices aren't present in their diversity, run. This is embodied in Malcolm's words when he said:

There's one thing I want to make clear; no matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition whites show toward me, as far as I'm concerned, as long as that same respect and recognition is not shown toward every one of our people in this country it doesn't exist for me.

Moneyball, on the other hand, is ostensibly about as far from the progressive left this side of the skynet death star. It's "about" major league baseball general manager Billy Beane, but is about thinking but also about guts; how a mind can free itself from the societal strictures of tradition and pressure. It's about breaking through old hat.

Corporations love to say "think outside of the box", while doing everything to suppress it. Make no mistake, Major League Baseball's franchises are corporations, and in some ways, are arguably more pressurized than working for Citigroup. It was Noam Chomsky himself who famously pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, Americans are very smart and analytical, and as proof, just turn on sports talk radio and listen to the callers running down everything from the efficacy of man to man versus zone defense to matchups, coaching strategies, trades and their implications... any sports fan knows what he means. And it's true.

Amidst that comes Michael Lewis, about as good a writer as there is (on EM08 and other subjects, like being a dad), who just happens to be a sports nut. And he discovered something funny; that despite a payroll dwarfed by industry behemoths like the Yankees and Dodgers, the Oakland A's were doing something against all odds; they were winning.

What Lewis discovered is not just a great story, but a platinum lesson for those seeking change against the evil empire. Because Moneyball is really about the Godfather of Billy Beane's adopted approach (Sabermetrics), Bill James. And while Beane's story of struggling against convention is a great one, the fact is that Moneyball would never be without James, who first thought of the system of looking at baseball from outside of the box of tradition. And who is Bill James, a former player, a coach? Nope. He was an everyday joe who loved baseball, thought about it from a different angle, and went on a journey of discovery.

In a movie brimming with the lesson of breaking through, Beane himself is served up a cardinal lesson late in the movie. In about as contrived a scene as can be, and yet perfectly pitched, he's schooled in some of the greatest lessons of all; to see himself and the big picture. It works, but I'm a sucker for old Hollywood; I've seen Capra's opus, It's a Wonderful Life, countless times, and it never loses any of its power, in fact, like a fine wine, it only seems to get better. Moneyball is a throwback movie to that Golden Age of Hollywood, and for two hours, I was a little boy sitting in the Golden Gate Theater, enthralled. Thanks also to director Bennett Miller, for time well spent.

The fact of James being an everyday person who had such an enormous impact on a tradition over a century old whizzes right by the viewer in Jonah Hill's dialog and a short burst of James' photo, but listen and watch for it: It's the golden Easter egg, the moneyball within Moneyball.

See this movie.

At the game: The great Bill James

Response: Randall Kennedy on Obama's black critics

First, Kennedy's piece, then mine.


Why Obama's black critics are wrong
By Randall Kennedy, Special to CNN
September 19, 2011

Editor's note: Randall Kennedy is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author, most recently, of "The Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency" (Pantheon Books).

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Throughout President Barack Obama's political career, he has been dogged by insinuations or, indeed, accusations that he is not "black enough" to warrant strong support from African-Americans. Rep. Bobby Rush made that assertion when he successfully fended off Obama's effort to wrest from him his seat in the House of Representatives in the Democratic primary in 2000. Alan Keyes voiced that sentiment in his losing campaign against Obama for the U.S. Senate.

When Obama accepted the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, the celebrity scholar Cornel West groused that the first African-American standard-bearer for a major party had "run from history" by failing to mention explicitly the "black freedom movement."

Skepticism regarding Obama's racial bona fides has continued to surface since he moved into the White House. Rep. Maxine Waters, for instance, has recently chided him for failing to craft policies that would explicitly target black unemployment and for otherwise neglecting, in her view, to evince a proper acknowledgment of the baleful and disproportionate pain being experienced in black communities on account of the economic downturn. What is one to make of this critique?

First, it should not be at all surprising. Black America is ideologically diverse, just like other communities. Moreover, as I document in "Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal," there exists in black America a special anxiety about the loyalties of high achievers, especially when their success is largely dependent on whites and others who are not black. Every prominent black in a predominantly white setting faces, at one time or another, claims from fellow blacks that he or she is "selling out." GOP slams 'Buffett Rule' to cut debt Obama: America can't 'wait 14 months'.

