Climate Change Denial Breeds Bad Legislation

From Thom Hartmann Email:

Thom's blog
Disappointing climate change legislation, and climate science denial
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has expressed "deep disappointment" with the direction Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is heading with climate legislation being crafted with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). In a letter to Kerry, Sanders expressed "serious concerns about provisions that could harm our environment and provide new federal government support for polluters." Sounds like Kerry, Graham, and Leiberman are looking to industry for future campaign contributions, while Sanders is looking out for the rest of us. A few examples of Senator Sanders' concerns are that the federal government may prevent states from having environmental regulations stronger than federal ones, will risk taxpayer dollars by financing and insuring new nuclear power plants, will help cover the costs and risks of corporate offshore oil drilling, and will grandfather and lock into place the dreadful poisons emitted by older coal fired power plants.

Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition, spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace. One of the two Koch brothers, among Americas richest billionaires, is also a major funder of one of the front groups that support the tea parties. Bottom line? The more the tea partiers can help stop "government regulation" of the oil industry - or taxation of carbon - the more money the Kochs will make.

Beware. The Flash animation or whatever it is on that Greenpeace site almost brought my computer to its knees, anthromorphically metaphorically speaking.

Tea Partiers vs. Liberal Warmongers

Here's a somewhat different viewpoint than any I've heard recently...


Charlie Davis via TinyRevolution.com:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Liberals with guns: scarier than Tea Partiers

I often begin my political science courses with a brief introduction to the idea of "the state." The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force and coercion. If an individual travels to another country and kills its citizens, we call it terrorism. If the state does it, we call it war. If a man kills his neighbor it is murder; if the state does it is the death penalty. If an individual takes his neighbor's money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation.

Maria Harris-Lacewell is a professor at Princeton University, as so subtly alluded to in the above excerpt from her latest drivel for The Nation, and she's concerned about the "legitimacy" of the state -- a legitimacy she assumes but doesn't explain -- which she notes some backwards reactionaries have had the temerity to challenge in the age of Democratic government. Now, considering that U.S. government imprisons more of its own citizens than any other in the history, with 25 percent of the world's prisoners; that it has more military bases in more countries than any previous empire in history, and has killed millions of people from Iraq to Vietnam; and that its current head, Barack Obama, is openly targeting for extrajudicial killing Americans and foreigners alike, one might ask: why is a liberal magazine so concerned about this state's legitimacy?

Because of the Tea Party movement, you see, whose flashes of racism and disrespect toward politicians is of more concern to Ivy League academics than the "legitimate" state violence they applaud. Tea Partiers, by accusing the current administration of "various forms of totalitarianism . . . are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy," the professor writes, apparently under the mistaken belief that most taxes the state levies go to gumdrop bridges and fairy dust health clinics, rather than less wholesome things like aircraft carriers and daisy cutters. Rather than focusing on what the state actually does, though, Harris-Lacewell, like most liberals, would prefer we focus on their shining, abstract ideal of what it could be, while sanctimoniously dismissing those who see no distinction between state-sponsored and private sector murder, an approach befitting the wait-until-you're-called merit-class liberal mentality that dominates the Democratic Party and the progressive press.

As The Nation's house political scientist explains it, adopting an argument that one could never imagine being applied to the left, "When protesters spit on and scream at duly elected representatives of the United States government it is more than act of racism. It is an act of sedition."

Put another way: offenses against the state are inherently more despicable than any offense one could commit against some poor schmuck civilian. An overstatement? Well, no, as Harris-Lacewell herself demonstrates in writing about Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), who "is no longer just a brave American fighting for the soul of his country- he is an elected official. He is an embodiment of the state." Yeah, you know, before Lewis just marched in the streets against racism and state-enforced segregation as a (ho-hum) private citizen, but now he chairs a subcommittee -- show him some respect!

Hooping and hollering at an elected official -- sorry, "an embodiment of the state" -- might give liberals at The Nation the vapors, and right-wing protesters who cheered on the Bush administration's abuses of power may not be my cup of tea, but color me unimpressed with the argument that I have more to fear from the talk radio right than I do the incarcerating-and-assassinating state. Now while there's little chance you'll catch me marching against compact fluorescent light-bulbs or Obamacare anytime soon -- though I promise nothing -- I just don't fear a rollback of the Reconstruction period "and the descent of a vicious new Jim Crow terrorism" as much as I fear and abhor the actual, happening-right-now terrorism carried out by my esteemed public officials with the tacit approval of the humanitarian progressives too busy lecturing the rabble on the need to pay taxes and pledge allegiance to their betters in Washington than to challenge their leader's wars. In addition to the hundreds killed without so much as a show trial by hellfire missiles since the glorious advent of The Liberal Ascendancy, agents of the U.S. government have been implicated in several headline-grabbing atrocities, the latest of which involved the pre-dawn slaying of a pair of pregnant women and a teenage girl. That female civilians are being killed at a level on par with Afghan males is no doubt being hailed in the halls of Brookings as a feminist triumph, but it's more troubling to me than the idea of some people questioning the legitimacy of the perpetrators' employer.

Perhaps they shouldn't just be ignored, but until Glenn Beck's followers kill two dozen people in a remote village, I'm going to spend most of my time focusing on those with control over the tanks and nuclear weapons. And rather than seeking to bolster the state and reinforce the idea of some mythical, mystical social contract, I just might seek to undermine this government, so far as I can, for as long as it continues enriching a politically connected corporate elite while imprisoning and enlisting the rest of its population, no matter how "duly elected" our politicians might be as a result of the sham two-party electoral system. When political leaders are engaged in senseless war and widespread human rights abuses -- and the occupation of Afghanistan and the U.S. prison system at home and abroad qualify -- the person of conscience's duty is not to the state but to justice, which usually means opposing the state and questioning its presumed legitimacy.

