Busy, Busy, Busy

I haven't blogged lately. I've been busy.

1) Music: Played a week ago Thursday at Kelley's in Napa with Tom Overton, and then on Easter at the new Compadres in Napa with Johnny Smith.

I played the annual "O California" and "Sea to Shining Sea" shows with kids from all over Napa.

Also I've been helping a local singer get her CD recorded. And I've met some new musicians who may be lots of fun to play with. Life is getting interesting.

And tonight, in one of the most amazing gigs I've ever had, I played for a guy to propose to his girlfriend.

2) Murals: Finally got the go-ahead to start on a Redwoods Mural at Silverado Middle School in Napa. I was first contacted so long ago that I thought I could finish it before Christmas. But I didn't get to start until March 15. Here's how it's going:

This is the long side of the mural (it's on two walls that meet at a corner):


and around the corner to the right is the street side, which goes up higher:


I'd worried about having to get some long ladder to do the top of this one, but then I discovered the wonder of extension poles and painting pads and foam rollers. Painted everything from the sky up from the ground. A lot of fun, actually.

As if all that wasn't enough, last weekend I met a very talented muralist who asked me to help him with some projects. Could turn out to be a wonderful collaboration. I sure hope so.

I'm so happy to be busy doing the things I love. What a lucky guy I am.

Just my luck everything starts going great and the country falls into a massive economic depression. I hope not. . .

What's more important than gold...?

Two from Cryptogon:

Wheat Killing Fungus Now in Iran

March 18th, 2008

Via: UN:

A dangerous new fungus with the ability to destroy entire wheat fields has been detected in Iran, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported today.

The wheat stem rust, whose spores are carried by wind across continents, was previously found in East Africa and Yemen and has moved to Iran, which said that laboratory tests have confirmed its presence in some localities in Broujerd and Hamedan in the country’s west.

Up to 80 per cent of all Asian and African wheat varieties are susceptible to the fungus, and major wheat-producing nations to Iran’s east – such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan – should be on high alert, FAO warned.

“The fungus is spreading rapidly and could seriously lower wheat production in countries at direct risk,” said Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division.

And...

Bread Lines in Egypt

March 17th, 2008

Via: BBC:

Egypt’s president has ordered the army to increase the production and distribution of bread, in an attempt to cope with serious shortages.

Rising prices and alleged corruption have sparked recent clashes at bakeries in poorer neighbourhoods, leading to several deaths.

Hosni Mubarak said eradicating bread queues was “imperative”.

The army and interior ministry control numerous bakeries normally used to supply bread for troops and police.

Mr Mubarak issued his order to the army at a meeting of cabinet ministers on Sunday that was called to address the growing crisis, his spokesman said.

“Bread should be provided to the citizens and the lines should disappear,” Suleiman Awwad quoted Mr Mubarak as saying.

The price of wheat has more than tripled on international markets since last summer.

Mr Mubarak has ordered the government to use some foreign reserves to buy additional wheat from the international market, the spokesman said.

Many of Egypt’s 70m population, about half of whom live below the poverty line, survive on subsidised bread.

Unsubsidised bread is 10-12 times more expensive than the subsidised five-piaster loafs (less that $0.01).

Whoops (cont.) or the continuing meltdown of the US economy

The financial crash has a simple cause and a simple solution

Posted by Jerome a Paris on March 16, 2008 - 10:01am in The Oil Drum: Europe

...I hope I'm wrong, but as we begin to see loud calls for bailouts (unfair, as they reward the bankers that created the problem in the first place, but, you see, the alternative is worse), the availability of a ready-made outsider scapegoat is likely to be irresistible.

And yet, the fact remains that the problem is not who provided the credit, but the fact that it was provided in such large amounts.

Because that sea of debt had one real purpose: hide the fact that income for most are stagnating.