Second, Obama's black detractors receive a degree of attention in the news media that is far greater than their representativeness of black America or their influence within it. The great bulk of black American voters -- upward of 90% -- supported Obama in 2008 and do so today. They do so because of his party affiliation, his liberal policy preferences, his identification with the African-American community (the offspring of an interracial couple, he calls himself black and married a black woman), his personal attractiveness -- he is uncommonly articulate, handsome, knowledgeable and gracious -- and the fact that with all of the added burdens attendant to his blackness, he was still able to climb the Mount Everest of American politics. Unlike some of Obama's most vocal detractors, the black rank-and-file have a realistic appreciation of the limits of his authority and the power of the forces arrayed against him, including a large, albeit amorphous, strain of racial resentment. Pained by the economic recession, they refrain from blaming Obama and instead direct their ire at those who not only saddled the first black chief executive with such a harrowing task of cleanup but also obstruct him relentlessly and often with barely disguised contempt.

Third, even though Obama's black detractors constitute currently only a small sliver of African-American public opinion, their critique is nonetheless important in practical, electoral terms.
It is often the case that a vocal, motivated minority can exercise influence that far exceeds their numbers. Enthusiasm matters. A drumbeat of complaint calling into question Obama's attentiveness to blacks might well diminish the fervency of the support he will need for his re-election effort. Furthermore, certain actions he might take to respond to the racial critique might well alienate other, nonblack, potential supporters.

The race line will ensnare Obama no matter how he proceeds. It will not necessarily defeat him. His epochal victory in 2008 showed that, unlike previous eras, our own is one in which a black politician can overcome racial barriers to win the highest office in the land. Still, the sobering reality is that race remains an important, persistent force in American life despite the presence of a black family in the White House.

===================================================

True Color

A response to Prof. Randal Kennedy's
"Why Obama's black critics are wrong"

by JP Kaneshida

When then senator Obama was campaigning for president, he very vocally called for the largest welfare payments in history in the wake of Lehman's implosion and, unbeknownst to the general public, Merrill ready to go next. Then he voted for it - just as Clinton did, McCain did, Kerry did... just as they all did (save for the anomalies).

When he won the presidency, I became curious, and, taking a page from Watergate's Mark "Deep Throat" Felt, I followed the money. Here's the truth; of Obama's top 20 largest campaign contributors, the largest industry representation -- at 25% -- is banking; Goldman, JPMC, Citi, UBS, and Morgan Stanley.

In the face of this, for Kennedy to be trying to raise a debate about the topic of intra-black discussion on whether or not Obama is "black enough", while a real phenomenon, is a "folk argument" and only really given weight in the hands of a gifted mind like Malcolm's, when he broke down the house/field negro syndromes. Kennedy's take -- with a "Special" assist by CNN -- occupies valuable mainstream media real estate and mis-directs toward the tree while the forest is being clear-cut. In other words, to talk about race and the Obama presidency through the prism of anything other than Detroit having had a fall of 2008 H-bomb dropped on it isn't criminal, but it gives new meaning to ostriches putting their heads in holes; it's digging the holes.

And here's the money ball; those historic welfare payments to the banks are the direct result of racism. How? So called "liar's loans" and "predatory loans" -- notice how those terms correctly and accurately place responsibility upon the originators of the loans, to the chagrin of Rick Santelli -- were disproportionately aimed squarely at black and brown populations. The end result post EM08 -- Economic Meltdown 08 -- is, well, Detroit.

To be fair, most black intellectuals haven't stepped up to the plate and hit this hanging curve. But Barack's the prez. You know, the bully pulpit. The Weberian charismatic leader. The one who took bazillions of everyday peeps' hard-earned money in a landmark campaign noted for several things, but most shockingly, the sheer amount of money raised.

That record amount of money was everyday Americans hoping beyond hope, pleading, imploring... for someone to have their backs. Instead, in one of the most monumental "go eff yourselves" in history, questions about whether or not Obama's down, while legit, obscure the real allegiances he's made, nurtured and keeps. The old adage, "actions speak..." and Felt's "follow the money" should be the tattoos of our time.

The cue here and plainly evident in the three years since EM08? There haven't been any prosecutions let alone indictments of any of the major banksters, mortgage lenders, credit ratings agencies, or regulatory agencies, let alone hedge fund and other large fund managers to see if there was fraud, collusion or conflicts of interest. Hey, these are the largest, most pervasive and still ongoing financial crimes in history, that's all.

That the DOJ, SEC, congress, the senate, the president... haven't haven't lifted a finger against the evil empire, and if anything have given rewards to the welfare thugs while the world is on its knees, is the ultimate eff you. But it also flips off history; when the S & L fiasco went down, we prosecuted and jailed over 1,000 banksters; ask John McCain's criminal buddy no more, Chuckie Keating, who went rafting up the river. We took them into receivership, converted debt into equity and got on with life. This is sop and furthermore, the law - just ask professor William Black who speaks with authority on the subject as one of the regulators that took care of those criminals then. Don't like the official view from someone who was there and did it right? Then ask Bill Ackman, CEO of hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, who says the same thing.