The proper attitude toward a criminal government is not deference and respect, however much some at The Nation might love a smooth-talking Democrat, but defiance and rebellion -- of the non-violent variety.

Citibank Takes the US to the Cleaners

Oh Citibank, how many ways to you game the system? This dovetails nicely with that post about conning America.

Beat the Press (Dean Baker):

March 28, 2010

Did the Federal Government Make Money Bailing Out Citigroup?

The Washington Post is anxious to tell its readers that the government made a profit on its bailout of Citigroup. This claim gives a whole new meaning to the notion of "profit." The government gave enormous amounts of money to Citigroup through various direct and indirect channels. It is only getting a portion of this money back in its "profits," the rest is going to Citigroup's shareholders (e.g. Robert Rubin) and its millionaire executives who are highly skilled at getting the government to hand them money.

First, it is worth noting how the government got the shares of common stock which it is now selling for a profit. On November 23, 2008, the government bought $20 billion in preferred shares in Citigroup. It also received another $7 billion in preferred shares in exchange for guarantees on $300 billion in bad assets. At the time, the combined value of the investment in preferred shares and the guarantee on bad assets exceeded the full market value of Citigroup stock on November 21st, the last trading day prior to the deal. In other words, for the same financial commitment that the government made on that day, it could have owned Citigroup outright.

The government subsequently held onto to its preferred shares until Citigroup's stock had nearly tripled in value. In September of last year it traded its preferred shares for common shares that were priced at a level that only give the government a 27 percent stake in Citigroup. These shares have have now risen enough to give the government an $8 billion profit on its investment. While the Post tells readers that:

"The windfall expected from the stock sale would amount to a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic, when the banking system neared the brink of collapse. A year ago, Citigroup's stock hovered around a dollar a share, and the bank's future seemed in doubt. On Friday, the stock closed at $4.31."

The logic of the Post's assertion that the profit on Citigroup stock validated the bailout is not clear. By making capital available to Citigroup at below market rates, the government effectively subsidized the income of Citigroup's shareholders. It also allowed its top executives to make millions of dollars because they were smart enough to be able to get taxpayers to subsidize the bank. The current market value of Citigroup is $123 billion, with only $33 billion belonging to the government. This means that the government has effectively given $90 billion (@ 25 million kid-years of health care provided through the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP) to Citigroup's shareholders and billions more to its executives by not demanding a market price for its support.

It is also worth noting that the government has supported Citigroup through other mechanisms. The Fed created various special lending facilities that allowed Citigroup to borrow money from the government at extremely low interest rates. Since one of the main uses of this money was buying government bonds, Citigroup was essentially getting free money from the government. If it borrowed $200 billion at near zero interest and lent it back to the government by buying 10-year Treasury bonds at 3.7 percent interest, then the government was effectively handing Citigroup $7.4 billion a year for nothing. This money is not deducted from the Post's estimate of the government's "profit" on its dealings with Citigroup. (The Fed refuses to tell the public how much money it lent to Citigroup and other banks at below market rates.)

It is possible that the losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), may also have helped to subsidize Citigroup's profits. Fannie and Freddie lose money when they pay too much to banks to buy mortgages. It is likely that Citigroup was one of the banks that Fannie and Freddie overpaid for mortgages. Similarly, the FHA loses money when it guarantees mortgages without charging a high enough insurance fee. It is likely that many of the mortgages that the FHA guaranteed, which went bad, were issued by Citigroup.

It is also worth noting that government policy has helped to boost Citigroup's profitability in other ways. Citigroup is at the top of the list of "too big to fail" institutions. This has allowed it to continue to borrow money from the private investors at interest rates that are far below the rates it would have to pay if it did not rely on a guarantee of support from the nanny state.

Also, the government's efforts to support the economy more generally have proven a boon to Citigroup. Specifically, by pushing down interest rates it has enormously raised the value of the loans on Citigroup's books. The value of long-term loans rises substantially when interest rates fall. If the Fed's program of buying mortgage-backed securities lowered the interest rate on 30-year mortgages from 5.5 percent to 5.0 percent, then this would raise the value of Citigroup's outstanding 30-year mortgages by more than 7 percent. If Citi had $500 billion invested in mortgages or related assets, then the action by the Fed would have effectively given Citi $35 billion.

If the Fed subsequently resells the $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities it purchased in order to push down mortgage interest rates in an environment in which interest rates have risen, then it will lose money on these purchases. If it sells the mortgage-backed securities when interest rates are 6 percent, then it will lose close to 15 percent, or more than $180 billion on its purchases of these mortgages.

In telling readers that the profit on Citi stock "would amount to a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic" the Post is ignoring all the other costs born by the government in allowing Citigroup to be restored to viability. It is also ignoring the enormous handout of taxpayer dollars to some of the richest people in the country. This is not good reporting.

--Dean Baker

Break Up the Too Big To Fail Banks, say Financial Experts (Except those in charge)

Washington's Blog:

Dodd's Financial "Reform" Bill Is Nothing but a Placebo for a Very Sick Economy

On March 3rd, Richard Fisher - President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas - told the Council on Foreign Relations:

A truly effective restructuring of our regulatory regime will have to neutralize what I consider to be the greatest threat to our financial system’s stability—the so-called too-big-to-fail, or TBTF, banks. In the past two decades, the biggest banks have grown significantly bigger. In 1990, the 10 largest U.S. banks had almost 25 percent of the industry’s assets. Their share grew to 44 percent in 2000 and almost 60 percent in 2009.

The existing rules and oversight are not up to the acute regulatory challenge imposed by the biggest banks. First, they are sprawling and complex—so vast that their own management teams may not fully understand their own risk exposures. If that is so, it would be futile to expect that their regulators and creditors could untangle all the threads, especially under rapidly changing market conditions. Second, big banks may believe they can act recklessly without fear of paying the ultimate penalty. They and many of their creditors assume the Fed and other government agencies will cushion the fall and assume the damages, even if their troubles stem from negligence or trickery. They have only to look to recent experience to confirm that assumption.