I never tire of posting this graph of the "W economy", because it summarizes in a nutshell what happened: growth happened, but was not shared widely. Thanks to wage stagnation, made possible by the threats of outsourcing and offshorization, and by consistent policies over the last 30 years to deregulate and liberalise markets, starting with labor markets), the fruits of growth have to a large extent been captured by a very few - but this has been hidden because consumption was propped up by readily available debt and the apparently growing virtual wealth of homeowners.

The problem is that, while a lot of that growth was illusory (and is now unraveling), the wealth re-allocation that took place thanks to it was very real, and, in particular, the mechanisms ensuring that an ever grower share of the pie get into a few privileged hands are still in place, and will bite even more harshly as the pie shrinks.

In short:

The middle classes got a shrinking share of a growing pie, apparently staying somewhat ahead.

Now, they are about to get a shrinking share of a shrinking pie.

The current economic consensus - that of "labor market reform", of "unsustainable liabilities of Medicare", of "protectionism is the ultimate danger" -is that of those that think that economic prosperity is correctly summarized by the value of the Dow Jones Index. That consensus has not really worried about income inequality, and has seen increased leverage as a sign of ever more efficient financial markets rather than of a bubble. That consensus is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And you see that all the currently proposed remedies are focusing on ways to make the pie be (or rather, look) bigger than it can - more money injections, more cheap debt, more support for the financial sector.

They are the problem, not the solution.

Too much debt and not enough income was the problem.

And the solution is simple: stop debt (this is happening on its own anyway). and boost income.

How do you do that when there isn't enough money around?

By creating real activity rather than the highly-leveraged money-shuffling 'arbitraging' kind.

And, as it were, there is a sector that is "real" and has an urgent need for action: infrastructure, and in particular energy-related infrastructure.

A plan that focuses on a few simple things:

• massive public support for energy efficiency refurbishment of existing homes;
• a massive, New Deal rural-electrification-scale plan to build renewable energy assets and the corresponding grid infrastructure;
• a similarly massive plan to develop smart public transportation, both locally and intercity;

Spending the money currently wasted in Iraq on these 3 things alone would provide a real boost to the economy in the sectors that actually need it, would reduce oil&gas consumption and carbon emissions, and be an actual investment for future generations, as opposed to the current drain on the future that's been engineered via debt used on mindless consumption of junk.

Add in plans to boost the minimum wage (especially in the relevant sectors) and tax imports of carbon-rich goods, and you'd have a pretty damn good economic - and geopolitical programme.

The problem is the most of America's population has been living, by design, above its means. It is kept dependent, fearful and distracted while problems are pushed into the future and, coincidentally, a happy few profit handsomely. This was not sustainable and, indeed, it is crashing down around us. The good news is that the solution to this financial crisis will also go in the right direction to solve the even bigger problems of global climate change and resource depletion. And hopefully, economic hardship will prove to be a bigger motivator for action than anything else.

Near Infrared Light to Detect Alzheimers in Live Brains?

PhysOrg.com:

For several years, Hanlon and his colleagues have looked at the possibility of analyzing the brain with near-infrared light, which has the advantage of being able to safely penetrate the skull and pass harmlessly through the brain. Inside the head, some of the infrared light scatters, however, and how the light scatters can tell researchers about the condition of the brain.

In their paper, the team reports observing an optical effect due to the presence of microscopic features of Alzheimer's. Amyloid plaques, one of the telltale signs of Alzheimer's disease, scatter light differently from normal brain tissue. What Hanlon and his colleagues showed was that as the microscopic plaques accumulate, the optical properties of the brain change. The team found that this change is detectable and that their technique could quantify differences between in-vitro samples and correctly identify signs of Alzheimer's.

Speaking of bad Real Estate Markets...

If you divide troubled lending markets into bad, real bad, or really really bad, looks like California is not a good risk at the moment... (sorry the resolution is so bad. Such is the way of Blogger...)

Wanna check out your state? Here's the whole pdf.
Check pages 11 through 15 (followed by ten pages of counties with Freddie Mac restricted loans.)