Arguments over whether Obama's "black enough" are frankly insulting in the face of the most rampant criminality, fraud and conflicts of interests on a scale that makes Watergate look like a Comicon dork convention. The truth is that we live in the largest, most pervasive and entrenched criminal welfare state in world history. Depending upon the reader, whether Obama's black enough or not will of course vary and my point is that while they are sort of interesting polemical discussions, Obama's real pr magic is that he's shown his true color to be so deeply dark green that sometimes -- sometimes -- it looks black.

Cuts for Cooky: X: I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts

I saw X last year, actually Exene and Doe, and when they played this, one of my favorite X tunes, it was so moving, because of the times and the personal feeling of being under the gun.

What an appropriate anthem this song is for today's crazy world... I don't know where this version was shot, but it's quality is bad. In some ways it adds to the punk aesthetic, much like the vid of White Girl I posted a while back.

Stick around til the bitter end; Doe basically love trashes LA. I'm headed back for an extended visit in about three weeks. I can't wait.

Cuts for Cooky: Lady Gaga's The Edge of Glory

I'm not a Gaga fan, but recognize her talent, although it can be hard to find through all of the gratuitous garishness of her shows and production. Take this song in its album version and it's a dance tune, but as a ballad with just her singing with piano and it's better.

Leave it to the Stern Show's long history of bringing out the best in talent, whether in interviews or performing. It just figures that after her appearance, I'd post a song of hers; it's all Stern's fault. What's missing  here is the long preamble where she goes into the genesis of the song, how it's about her grandfather who at the time was dying, and her grandmother who wouldn't leave his side. Gaga explained that she told her grandmother that he didn't want to die in front of her, that (being Italian) he was too proud. So she convinced her grandmother to leave after having been there for something like two weeks, and a couple of hours later he passed. Gaga used being on the edge as that moment when one is about to cross over.

I guess I'm a sucker for these kinds of stories, and her setup made the song moving to my sappy sentimentality. As DeNiro says to Minnelli toward the end of New York, New York; "Sappy Endings."

Susan Saladoff's "Hot Coffee"

The amount of money that's spent on television on a political campaign has a[n] enormous effect on the outcome. And in fact in 2000, the statistics showed that the side that spent the most money won about 90% of the time.

--Kenneth Canfield, Georgia Judicial Nominating Commission

Spoiler alert: some details lie ahead that if I  knew beforehand wouldn't ruin viewing for me, but everyone's different.

Susan Saladoff

Those who know me know that I place a premium on information; it's why I feel understanding the fourth estate is so crucial for everyday people. They'd also tell you that my opinion of lawyers is like that of many; they're like those creepy ultra deep-water sea creatures, serving some sort of function in the universe. With that out of the way, there are good lawyers, and Susan Saladoff's one of them. A former civil attorney, her film, Hot Coffee, is one of the best I've seen in recent memory. I think her movie should be required viewing in junior high school civics and for everyday people in general because it employs several of the principles that I believe media must have if it's to serve the interests of everyday people:

1. Exposes the mechanisms through which power flexes its muscles.

2. Names names; who was/is responsible, what they did, and when. Also, if possible and taking a Watergate page, what they knew and when they knew it, and chain of command.

3. When it comes to understanding the way power works, probably the single most important investigatory principle and practice, and borrowing again from Watergate, this time from Mark "Deep Throat" Felt, follow the money.

As an aside, while power has always exercised the various channels it controls, since the economic meltdown of 2008 (EM08), I think the stakes for everyday people have risen significantly; risk has only grown along with uncertainty (today, the Dow dropped over 500 points as worries about the EU crisis and American instability have finally caught religion, or so it would seem; stay tuned). What this means is that corporations, despite sitting on skyscraper piles of money, aren't going to spend to create jobs. What it also means is that they are going to hedge their bets harder on anything and everything that can bleed money, which means torts.

For everyday people, going into litigation is intimidating and overwhelming, largely because of ignorance. There's a part in Hot Coffee that speaks to this when several people on the street are asked a simple question: "What's a tort?" Their answers, while amusing in their fumfering, make a point, because torts are without a doubt something that every school should educate a student about. Now think about sports; would you go into a game for fairly high stakes without knowing the rules, the fundamentals and without practicing? A tort, and specifically, the way the legal system has been gamed by power, is illustrative of the way real politics and the legal system works in America; but for everyday people, it's a game they know nothing about, because 1) The system is rigged to allow power to work largely out of view, and 2) our culture encourages and fosters superficiality, distraction and mis-directed values away from power.