Some argue that bigness is not bad, per se. Many ask how the U.S. can keep its competitive edge on the global stage if we cede LFI territory to other nations—an argument I consider hollow given the experience of the Japanese and others who came to regret seeking the distinction of having the world’s biggest financial institutions. I know this much: Big banks interact with the economy and financial markets in a multitude of ways, creating connections that transcend the limits of industry and geography. Because of their deep and wide connections to other banks and financial institutions, a few really big banks can send tidal waves of troubles through the financial system if they falter, leading to a downward spiral of bad loans and contracting credit that destroys many jobs and many businesses.

The dangers posed by TBTF banks are too great. To be sure, having a clearly articulated “resolution regime” would represent steps forward, though I fear they might provide false comfort in that a special resolution treatment for large firms might be viewed favorably by creditors, continuing the government-sponsored advantage bestowed upon them. Given the danger these institutions pose to spreading debilitating viruses throughout the financial world, my preference is for a more prophylactic approach: an international accord to break up these institutions into ones of more manageable size—more manageable for both the executives of these institutions and their regulatory supervisors. I align myself closer to Paul Volcker in this argument and would say that if we have to do this unilaterally, we should. I know that will hardly endear me to an audience in New York, but that’s how I see it. Winston Churchill said that “in finance, everything that is agreeable is unsound and everything that is sound is disagreeable.” I think the disagreeable but sound thing to do regarding institutions that are TBTF is to dismantle them over time into institutions that can be prudently managed and regulated across borders. And this should be done before the next financial crisis, because it surely cannot be done in the middle of a crisis.

Fisher joints many other top economists and financial experts believe that the economy cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an orderly fashion, including:

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Ed Prescott

• Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan

• Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker

• Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard

• Simon Johnson (and see this)

• President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig (and see this)

• Deputy Treasury Secretary, Neal S. Wolin

• The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington-based trade group with about 5,000 members, Camden R. Fine

• The Congressional panel overseeing the bailout (and see this)

• The head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair

• The head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King

• The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz

• Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black

• Economics professor, Nouriel Roubini

• Economist, Marc Faber

• Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales

• Economics professor, Thomas F. Cooley

• Former investment banker, Philip Augar

• Chairman of the Commons Treasury, John McFall

Even the Bank of International Settlements - the "Central Banks' Central Bank" - has slammed too big to fail. As summarized by the Financial Times:

The report was particularly scathing in its assessment of governments’ attempts to clean up their banks. “The reluctance of officials to quickly clean up the banks, many of which are now owned in large part by governments, may well delay recovery,” it said, adding that government interventions had ingrained the belief that some banks were too big or too interconnected to fail.

This was dangerous because it reinforced the risks of moral hazard which might lead to an even bigger financial crisis in future.

Senators Ted Kaufman, Maria Cantwell, John McCain and others are also demanding that the too big to fails be broken up.

But Senator Dodd is trying to push through a financial "reform" which bill won't do anything to break up the too big to fails, or do much of anything at all. It's got a reassuring name and a nice, sugary taste ... but there's no real medicine in it.

For example, Dodd's bill:

• Won't break up or reduce the size of too big to fail banks

• Won't remove the massive government guarantees to the giant banks
  

• And won't even increase liquidity requirements to prevent future meltdowns
  

As Senator Ted Kaufman points out:

What walls will this bill erect? None.

***

Just this week, a Moody’s report stated: “…the proposed regulatory framework doesn't appear to be significantly different from what exists today."

***

In sum, little in these reforms is really new and nothing in these reforms will change the size of these mega-banks.

Our economy is really sick, and the cure is well-known. But Dodd is offering nothing but a placebo.

Citizen Attempts to Arrest British War Criminal

DailyMail.co.uk:

Tony Blair in citizen's arrest scare as Brussels journalist tries to detain him over 'war crimes'

By Justin Stares
Last updated at 11:19 PM on 23rd March 2010

A journalist tried to arrest Tony Blair for 'crimes against peace' as the former prime minister arrived to give a speech at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Mr Blair flinched as his accuser, left-wing writer David Cronin, wearing a press pass and carrying a notepad, put a hand on his wrist and told him: 'This is a citizen's arrest.'

The former leader is then said to have given would-be detainer a 'bewildered and contemptuous' stare before bodyguards pounced.

As Mr Cronin was pushed away on Monday, he shouted 'Mr Blair, you are guilty of war crimes' referring to the Iraq invasion.

Attempted arrest: Tony Blair at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference in Washington yesterday, where he spoke in his capacity as Mid-East Envoy

'War of aggression': David Cronin

English law allows anyone to try and arrest someone they know has committed a crime when it is not practical for the police to do so.

Although the concept of citizen's arrest is woollier in Belgian law, Mr Cronin said he wanted to to escort the former leader to a nearby police station to be charged with committing a 'war of aggression'.

Mr Cronin, who has written for the Guardian, said: 'It was an attempt to draw attention to Mr Blair's crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.'

He left the room of his own accord after the incident, although when he returned half an hour later he was refused entry by security.

'My motivation in trying to arrest Blair is entirely based on my contempt for the crimes he has committed and abetted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon and Serbia,' Cronin told EUobserver.com.

It is the second time that Mr Blair's bodyguards have had to step in to protect him in six months.

In October of last year the former Prime Minister was touring a West Bank mosque when he was assailed by a young Palestinian who accused him of being a terrorist.

'He is not welcome in the land of Palestine,' the man shouted before he was dragged away by Palestinian security forces.

'You know, he made his protest and that's fair enough,' Mr Blair, 56, told reporters at the time.