It's like the real estate version of the Big Lie

Sort of like how if you're a big enough company you won't be allowed to fail...if you have a big enough house... we obviously don't think BIG enough.

Big Picture via Cryptogon:

Foreclosure-proof Homeowners

Tuesday, March 04, 2008 | 02:35 PM

. . .

For 2008, let's try a little reverse financial engineering: Squatting in $3 million dollar waterfront mansion in Florida and paying nothing.

At least, that's a new and growing problem we learn of via MW in South Florida. MW is a local developer, and claims this has become "very serious." (I have been able to independently verify this with a local resident, who tells me the local papers are filled with such tales).

He writes:

"There is a very important phenomena that is occurring that has only been covered in an only "glancing" manner. Beyond the concept of "jingle mail" -- which suggests that folks who can pay their mortgages may just choose to walk away given the dramatic loss of equity due to housing's collapse -- consider the following: As a developer, I had stepped to the sidelines and rented beginning in 2005, because I was sure that housing was unsustainable and was bound to collapse; it took 2 more years for it occur.

Nonetheless, as I have followed several of the homes that my wife and I were interested in a few years back, they are all on the market now. What is shocking, that in each and every case, I have been told by brokers and banks that the owners, have ceased paying their mortgages in some cases for nearly 2 years and have continued to occupy these homes. Now, these are homes in excess of $2,000,000 in the very best neighborhoods in South Florida. Brokers have added that these buyers further complicated things by putting huge home equity lines on top of their mortgages and now have no possibility of selling their homes for amounts needed to cover their accumulated debt.

This may not seem like news, but understand what this means: There is currently an 8-10 month wait to get a court date to have a foreclosure filing heard in Dade and Broward counties. The bankers have non-performing loans on their books to the best heeled borrowers in multi-million dollar amounts with no immediate means for recovery; with a non-secured second mortgage in place, there is no possibility for a "short sale" that will satisfy all of the borrower's debt. They are reluctant to take a haircut knowing that they have the home equity debt still around their neck and are likely to frustrate any near-term sale.

There is no clean way to sell the home that would guarantee "clean title" hence a foreclosure is the only means to separate the property from the dead-beat speculator/squattor. Banks do not want to spend the $50,000 required to take a home through a foreclosure and clear the title -- only to put the house back on the market for a deeper loss afterwards. Most likely, they have not revealed these owner occupied defaults to their shareholders, thanks to the sheer numbers of non-performing loans on their balance sheets, and the daunting task of foreclosing on all of them. This is the ultimate seizure and full stop of the market whereby everyone is standing in a stalemate. As one broker said to me, "these bums sitting in $3,000,000 homes overlooking the water are likely to be left alone by the banks for 2 years before the banks even get serious about foreclosure."

So here is the difference between "walking away," these folks are doing anything but walking away, they are sitting on lounge chairs sipping martinis living cost free! (not to mention that they have ceased paying property taxes and insurance). I can only imagine what this market will look like in the coming years . . ."

All I can say is wow.

"MW" has been hearing this for the past six months. He believes both the local and national lenders are in a state of disbelief with no understanding on how to proceed.

Mystery Jet over San Francisco Bay

I was heading in to setup to play the 13th annual O California concert with Napa 3rd and 4th graders yesterday at the Napa High School Auditorium, and, as is my new hobby, I snapped a photo of a passing jet with my new Lumix FZ18. The plane was perhaps five miles south of me, maybe 10,000 or 15,000 feet altitude, on roughly a west to east heading.

Usually what I get are passenger jets. This one looks different. Comparing it with various internet images, at first I thought it looked like an Airbus A340-400, but with a radome or something on top of the fuselage, behind the cockpit. Now I think it looks more like an old Boeing 707. But the tail looks too big. The whole plane looks too big. Those are definitely fanjets. I find nothing in our AWACS arsenal that reselbles it. Take a look and see what you think...