In an example of mis-directed values, what steams me is that poker players get demonized as degenerates, but a poker game at a reputable casino or card house is fair, because going in you know the house's rake, and aside from that, it's you against the competition, everyone must abide by the rules, and there are eyes everywhere to ensure that. You can't even cuss at the table.

The image of poker players as degenerates versus, say, the US Chamber of Commerce, which floods the political system with corporate lobby money, speaks to the snow job con that's an example of the mis-directed values and morals of our twisted culture. As Saladoff shows, it is economics that impels the legal system, not lofty, idealistic notions of "justice" or "fairness," much less the grand visions of the American forefathers. If our schools were to relevantly prepare young people for the real world, they would do things like screen movies such as Hot Coffee and have roiling discussions in order to ignite the flame of critical thinking. Instead, our schools leave kids as the suckers at the poker table, not knowing a thing, or deluded into thinking they know what's going on.

My latest jag is that with defense, auto, healthcare, big-agri, and of course, banking, we are now the largest welfare state in history. I've gone into it before, but toward the end of Hot Coffee, Lisa Gourley, the mother of Colin and one of the case studies (one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen, making me simultaneously furious and sad), says a very important thing; that because of the way  medical lawsuits have been capped in this country -- largely in response to big corp's "tort reform" pr onslaught and their prostitute politicians that led the legislative charge -- that although the Gourleys won their malpractice case, in the face of the jury awarding them millions, because of the cap, it was reduced. As a result, their costs beyond the reduced settlement amount now are paid by Medicare. In other words, the taxpayers.

Once again, here we have large corporations taking the profits, but socializing the losses. That's welfare, folks.

One other thing; I didn't know Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) from Adam until Saladoff's film, but at about 32 minutes in, he has the balls to call out the US Chamber of Commerce -- a very powerful lobby on behalf of some of the largest corporations going. Big hat tip here, and as with Saladoff being a lawyer with a sense of justice and fairness, we could use more politicians like Braley.

Last, I have a personal stake in the spirit of Hot Coffee; my family went through a malpractice, wrongful death suit. I wrote the argument paper that was used verbatim by our (pedestrian) lawyer and was the "lead" on behalf of my family. That suit dragged on for five years and, of course, was capped. Think about that, a cap on a life. That's economics in the real world, not supply and demand curve mumbo jumbo. But once again, following Mark Felt's (Watergate's "Deep Throat") dictum to follow the money, and I think I know what's going on. With armies of accountants and lawyers advising the corporations, the formula goes something like this; filibuster the case until the end of the statute of limitations and pay out settlements from interest earning accounts. In other words, maximize the earning power of your investment accounts against litigation. And as in the case of the Gourleys, as much as possible, get an edge on the game by fixing it a'la forced arbitration to eliminate the power of juries, and socialize risks and losses through capped settlements. Again, that's economics and politics in the real world.

Brilliantly thought out and executed, Susan Saladoff lays out Hot Coffee in a masterful, William Kuntsler in his heyday manner. That this is her first film is remarkable, as it's very well directed and produced; that it's such a valuable contribution to knowing the enemy makes it essential to anyone who values fairness.

See this movie; it's an education in and of itself. I can't recommend it highly enough.

It really opened my eyes [as] to how the system works.

--Lisa Gourley 

What Was

One of the things Russell Brand nails in his touching tribute and farewell to Amy is his description of what communicating with an addict is, the "barely discernible but un-ignorable veil... [They] look through you to somewhere else they'd rather be. And of course, they are."


I lived that, and am now experiencing that with someone close to me. It may sound strange to some on the outside, but this person's addiction isn't drugs, alcohol or even sex, and in many ways is much more pernicious. To them, I can only say, that the answer you seek is ease itself, hidden in plain sight, and that if you had the power the words alone would unlock the chains. And while it's painful to watch you twist and turn in the wind, I rest my hope for you in the simple fact that if a wretch like me can find it, then anyone can.


What was so remarkable about Amy went beyond her phenomenal voice, and spoke to history, the fact that her roots went straight to the greats like Dinah. It's her acknowledgement of standing on the shoulders of giants that deepened my appreciation of her as an artist. As I write this, I'm listening to a demo of Amy singing Love is a Losing Game with just her and guitar. At the end, just now, she nonchalantly asked the engineer, "Is that alright?" What a weird, wonderful moment.


For Amy
by Russell Brand
July 24th, 2011

When you love someone who suffers from the disease of addiction you await the phone call. There will be a phone call. The sincere hope is that the call will be from the addict themselves, telling you they’ve had enough, that they’re ready to stop, ready to try something new. Of course though, you fear the other call, the sad nocturnal chime from a friend or relative telling you it’s too late, she’s gone.