Taking no chances: A bodyguard (left) scuffles with the Palestinian man after he shouts 'You are a terrorist' at Tony Blair while on a visit to a West Bank mosque in October 2009

'I think it's important for you guys as well to not always mistake the protest for the general view of the whole population.'

He studied history and development studies at University College Dublin, followed by journalism at Dublin City University.

After writing for a variety of Irish publications, he moved to Brussels in 1995, initially working as a press officer and research assistant in the European Parliament for a Green Party MEP.

He was appointed the European Correspondent for The Sunday Tribune, a leading Irish newspaper, in 1998. He then worked from 2001 till 2006 as Political Correspondent for European Voice, a weekly newspaper owned by The Economist.

Cronin has also written about rock, jazz and world music for The Wall Street Journal Europe and The Bulletin, the main English-language magazine targeting expatriates living in Belgium.

He has written a book on EU -Israeli relations which he says is coming out later this year.

But the most telling part of the story is in the comments. Here are the highest rated ones:

well done that man, someday the rat will run out of holes to hide in and justice will prevail.

- frank bird, london, 23/3/2010 12:09

Click to rate Rating 198

Report abuse

Well done Mr Cronin!!! You attempted to do what thousands of British people want to do. It's just so appalling that we are paying for his security when most of us want him brought to justice for his crimes. He is an evil man and I object to paying for his protection against his egotistical motivated crimes. He doesn't realise just how much he and his party are hated.

- SP, Bar, 23/3/2010 12:02

Click to rate Rating 191

Report abuse

Well done, Mr. Cronin. You have put your money where your mouth is, unlike your media colleagues.

- P Stewart, UK, 23/3/2010 12:04

Click to rate Rating 178

Report abuse

Well done that man-could you also arrest him for wrecking Great Britain and inflicting the most incompetent government onto the poor people of this once great country too.

- Disgusted, Kent, 23/3/2010 11:57

Click to rate Rating 171

Report abuse

"Protected by bodyguards"... Paid for by whom, exactly? .....thought so

- Erika, London, 23/3/2010 12:00

Click to rate Rating 156

Report abuse

'I think it's important for you guys as well to not always mistake the protest for the general view of the whole population.'

The general opinion of the majority of the population is that YOU ARE a war criminal so wake up and smell the coffee

- Derek, Barnet, 23/3/2010 14:10

Click to rate Rating 107

A Belgian Comments on the US Weirdness when it comes to Healthcare and Socialism

It's a comment on Michael Moore's Blog:

GeertVDP

Posted March 22nd, 2010 1:33 PM

As European (Belgium) it completely eludes me to why nearly 50% of the Americans are against the principle of universal healthcare.
I can’t find any plausible argument to why, you, Americans have that obsessive fear towards the concept of “socialism”, other then post-McCarthyism.
A lot of you (mostly republicans) seem to be stuck in the 50’s rhetoric’s where everything left (or even centre) is “evil” and will destroy your society…
Why wouldn’t you want to have every one benefit of healthcare and keep so many people from sliding into poverty?

I find it puzzling to hear a Republican say that “freedom has died a little”… What good does it do to preserve your absolute (and theoretical) freedom, if you no longer have the pragmatic freedom to live a comfortable life with healthcare that wont drive you into poverty, have the financial means to celebrate your freedom of movement or have the financial means to provide your kids a quality education?
In my country I’m centre-right, mainly because I’m self-employed and run my own business.
So yes, I am all for developing personal initiative, but I also realise there have to be structures in place that provide protection for those who risk dropping out of the social network. I have no problem with socialist parties defending the rights of the working class.. their interests must be protected, just as mine…It is the only option for a well balanced society…Same applies to government involvement in providing healthcare for everyone...

America’s main problem is its extremely polarised political landscape where the winner takes it all and goes almost unchecked (with all the aberrations and corporate involvement). This applies for both republicans as for the democrats. What you need is a 3rd or even a 4rth party so that you’re forced to have a bi-party government and decisions are no longer made unilateral but grow out of consensus and negotiation.

Astronomical Observation

This is more of a curiosity, really. I happened to be playing with a Skydome, which is a remarkable piece of online programming (I imagine it's flash) that enables you to view the position of any planet (and the brightest stars) at any time of any day you wish.

I was thinking of the time when I became first aware of the planets. It was summer, and Jupiter and Saturn were near a conjuction in the south, and Venus was in the west, just after sundown. But I didn't remember what year that was—late 50s or possibly even 1960. So I dialed in the time (dusk) and date (August) and turned on the wayback machine, clicking through the years until I saw Jupiter nearing the sun and Venus appear in the west. Turned out to be my birthday in 1960.

dusk, September 26, 1960

Not that I'm astrologically minded, but I thought it would be fun to see what exactly was happening planet-wise when I was born. So I dialed up that date, and Mercury, Venus, Saturn and Neptune were in a big blob right near the sun. Why is this fascinating? Don't know. Just is.

Later in the day, the day I was born.

Too Much Good Investigation Threatens to Undermine Confidence in a Poor Investigation

Competence always makes incompetence look bad. Funny how that works.

Another from Washington's Blog:

In Bizarre, Soviet-Style Move, White House Threatens to Veto Intelligence Budget Unless FBI's Anthrax Frame Up Is Accepted

In a bizarre, Soviet-style move, the White House has threatened to veto the intelligence budget unless everyone accepts the FBI frame up of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

As Bloomberg writes:

President Barack Obama probably would veto legislation authorizing the next budget for U.S. intelligence agencies if it calls for a new investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, an administration official said.

A proposed probe by the intelligence agencies’ inspector general “would undermine public confidence” in an FBI probe of the attacks “and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions,” Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Given that an FBI investigation into a specific crime has nothing to do with the budget or any of OMB's other core responsibilities, it seems that Orszag simply drew the short straw for this little assignment.