-> Update! It's only a few hours later, and a friend of a friend reports that this craft is an E-6 coverted 707 TCAMO Airborne command post for fleet ballistic missile submarines.

TCAMO stands for "Take Charge And Move Out!"

Like this:

Admiral Fallon Resigns

Huffington Post:

"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.

Of course there's no change of course! The US wanted to bomb Iran before—apparently only Fallon stood in the way—and the US wants to bomb Iran now! No change at all!

Hillary's unpardonable sin

(I had no idea this would get as many hits as it has. I should credit Jonathan Schwarz in his A Tiny Revolution blog for inspiring me to tackle this.)

It's my understanding that the only unpardonable sin is the one that a person does not recognize as a sin.

This is the full text of Hillary's vote for the resolution giving W the power he's abused ever since in red, with certain parts made into boldface by me, and my comments in black:

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

Right off the bat, we are told assumptions as if they are undisputed facts. They were not.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

This is a lie, albeit one perpetrated by BushCo. and backed up by most of US media. Look it up:

The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

But in the 14 months since then, the Washington Post has again and again tried to rewrite history--claiming that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Despite repeated attempts by its readers to set the record straight in letters to the editor, the Post has persisted in reporting this fiction.

Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.

According to the Post, a New York diplomat "generally sympathetic toWashington" argued--along with French, Russian, Chinese, and U.N.officials--that Butler, working in collusion with the U.S., "deliberately wrote a justification for war." "Based on the same facts," the diplomat said, "he [Butler] could have just said, 'There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"

The inspectors were not withdrawn because of anything Saddam did. Inspectors were withdrawn because Bill Clinton was proceeding with his bombing campaign. It is instructive to look back at the reasons given by Bill Clinton for Operation Desert Fox in the first place, and what the international reaction to it was.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

This was ABSOLUTELY DISPUTED, by hundreds of thousands of people across the country, in streets and cities and marches everywhere. I was in some of them. I have reams of columns and letters from people experienced in intelligence who disputed every bit of this. She was either ignorant or lying. Either should disqualify her from being president.

Back to Hillary:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

As Reagan would say, "There she goes again!"
Saddam posed no real threat to the region, the United States, or the World. Look at what the intelligence agencies were saying at the time. Hillary is repeating the con perpetrated by Bush and his lackeys, which closely parallels what her husband was saying when he launched a bombing campaign on the eve of the Monica hearings.

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

Ah, what is this? Hillary admitting in certain circumstances this resolution will give Bush the very authority to use force which she claims to not be giving him? And which she to this day claims not to have given him? She's saying that since Bill claimed authority to act illegally, so should Bush.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

This is more damning in another way. Not one person I know who reads legitimate news would have trusted Bush to do anything of this importance. Look at his track record at the time. She has the lack of discernment to actually "take the President at his word." That is as disqualifying a statement as any I've ever heard a presdential candidate make.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

but Hillary, a few paragraphs ago you said:
But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If Bill could do it, George can do it, with your blessings, apparently.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret.

As the inspectors knew then, and as anyone listening to them knew then, Saddam complied with these conditions. Remember the thouands of pages of documents he delivered to the UN, and how the US removed a huge pile of them? Again, Hillary is buying into and repeating Bush's lies.

War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

It would be instructive if politicians would spend as much time trying to enforce the other parts of United Nations resolutions, like the parts calling for a nuclear free middle east...

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

Do I hear premonitions of Rudy yelling "911! 911!"?

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

And now millions are considering putting that same awesome responsibility in her hands.

Clinton Pardon Papers Release Blocked

This sounds more like something BushCo would do, doesn't it? I'm trying hard not to think of Clinton and Bush as Clinton/BushCo...

Peter Eisler, USA TODAY:

LITTLE ROCK — Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold the records could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.

Officials with the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., criticized Hillary Clinton this week for not doing more to see that records from her husband's administration are made public. "She's been reluctant to disclose information," Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, told reporters in a conference call in which he specifically cited the slow release records from the Clinton library. "If she's not willing to be open with (voters) on these issues now, why would she be open as president?"