Frustratingly it’s not a call you can ever make it must be received. It is impossible to intervene.

I’ve known Amy Winehouse for years. When I first met her around Camden she was just some twit in a pink satin jacket shuffling round bars with mutual friends, most of whom were in cool Indie bands or peripheral Camden figures Withnail-ing their way through life on impotent charisma. Carl Barrat told me that “Winehouse” (which I usually called her and got a kick out of cos it’s kind of funny to call a girl by her surname) was a jazz singer, which struck me as bizarrely anomalous in that crowd. To me with my limited musical knowledge this information placed Amy beyond an invisible boundary of relevance; “Jazz singer? She must be some kind of eccentric” I thought. I chatted to her anyway though, she was after all, a girl, and she was sweet and peculiar but most of all vulnerable.

I was myself at that time barely out of rehab and was thirstily seeking less complicated women so I barely reflected on the now glaringly obvious fact that Winehouse and I shared an affliction, the disease of addiction. All addicts, regardless of the substance or their social status share a consistent and obvious symptom; they’re not quite present when you talk to them. They communicate to you through a barely discernible but un-ignorable veil. Whether a homeless smack head troubling you for 50p for a cup of tea or a coked-up, pinstriped exec foaming off about his “speedboat” there is a toxic aura that prevents connection. They have about them the air of elsewhere, that they’re looking through you to somewhere else they’d rather be. And of course they are. The priority of any addict is to anaesthetise the pain of living to ease the passage of the day with some purchased relief.

From time to time I’d bump into Amy she had good banter so we could chat a bit and have a laugh, she was “a character” but that world was riddled with half cut, doped up chancers, I was one of them, even in early recovery I was kept afloat only by clinging to the bodies of strangers so Winehouse, but for her gentle quirks didn’t especially register.

Then she became massively famous and I was pleased to see her acknowledged but mostly baffled because I’d not experienced her work and this not being the 1950’s I wondered how a “jazz singer” had achieved such cultural prominence. I wasn’t curious enough to do anything so extreme as listen to her music or go to one of her gigs, I was becoming famous myself at the time and that was an all consuming experience. It was only by chance that I attended a Paul Weller gig at the Roundhouse that I ever saw her live.

I arrived late and as I made my way to the audience through the plastic smiles and plastic cups I heard the rolling, wondrous resonance of a female vocal. Entering the space I saw Amy on stage with Weller and his band; and then the awe. The awe that envelops when witnessing a genius. From her oddly dainty presence that voice, a voice that seemed not to come from her but from somewhere beyond even Billie and Ella, from the font of all greatness. A voice that was filled with such power and pain that it was at once entirely human yet laced with the divine. My ears, my mouth, my heart and mind all instantly opened. Winehouse. Winehouse? Winehouse! That twerp, all eyeliner and lager dithering up Chalk Farm Road under a back-combed barnet, the lips that I’d only seen clenching a fishwife fag and dribbling curses now a portal for this holy sound. So now I knew. She wasn’t just some hapless wannabe, yet another pissed up nit who was never gonna make it, nor was she even a ten-a-penny-chanteuse enjoying her fifteen minutes. She was a fucking genius.

Shallow fool that I am I now regarded her in a different light, the light that blazed down from heaven when she sang. That lit her up now and a new phase in our friendship began. She came on a few of my TV and radio shows, I still saw her about but now attended to her with a little more interest. Publicly though, Amy increasingly became defined by her addiction. Our media though is more interested in tragedy than talent, so the ink began to defect from praising her gift to chronicling her downfall. The destructive personal relationships, the blood soaked ballet slippers, the aborted shows, that youtube madness with the baby mice. In the public perception this ephemeral tittle-tattle replaced her timeless talent. This and her manner in our occasional meetings brought home to me the severity of her condition. Addiction is a serious disease; it will end with jail, mental institutions or death. I was 27 years old when through the friendship and help of Chip Somers of the treatment centre, Focus12 I found recovery, through Focus I was introduced to support fellowships for alcoholics and drug addicts which are very easy to find and open to anybody with a desire to stop drinking and without which I would not be alive.

Now Amy Winehouse is dead, like many others whose unnecessary deaths have been retrospectively romanticised, at 27 years old. Whether this tragedy was preventable or not is now irrelevant. It is not preventable today. We have lost a beautiful and talented woman to this disease. Not all addicts have Amy’s incredible talent. Or Kurt’s or Jimi’s or Janis’s, some people just get the affliction. All we can do is adapt the way we view this condition, not as a crime or a romantic affectation but as a disease that will kill. We need to review the way society treats addicts, not as criminals but as sick people in need of care. We need to look at the way our government funds rehabilitation. It is cheaper to rehabilitate an addict than to send them to prison, so criminalisation doesn’t even make economic sense. Not all of us know someone with the incredible talent that Amy had but we all know drunks and junkies and they all need help and the help is out there. All they have to do is pick up the phone and make the call. Or not. Either way, there will be a phone call.