As I wrote Thursday:

The FBI says that the anthrax case is closed, and that they have proved that Dr. Bruce Ivins did it.

But Congress is not convinced.

On March 3, 2010, Representative Holt called for a new investigation:

Last week, [Congressman Holt] succeeded in including language in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Bill that would require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to examine the possibility of a foreign connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks.

“The American people need credible answers to all of these and many other questions. Only a comprehensive investigation—either by the Congress, or through the independent commission I’ve proposed in the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)—can give us those answers,” Holt said in a letter to the Chairmen of the House Committees on Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Oversight and Government Reform.

[Here's the letter.]

Dear Chairmen Thompson, Conyers, Reyes, and Towns,

I am writing to ask that your committees, either individually or jointly, conduct a probing investigation of our government’s handling of what has been known as the “Amerithrax” investigation.

As you are aware, last week the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was formally closing its investigation into the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, commonly known as the “Amerithrax” investigation. The Bureau has maintained since his suicide in 2008 that the late Dr. Bruce Ivins was their principal suspect in the attacks, a conclusion reaffirmed by the FBI when it closed the case last week—despite the fact that the FBI’s entire case against Ivins is circumstantial, and that the science used in the case is still being independently evaluated.

To date, there has been no comprehensive examination of the FBI’s conduct in this investigation, and a number of important questions remain unanswered. We don’t know why the FBI jumped so quickly to the conclusion that the source of the material used in the attacks could only have come from a domestic lab, in this case, Ft. Dietrick. We don’t know why they focused for so long, so intently, and so mistakenly on Dr. Hatfill. We don’t know whether the FBI’s assertions about Dr. Ivins’ activities and behavior are accurate. We don’t know if the FBI’s explanation for the presence of silica in the anthrax spores is truly scientifically valid. We don’t know whether scientists at other government and private labs who assisted the FBI in the investigation actually concur with the FBI’s investigative findings and conclusions. We don’t know whether the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Postal Service have learned the right lessons from these attacks and have implemented measures to prevent or mitigate future such bioterror attacks.

The American people need credible answers to all of these and many other questions. Only a comprehensive investigation—either by the Congress, or through the independent commission I’ve proposed in the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)—can give us those answers.

As you may know, my interest in this matter is both professional and personal. The attacks originated from a postal box in my Central New Jersey congressional district and they disrupted the lives and livelihood of my constituents. For months, Central New Jersey residents lived in fear of a future attack and the possibility of receiving cross-contaminated mail. Mail service was delayed and businesses in my district lost millions. Further, my own Congressional office in Washington, D.C. was shut down after it was found to be contaminated with anthrax.

Given its track record in this investigation, I believe it is essential that the Congress not simply accept the FBI’s assertions about Dr. Ivins alleged guilt. Accordingly, I ask that your committees investigate our government’s handling of the attacks, the subsequent investigation, and any lessons learned and changes in policies and procedures implemented in the wake of the attacks.

The next day, Representative Jerrold Nadler - Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - joined in Holt's call for a new investigation:

Despite the FBI’s assertion that the case of the anthrax attacks is closed, there are still many troubling questions. For example, in a 2008 Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether Bruce Ivins was capable of producing the weaponized anthrax that was used in the attacks. To this day, it is still far from clear that Mr. Ivins had either the know-how or access to the equipment needed to produce the material. Because the FBI has not sufficiently answered such questions, I join Congressman Holt in urging an independent investigation of the case.

Maryland Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett and other congressmen have also joined in the call for a new investigation.

In fact, the only airtight case is against the FBI.

For more on the anthrax attacks, see this.

Update: Glenn Greenwald provides a concise summary of the issue:

The administration is ... threatening to veto the bill because it contains funding for a new investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, on the ground that such an investigation -- in the administration's words -- "would undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe of the attacks "and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions."

As I've documented at length, not only are there enormous, unresolved holes in the FBI's case, but many of the most establishment-defending mainstream sources -- from leading newspaper editorial pages to key politicians in both parties -- have expressed extreme doubts about the FBI's case and called for an independent investigation. For the administration to actively block an independent review of one of the most consequential political crimes of this generation would probably be its worst act yet, and that's saying quite a bit.

M1 Money Multiplier No Longer Multiplies

Remember how every dollar loaned out has a multiplier effect? Which was why is was so important to save the banks, so the money could ripple outward through the economy and halt the crash? Turns out it's not working. Check these charts!

I just discovered this blog. Very very interesting stuff.

Washington's Blog:

The Fed Is Responsible for the Crash in the Money Multiplier ... And the Failure of the Economy to Recover

Greg Mankiw noted in January 2009:

Econ prof Bill Seyfried of Rollins College emails me:

Here's an interesting fact that you may not have seen yet. The M1 money multiplier just slipped below 1. So each $1 increase in reserves (monetary base) results in the money supply increasing by $0.95 (OK, so banks have substantially increased their holding of excess reserves while the M1 money supply hasn't changed by much).

Since January 2009, the M1 Money Multiplier has crashed further, to .786 in the U.S. as of February 24, 2010:

(Click for full image; underlying data is here)

That means that - for every $1 increase in the monetary base - the money supply only increases by 79 cents.

Why is M1 crashing?

Because the banks continue to build up their excess reserves, instead of lending out money:

(Click for full image)

These excess reserves, of course, are deposited at the Fed:

(Click for full image)

Why are banks building up their excess reserves?

As the Fed notes:

The Federal Reserve Banks pay interest on required reserve balances--balances held at Reserve Banks to satisfy reserve requirements--and on excess balances--balances held in excess of required reserve balances and contractual clearing balances.