In January 2006, USA TODAY requested documents about the pardons under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The library made 4,000 pages available this week. However, 1,500 pages were either partially redacted or withheld entirely, including 300 pages covering internal White House communications on pardon decisions, such as memos to and from the president, and reports on which pardon requests the Justice Department opposed.

In a statement, the Clinton campaign said that "all of the redactions made to the pardon-related documents were made by (the National Archives)."

Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library.

The president also pardoned two men who each paid Sen. Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, about $200,000 to lobby the White House for pardons — one for a drug conviction and one for mail fraud and perjury convictions, according to a 2002 report by the House committee on government reform. After the payments came to light, Bill Clinton issued a statement: "Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments," the report said.

The pardon records released by the library divulge little that might settle debate about those and other pardons. But they do shed new light on the volume of clemency requests that former president Clinton received — and the pressures he and his staff faced as friends, advisers, political leaders and foreign heads of state weighed in to influence which petitions would be granted.

The files contain handwritten letters from several of the president's close associates. Former Democratic Party chairman Donald Fowler of South Carolina wrote a note seeking clemency for former congressman John Jenrette, D-S.C., who was convicted in the 1980 Abscam sting in which FBI agents, posing as Middle Eastern businessmen, offered lawmakers bribes for political favors. Clinton did not grant the pardon.

Most of the withheld documents, including dozens of clemency pleas sent to the president, were blocked from release under FOIA rules that protect personal privacy. The 300 pages of internal White House documents on pardon requests were blocked under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications with their advisers for up to 12 years after they leave office.

In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted "narrowly" and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent.

Emily Robison, the library's deputy director, said Clinton's agent, former deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, chose not to review the withheld documents.

Lindsey "was given the opportunity to look at what we withheld under the (president's) guidelines, and he chose not to. … Only Mr. Lindsey and the president have the authority to open those," she said.

The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for "determinations with respect to these materials," the statement said.

Clinton's guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.

Blanton noted that Lindsey's refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists' independence. "He's saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it's not a political determination."

The archivists' decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration's hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.

President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents' prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president's immediate family to assert the privilege.

In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton's pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president's ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.

Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was "ridiculous" to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. "These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record."

Whoops

AP via Cryptogon:

Margin Calls for Carlyle Capital

March 7th, 2008

Via: AP:

Lenders to Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. have begun to liquidate securities held in its $21.7 billion portfolio and the fund said Friday it was considering “all available options.”

The margin calls against Carlyle portend an ominous development one day after the fund was served with default notices, convulsing already skittish markets.

Shares in the fund, a listed mortgage-bond fund managed by private equity firm the Carlyle Group, were suspended Friday. The stock closed down Thursday almost 60 percent at $5.00 on Euronext Amsterdam.

Carlyle Capital said it received additional margin calls and default notices Thursday from banks that help finance its portfolio of residential mortgage-backed securities. It said it may not be able to meet the increased requirements.

The fund said it was unable to meet margin calls from four banks Thursday, raising fears that its entire portfolio could be unwound. Securities have dropped sharply in recent weeks as banks pull back on their lending, forcing investment vehicles and funds like Carlyle to dump assets.

In Friday’s statement, Carlyle Capital said it had received “substantial additional margin calls and additional default notices from its lenders.” It also said that lenders were selling off securities held as collateral.

…

Carlyle Capital leverages its $670 million equity 32 times to finance a $21.7 billion portfolio of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by U.S. housing agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

To do this, it enters into repurchase agreements with banks, which involve posting the mortgage securities as collateral in exchange for cash.

If the value of the security held as collateral falls, the lender will ask for more collateral — a “margin call” — in order to secure the loan. If the borrower does not meet the margin call by putting up more collateral, the lender may sell the security.

Sudden price moves in the underlying assets can send margins spiraling, quickly depleting a fund’s cash.