The Death Stars

I didn't get to finish this, it has some more work but I've lost interest. Still it shows what one can do while listening to interviews with the Net, Photoshop fired up, and a healthy dose of Travis Bickle revenge toward the Evil Empire.

To borrow Joe Nocera's & Bethany McLean's title, All The Devils are Here. Well, 32 of them. Next up, all of the hack msm journalists and analysts who got EM08 completely wrong, and in some cases, insisted things were ok leading up to the fall of '08. In fact, I know someone in real estate 10 months ago who is still drinking bubble flavored kool aid, trying to convince peeps the market bottomed and it was a good time to buy. I checked his ass so hard he acted like Jack Tatum hit him. Then, only a month ago he wrote to tell me (and others) yet again, that real estate was a good move.

That after almost a year of deleveraging and way more to go, plus all of the uncertainty and mess around mortgage gate, not to mention no one's talking about the disaster CRE is, with over a trillion there waiting to jack us into Judgement Day. Ah, como es la guerra.

What I tell peeps is that while there have been empires past, because of the limitations in technology, they were bound to colonies. But in the EM08 world, we have the first true world empire, and its madness has infected everyone; this is why what's happening in the EU has huge consequences everywhere else. And, we have some of the walking puss sacks below to thank, many paid by you. How's that for bending us over twice?  Here then are the biggest thugs in history, the Death Star's Hitmen and the Dark Side's agents. 

Some of these are easy, but without cheating, I bet you can't name all of them.

Razzing the Death Star

When it comes to hubris, if Goldman Sachs were a porn star and everyone else had a 10 inch weenie, Goldman would somehow have a 2 footer. And no, they wouldn't care what women had to say.

Said hubris is usually -- when it's called at all -- associated with Goldman's penchant for fixing games, lying and all around corruption when it comes to bets. In his notorious Wall Street memoir, Liar's Poker, Michael Lewis said of Salomon Brothers, his old firm and the head of the snake that would become the mortgage backed securities game, that you never wanted to be on the other side of the bet with them. And if Salomon was Darth Vader, Goldman is surely the Death Star.

But here's an aspect of the Goldman Death Star -- the kind, warm den on a cool autumn afternoon Goldman. You know, snuggly and fuzzy, in a Death Star kinda way. Take a look at their ad banner below; the black man as the object of Goldman Death Star affection and the way Goldman is touted as a catalyst for communities. (!!!)  That would be even more hilarious were it not running against the stark irony reality check of the story headline. Let the community support -- and eye rolling

click to enlarge

Killer Nanny

I'm a Comcast Ho. Yeah, AND...?

Straight out of the opening of Blue Velvet's weird bugs underneath the white picket fence crawls Stepford Wife in her wildest dreams Meredith Atwell Baker, although one imagines the wildest this puss gets is sneaking squirts from the Reddi Whip can at midnight. It's all over the news about how she sold out her FCC commmish position to Comcast and is now -- in the finest aping of Phil "the walking hemorrhoid" Gramm -- leaving the FCC to join -- ta da -- Comcast.

As we know from EM08, such conflicts of interest are nothing new, the so-called "revolving door" between uncle scam's chamber of horrors bureaucracy and the corporate boardrooms of hell where creepy old men take 3 hour strip club lunches and jack their jollies as they dream of new ways to rape and pillage. You know, like the scorpion said about it being "his nature"....

But while Philly Gramm's joining UBS barely tweaked the msm in terms of conflicts of interest, somehow even the HuffPo has run Baker's story fairly prominently. In fact, my in box had several messages screaming about this.

So what can we expect out of this ink? Vegas is putting the line at "blah blah blah"; there'll be some minor talk from the msm and of course unc scam. Just as with all of the hot gas when unc scam "investigated" EM08 (the FCIC). That's about it.

Purple Pain: Mavs Sweep, End of an Era

Even a billion douches can't keep him from believing it, either.

After losing the third game in their second round playoff series versus the Mavs, I penned a letter to my Laker friends. And yes, I call the Lakers the "Lakes" - it's an old habit, so buy an rpg and shoot me.


With today's slaughter, the "Mother's Day Massacre" which saw the Lakes meltdown like our economy, the public rape and torture is at least over. The Mavs were unstoppable, and everything I said about game 3 applies in spades.