The New York Fed itself said in a July 2009 staff report that the excess reserves are almost entirely due to Fed policy:

Since September 2008, the quantity of reserves in the U.S. banking system has grown dramatically, as shown in Figure 1.1 Prior to the onset of the financial crisis, required reserves were about $40 billion and excess reserves were roughly $1.5 billion. Excess reserves spiked to around $9 billion in August 2007, but then quickly returned to pre-crisis levels and remained there until the middle of September 2008. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, however, total reserves began to grow rapidly, climbing above $900 billion by January 2009. As the figure shows, almost all of the increase was in excess reserves. While required reserves rose from $44 billion to $60 billion over this period, this change was dwarfed by the large and unprecedented rise in excess reserves.

Not merely ON the wrong side...

Antiwar.com:

February 15, 2010| Antiwar movement, Censorship | L. Reichard White

We weren’t on the wrong side [in Vietnam], we were the wrong side. –Daniel Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America, via NewsBusters.org

And were we also the wrong side in the Korean “War”, Panama (Operation Just Cause), Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury), Iraq – - – you get the idea.

Has this sort of behavior by the U.S. government — and other governments — become SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)?

And just in case you want a more complete accounting — and you have a bunch of spare time — here’s a more complete list of United States military operations.

And if you’re morbidly curious of how many lives these sorts of operations have squandered — and have a strong stomach — you can find out from the University of Hawaii’s R.J. Rummel.

And, if you’ve read this far and want to know how much you contribute to this mayhem if you consider yourself a U.S. Taxpayer, the kindly Quaker folks from the Friends Committee on National Legislation have figured that out for you. (HINT: 43% of your 2008 tax bill went to pay for “wars,” past and present.)

So maybe a donation to antiwar.com might actually be a good investment – - –

---

P.S. The U.S. Government hasn’t declared war according to its charter (the U.S. Constitution) since WWII. So none of those “Wars” since WWII were — or are — Constitutional. Isn’t that cute?

I'm sensing something odd here

This is pretty strange stuff.

Physorg.com:

Harnessing Our Sensory Superpowers

March 12, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New research in perceptual psychology and brain science is revealing that our senses pick up information about the world that we thought was only available to other species, Lawrence Rosenblum, UCR professor of psychology, writes in a new book.

Blind mountain bikers use echolocation to hear rocks in the trail. A connoisseur sniffs out the world’s most expensive cup of coffee. An artist whose sight disappeared as a young man paints and chooses his colors by touch.

New research in perceptual psychology and brain science is revealing that our senses pick up information about the world that we thought was only available to other species, Lawrence Rosenblum, professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, writes in a new book, “See What I’m Saying: The Extraordinary Powers of Our Five Senses” (Norton, 2010), published this month.

“We have hidden sensory channels we’re using all the time. This enables us to perceive things, often without awareness of where we get the information,” Rosenblum says. His 350-page book is aimed at getting people interested in new research on the senses. He uses numerous examples of people who have strengthened sight, hearing, smell, taste or touch - such as blind baseball players and a sommelier who can taste the vintage of a fine wine - to explain how the brain uses multiple senses and the subtlest information to perceive the world, and suggests ways to further develop those senses.

Brain-imaging and other tools have enabled researchers in the last decade to discover that the human brain is capable of changing its structure and organization - a process called neuroplasticity - as it is influenced by experience.

“It turns out that vacant areas of the brain are co-opted, and this can happen if you’re blindfolded for only 90 minutes,” he says. Removing sight as a sensory power can quickly enhance the senses of hearing, and even smell, for example.

Still, even without sensory loss, we already accomplish many of these exotic sensory skills. “We all have an onboard sonar system and a type of absolute pitch; and we all can perceive speech from seeing and even touching faces,” Rosenblum writes in “See What I’m Saying.” “What’s more, we engage many of these skills all day long. What largely distinguishes the expert perceiver from the rest of us is the same thing that gets us from here to Carnegie Hall: practice.”

Rosenblum has spent two decades studying multisensory perception, lipreading and hearing. His research has been supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He is internationally known for his research on risks the inaudibility of hybrid cars pose for blind and other pedestrians.

More information: http://www.psychology.ucr.edu/faculty/rosenblum/index.html

Provided by University of California, Riverside

Here's an older study from the same guy. Fascinating stuff:

Lip-read me now, hear me better later

April 12, 2007

Experience hearing a person's voice allows us to more easily hear what they are saying. Now research by UC Riverside psychology Professor Lawrence D. Rosenblum and graduate students Rachel M. Miller and Kauyumari Sanchez has shown that experience seeing a person's face also makes it easier to hear them.

Rosenblum’s paper, “Lip-Read Me Now, Hear Me Better Later: Crossmodal Transfer of Talker Familiarity Effects,” will appear in the May issue of the journal Psychological Science, published by the Association for Psychological Science.

Sixty college undergraduates were asked to lip-read sentences from a silent videotape of a talker's face. These subjects all had normal hearing and vision and had no formal lip reading experience.

After an hour of lip reading, the students were asked to listen to sentences heard against a background of noise and to identify as many words as they could. Half of the students heard sentences from the same talker they had just lip-read, while the other half heard sentences by a new talker. The undergraduates who lip-read and heard speech from the same talker were better at identifying the noisy sentences than those who lip-read from one talker and heard speech from another.

These findings suggest that when we watch a person speak, we become familiar with characteristics of their speaking style which also are present in the sound of their speech. This allows talker familiarity to be transferred from lip reading to listening, thereby making a talker easier to hear. These results have implications for individuals with hearing impairments as well as for brain lesion patients, Rosenblum said.

Source: Association for Psychological Science

Wash Those Pre-Washed Vegetables!

I had a feeling there was some reason to wash those pre-washed salad greens...

Physorg.com, again:

'Prewashed' Salad Still Needs Cleaning

March 11, 2010

Enlarge

Salad greens

(PhysOrg.com) -- For people trying to get in their recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables, prepackaged green salads are an easy way to start a meal. But there’s growing concern that these convenient items aren’t as ready to eat as advertised.