Now that Phil's gone, it may be time to bring in Coop to lead them. Here's a guy who has the champion and Lakes pedigree, played with the greatest floor general the game will ever see who happens to be an owner and vp, and obviously has expressed interest with his coaching stint in the WNBA.


And then there's the sad spectacle of Pau's meltdown. Pau, as talented a big in the league, was just sad to watch. LakerNation's David brickley put it into perspective:

Gasol’s struggles are mental; there is no other way to explain it. After he fails at something on the court Pau shrugs his shoulders, hangs his head, and complains to the refs.He is not performing at even close to what he is capable of when the Lakers need him, and it seems as if he doesn’t even care.Or at least comes off like he doesn’t have the answers to fix his issues.He gets paid 17.8 million dollars per year to be the Robin to Kobe Bryant’s Batman.The Lakers traded a player away for Gasol that Laker fans couldn’t stand, and what many call the biggest draft bust in history, Kwame Brown.Kwame Brown in the 2006 playoffs with the Lakers averaged 13 points per game, while shooting 53% from the field, and pulling down 7 rebounds per game.Pau Gasol in the 2011 playoffs with the Lakers is averaging 13 points per game, while shooting 42% from the field, and pulling down 7.8 rebounds per game.Look familiar?

$17.8 mil is a ton of meltdown money. It really is sad. Kinda weird, too.


Let this series be a harsh reminder that while the Lakes were loaded with talent -- much more so than the Mavs -- they were completely dominated and swept. It is one of the most stunning upsets in sports ever. And for that, give credit of course to Nowitski, Terry, Barea (super off the bench), and Rick Carlisle, who outcoached Phil at every turn of the road. Oh, and old man Jason Kidd.


=================================


From May 7, 2011 after the game 3 loss.


Dear Chicky Baby Fan Club,

The hated Celtics in their game 3 with Miami today did what I had hoped the Lakes would do Friday in theirs; they got attitude. That may sound like mumbo jumbo to those of you who know me; that when it comes to sports, it should be about strategy, tactics and techniques. But psychology is arguably the bigger part of sports, and in this area, I think the Lakes have just burned out. Not even Phil thumping Pau's chest can revive this patient. So, to drown my sorrows I'm going to torture y'all with my breakdowns of why -- in my boy MM's words -- the party's ova for the Lakes.

One thing first; Imo, the series at worst should be 2-1 Mavs. In fact, I think all three games have very key correctable reasons -- different in each game but related in one overall aspect. Here we go....

GAME 1

The Mavs were down by 16 in the third. The first game thus set an ominous tone, but I think the very last play said a lot about why we're now down by 3, and it's this; WHY when you have to score, would you go for a 3??? I don't care if it's Yoda shooting with the aid of The Force, Kobe shot a 25 footer - at best a 45% proposition. And, if I remember correctly, it wasn't a clear shot, and I believe he was falling away, thus compounding the degree of difficulty.

Percentage basketball says; work for a good percentage shot, or at least (some would say this would be option 1), drive and increase your odds of getting to the foul line.

The Lakes instead made the worst choice that makes the least sense (Phil and staff are sounding like our government, right?). That's a basic, fundamental tactical mistake - a big one, at a big time in a big game.

GAME 2

The Lakes have never been a distance shooting team. There have been anomalies -- Coop in the day could hoist. Zeke from Cabin Creek could gun (in one of the most remarkable achievements ever, he averaged 43 through a playoff series). Despite history and Chicky Baby rolling his eyes from the grave, the Lakes continued their assault on the "worst distance shooting in a playoff game" record. At one point I think Mike Breen said they were 2 for 20 when yet another 3 was launched.

My head couldn't explode anymore because the damage had been done way before.

Yet again, another violation of basic strategy which says; if something isn't working, you must change, shift gears.

GAME 3

Obviously this was a disaster, but in a game that will rank in Purp & Gold infamy, when everyone else was out of it, Shannon Brown came off the bench and gave the Lake body on the gurney a desperately needed transfusion, much like Coop in the day did. I've long been a fan of this kid, and believe he should have been developed better. So anyway, what does Phil do after this kid puts on a terrific show?

He takes him out.

And the Lakes corpse -- once again -- reverts back to dying on the gurney, its adrenaline rush soon to be forgotten.

Once again, this is a violation of a cardinal strategic rule; never change a winning tactic. Remember in game 2 when Carlisle put in Barea and the way that kid turned on the Mavs as if a turbo charger had been shoved up their asses? You didn't see Carlisle yanking that kid out before the Mavs had thoroughly stomped and psyched out the Lakes. In other words, Carlisle let Barea play out his rush.