In an article in this month’s Consumer Reports, investigators at Consumers Union, publishers of the magazine, report finding high levels of certain bacteria in common brands of prepackaged salads.

Investigators had an outside lab test more than 200 containers from 16 brands of prepackaged salad greens sold in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut last summer.

They assessed for several types of "indicator bacteria” that can serve as indicators of fecal contamination and inadequate sanitation.

The test found no evidence of three pathogenic bacteria, including E. coli and salmonella, which have resulted in foodborne illness. But they did find that 39 percent of samples exceeded an "unacceptable level” for total coliforms and 23 percent for enterococcus, bacteria often found in the digestive tract of humans and other animals.

Among other findings, the report found that produce labeled "organic” was just as likely to have high levels of bacteria as other samples. Consumers Union scientists report that the indicator bacteria generally do not make healthy people sick, but are advocating for stricter produce safety standards from the Food and Drug Administration.

According to University of Cincinnati (UC) associate clinical professor of nutritional sciences Rebecca Smith, MEd, RD, it’s not unusual to have bacteria on all kinds of produce, which is why it’s so important to wash all produce before you eat it.

"I think most consumers get a false sense of security when they buy packaged, prewashed salad greens and other vegetables because they believe prewashing removes all contaminants,” she says.

Smith says the bacteria found in the Consumers Union test can come from several sources, including farm workers who don’t have access to adequate bathroom facilities or runoff from streams and other water sources on the fields.

Though greens and other produce grown close to the ground would be more susceptible to water runoff contamination, Smith says any fruit or vegetable can be contaminated during the packaging process, either from human contact or improperly cleaned equipment.

Transportation of the produce can also result in increased bacterial growth.

"Although bagged salad greens are kept refrigerated during transportation, storage and display in the supermarket, the bags provide a moist environment where bacteria can multiply. If the bagged salad is not held at below 40 degrees F, the bacteria will multiply even in a refrigerated environment,” she says.

"Most of the emphasis on food safety, until recently, has been placed on meat, poultry and dairy products,” says Smith. "However, the majority of the recent national outbreaks of foodborne illness have been caused by fruits and vegetables, because they aren’t as carefully regulated.”

But that doesn’t mean you should eliminate salads and greens from your diet. Smith said washing fruits and vegetables before use can not only reduce pesticide contamination from conventional produce, but also contamination from microorganisms that cause foodborne illness.

She says there are several rules for everyone to keep in mind to reduce exposure to bacteria:

• Wash all fresh fruits and vegetables before using them, even prepackaged items and produce with skins that are not eaten. This includes produce from supermarkets and from local farmers’ markets.

• Buy packages far from their use-by date and keep greens refrigerated.

• Prevent cross-contamination by keeping all produce away from raw meat and poultry. Use different cutting boards and utensils when preparing produced and raw meat.

Provided by University of Cincinnati (news : web)

Oscillating electric field drastically reduces battery recharge time

Wait, there's more!

(PhysOrg.com)

-- Part of the headache of having to constantly recharge batteries is not just how often they need to be charged, but also the time it takes to charge them. In a new study, researchers have proposed a charging method that could greatly reduce the charging time of lithium-ion batteries, which are used in everything from electronic devices to electric vehicles. The new method uses an additional oscillating electric field (besides the charging field) that should be capable of charging a lithium-ion battery in a fraction of the time compared with traditional methods.

Researchers Ibrahim Abou Hamad from Mississippi State University and coauthors have developed the new charging method thanks to revolutionary developments in molecular dynamics simulations. In their study, the researchers simulated the lithium-ion battery-charging process by simulating the intercalation (i.e. “insertion”) of lithium ions into the battery’s graphite anode. Although intercalation is just one part of the charging process (along with diffusion), it dominates the charging time.

In the charging process, lithium ions first diffuse within the battery’s electrolyte until they reach the graphite anode. At this interface, ions must overcome an energy barrier in order to be intercalated into the anode.

In their simulations, Hamad and his team found that an additional oscillating electric field can lower this energy barrier, enabling lithium ions to intercalate more quickly into the anode. The oscillating field also increases the diffusion rate, which helps further reduce the overall charging time, albeit to a lesser extent.

Specifically, when the scientists applied an oscillating square-wave field with a frequency of 25 GHz and an amplitude of 5 kCal/mol to the graphite sheets in the anode, the lithium ions intercalated into the graphite sheets within an average time of about 50 nanoseconds. By changing the amplitude of the oscillating wave, the researchers found that they could further improve charging time by lowering the energy barrier and speeding up intercalation. Their simulations showed that the dependence of the intercalation time on the amplitude is exponential, meaning that a small increase in amplitude leads to a large increase the intercalation speed, which offers the potential for very fast charging times.

In the future, the researchers plan to further investigate the new method, including analyzing how changing the frequency of the oscillating field effects the charging time. They noted that the new method might provide an increase in battery power densities, as well.

More information: Ibrahim Abou Hamad, M. A. Novotny, D. Wipf, and P. A. Rikvold. “A new battery-charging method suggested by molecular dynamics simulations.” Available at arxiv.org. Doi: 10.1039/b920970k.

Thermopower Waves in Carbon Nanotubes Create Electricity

Thermopower waves? New ways to produce electricity? Why are my "bogus" alarms going off?
First "sferics” and now this. I've never seen such a bizarre group of articles at one time in Physorg...

Physorg.com:

MIT researchers discover new way of producing electricity

March 7, 2010 by David Chandler

Enlarge

A carbon nanotube (shown in illustration) can produce a very rapid wave of power when it is coated by a layer of fuel and ignited, so that heat travels along the tube. Graphic: Christine Daniloff

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of scientists at MIT have discovered a previously unknown phenomenon that can cause powerful waves of energy to shoot through minuscule wires known as carbon nanotubes. The discovery could lead to a new way of producing electricity, the researchers say.