This is a basic 101 strategy in war, investing, business, even gambling, perhaps more so in gambling. If you're cranking at the tables, let's say you're on your way to tripling up, what, you should pick up your chips and all of a sudden call it a night?

The irony in a footnote here? Bynum all of a sudden decides that now is the time to get fired up. All of the shots of him shouting and getting all worked up seemed like so much posturing - desperate posturing, by someone who because of circumstances and all, has been far from what I thought he could be.

THE THREAD

It should be obvious by now, but Phil's the common denominator in all of this. A few of my friends and I are of the opinion that Phil's overrated, and I think this proves it. In games 1 & 2, arguably, for as bad as the Lakes played, they could have won if the fundamental mistakes would have been avoided.

There's a poker saying; it's a game of making the least mistakes. In a way, sports (and everything, really) and in particular hoops can be thought of this way. But with these three games, the Lakes added another dimension to that adage; because when you commit errors on such an elementary level, you go to the core. And if things are off at the core, how can you possibly expect the billion other things that basketball imposes to not be affected? It's like trying to build a bridge without understanding physics.

The late Arthur Ashe told one of my favorite stories about a time when he was playing Davis Cup, and during a changeover, his coach said, "Get your first serve in." Ashe cited this because it's silly to tell a tennis player, but particularly a pro like Ashe, to get his first serve in, because it'd be like telling Kobe: "Make 80% of your freethrows." While that's an example of bad coaching, at least Ashe's coach was thinking about strategy, even if it was on a kindergarten level. But it's kind of obvious that Phil hasn't been; maybe he's daydreaming about Jeanie.

This lack on the fundamental level has reared its ugly head in some conspicuous ways, particularly on D. Dirk was so open on one 3 there was a campfire beside him.

LOOKING AHEAD: ALL'S NOT LOST

Obviously, Kupchak is gonna have to work this summer, really, extra hard. Blow up that cell of yours, Kup, because you know what? We haven't had a real point guard in a while. I like Fish, but even in his prime, Fish wasn't the caliber 1 that a team as storied as the Lakes deserved. But guess what; Chris Paul's unrestricted in 2012. So is Deron Williams. Hello? You're breaking up....

Baron Davis is also up in 2012 as are fellow Bruins Westbrook and Farmar, but I don't know if Baron's a good fit. He can run 1, but he loves to get wild. I think Westbrook's good. I'd take a chance on him. I don't know how the Celts managed to get Rondo, but that kid's the find of the decade. But if we get CP, then it's on. But that raises the obvious; what're we giving up?

Magic said that except for Kobe everything's legit bait. Think about that; he's basically cleaning house. I don't know if I agree, but let's not forget that before the playoffs, the Lakes were a legit 3-peat threat. Very legit. Also, while I think Magic was the greatest player ever, as a coach he made Del ("Dull") Harris look interesting. So as a GM, I don't know how much more insightful he'd be. 

The other historically glaring need is for a 4. Gone are the days of hard helmets like AC or Clark Kent; we need someone to get in, plug up the middle and grab some fucking boards like he's starving and missed shots are cheeseburgers. Zach Randolph, after a billion teams (including everyone's bus stop, the Clips), is having the time of his life. I heard earlier he had 14 boards and it was only the 3rd quarter or something. And guess what? He's unrestricted.

When was the last time a Laker power forward just went off and dominated the boards? No Rodman doesn't count.

But arguably the biggest change is Phil. As I said before, I think his lack of attention on basic strategy has been key. In prior years the Lakes have relied on talent and youth, but it was only a matter of time before 1) they got older and slower (Barea made them look like they were wearing lead boots) and 2) the league caught up to the vaunted triangle offense. The Lakes certainly contributed -- the lack of mental fortitude I mentioned at the top is but one example. Not paying attention to other basics -- such as pounding it down the lane or in the block when you've talented players like our bigs and one of the premier shot creators in history in Kobe is a sin. Instead, the Lakes were reduced to giving it to Kobe (or Pau), everyone fleeing to the weak side and then standing around as one on one ensued and a J was launched. Not only is it boring, but, violating yet another strategic rule, it's predictable. Communicating and rotating on D is yet another.

The Lakes are the sports meltdown to go with the economy. With the Spurs ouster and the Celts dropping their first 2 (they're still holding serve though), change is obviously the operative word.

I've now seen 3 of the 4 classic team incarnations (Baylor/West/Chamberlain, Magic, Kobe). What hurts so much is not that they lost -- "all good things must come to an end" was my ma's mantra when I was a kid and my eyeroll cue -- but the way they lost. Unlike our economy, the Lakes can recover. In the big scheme of things, I know this peasant wish of mine doesn't mean jackshit, but I have way too much emotionally invested in this team to let go now. So here's to the future.