The phenomenon, described as thermopower waves, “opens up a new area of energy research, which is rare,” says Michael Strano, MIT’s Charles and Hilda Roddey Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, who was the senior author of a paper describing the new findings that appeared in Nature Materials on March 7. The lead author was Wonjoon Choi, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering.

Like a collection of flotsam propelled along the surface by waves traveling across the ocean, it turns out that a thermal wave — a moving pulse of heat — traveling along a microscopic wire can drive electrons along, creating an electrical current.

The key ingredient in the recipe is carbon nanotubes — submicroscopic hollow tubes made of a chicken-wire-like lattice of carbon atoms. These tubes, just a few billionths of a meter (nanometers) in diameter, are part of a family of novel carbon molecules, including buckyballs and graphene sheets, that have been the subject of intensive worldwide research over the last two decades.

A previously unknown phenomenon

In the new experiments, each of these electrically and thermally conductive nanotubes was coated with a layer of a reactive fuel that can produce heat by decomposing. This fuel was then ignited at one end of the nanotube using either a laser beam or a high-voltage spark, and the result was a fast-moving thermal wave traveling along the length of the carbon nanotube like a flame speeding along the length of a lit fuse. Heat from the fuel goes into the nanotube, where it travels thousands of times faster than in the fuel itself. As the heat feeds back to the fuel coating, a thermal wave is created that is guided along the nanotube. With a temperature of 3,000 Kelvin, this ring of heat speeds along the tube 10,000 times faster than the normal spread of this chemical reaction. The heating produced by that combustion, it turns out, also pushes electrons along the tube, creating a substantial electrical current.

Combustion waves — like this pulse of heat hurtling along a wire — “have been studied mathematically for more than 100 years,” Strano says, but he was the first to predict that such waves could be guided by a nanotube or nanowire and that this wave of heat could push an electrical current along that wire.

In the group’s initial experiments, Strano says, when they wired up the carbon nanotubes with their fuel coating in order to study the reaction, “lo and behold, we were really surprised by the size of the resulting voltage peak” that propagated along the wire.

After further development, the system now puts out energy, in proportion to its weight, about 100 times greater than an equivalent weight of lithium-ion battery.

The amount of power released, he says, is much greater than that predicted by thermoelectric calculations. While many semiconductor materials can produce an electric potential when heated, through something called the Seebeck effect, that effect is very weak in carbon. “There’s something else happening here,” he says. “We call it electron entrainment, since part of the current appears to scale with wave velocity.”

The thermal wave, he explains, appears to be entraining the electrical charge carriers (either electrons or electron holes) just as an ocean wave can pick up and carry a collection of debris along the surface. This important property is responsible for the high power produced by the system, Strano says.

Exploring possible applications

Because this is such a new discovery, he says, it’s hard to predict exactly what the practical applications will be. But he suggests that one possible application would be in enabling new kinds of ultra-small electronic devices — for example, devices the size of grains of rice, perhaps with sensors or treatment devices that could be injected into the body. Or it could lead to “environmental sensors that could be scattered like dust in the air,” he says.

In theory, he says, such devices could maintain their power indefinitely until used, unlike batteries whose charges leak away gradually as they sit unused. And while the individual nanowires are tiny, Strano suggests that they could be made in large arrays to supply significant amounts of power for larger devices.

The researchers also plan to pursue another aspect of their theory: that by using different kinds of reactive materials for the coating, the wave front could oscillate, thus producing an alternating current. That would open up a variety of possibilities, Strano says, because alternating current is the basis for radio waves such as cell phone transmissions, but present energy-storage systems all produce direct current. “Our theory predicted these oscillations before we began to observe them in our data,” he says.

Also, the present versions of the system have low efficiency, because a great deal of power is being given off as heat and light. The team plans to work on improving that.

Tracking Lightning for Underground Triangulation

Somehow I find this a little disconcerting. Perhaps it's the reference to Project Nimbus...

Physorg.com:

US military developing geolocation system for underground

March 11, 2010 by Lin Edwards

Enlarge

(PhysOrg.com) -- The US military is studying the feasibility of a system that could allow them to accurately navigate in enemy underground tunnels, an environment in which GPS does not work.

US military satellites provide Global Positioning System (GPS) signals used by millions of gadgets, including car satellite navigation systems and smartphones, but GPS needs line-of-sight to the satellites, which is only available on the Earth’s surface and not underground. At the same time, the presence of US military and intelligence satellites has driven many people of interest underground, especially since subterranean engineering and tunnel building are becoming less expensive and easier. A deep tunnel system shields a group from spy satellites, and also gives them protection against bomb attacks.

Scientists from the Pentagon agency DARPA have noted that very low frequency (VLF) radio signals called “spherics” or “sferics” are generated by lightning strikes and penetrate deep underground, and they are therefore studying the feasibility of a system of underground receivers that could possibly built to detect the signals hundreds of miles away. Receiving signals from lighting strikes in multiple directions, along with minimal information from a surface base station also at a distance, could allow operators to accurately pinpoint their position.

The system is known as Sferics-Based Underground Geolocation (S-BUG) and early studies found that it may be feasible. DARPA is now planning to hold a conference, which will mostly be classified as secret, with technology companies interested in developing the project further. The project will need to verify that sferic signals received on the surface can be correlated with sferics received underground to provide geolocation with enough resolution. The ultimate goal of the S-BUG project is to design a full navigation and tracking system for underground uses.

The project coincides with another DARPA project (Nimbus), which aims to trigger and manipulate artificial lightning.

More information: DARPA project: http://www.darpa.mil/sto/underground/sferic.html