The next Senator from Florida...and Social Security

I mentioned in a recent post how France is moving to raise the retirement age, something we need to do. I'm glad to see there is at least one senator who will work on this.

Fla. GOP candidate favors raising retirement age


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Marco Rubio wants Americans to work longer and retire later to places like Florida, a stand that has drawn criticism from his Senate rivals and unnerves some in the Sunshine State where one out of every seven residents gets a Social Security check.

As the nation grapples with the fast-growing insolvency of entitlement programs, likely Republican nominee Rubio has proposed raising the retirement age and cutting benefits to younger workers. Rubio wants to raise the full-retirement age, which now ranges from 65 to 67 depending on a person's birth year, until it reaches 70 in the next century. He would exempt people currently over 55.

He also favors allowing workers to invest part of their payroll taxes on their own. That plan is similar to one that was advanced by former President George W. Bush six years ago and proved so controversial that Republicans then in control never brought it to a vote in either House of Congress.

"It's just going to have to be reformed because if left to its current status then it bankrupts itself and then it bankrupts America," said the 38-year-old Rubio. "If the system is now taking in less money than it's paying out, then it's only going to get worse as we have less workers and more retirees."

Great to see he wants to handle the problem...now what about his competition....

His likely Democratic rival, Rep. Kendrick Meek, favors the creation of a bipartisan commission to examine the Social Security program. Gov. Charlie Crist, who recently abandoned the Republican Party to run as an independent, has called for giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, arguing that more money would flow into the system.

We can't have enough bipartisan commissions...or illegal immigrants.

He's less of a "pimp" then she is a whore

I'm no fan of the Landrieu family in general (Mitch Landrieu was recently elected Mayor of New Orleans...they are the Kennedy's of Louisiana) and I really can't stand Mary. Her selling out on the Obama take over of the medical system is just the latest issue and I pray she is defeated at next election. I hope someone else goes after her in spite of O'Keefe getting nailed.

Activist guilty in phone caper at senator's officeMay 26 03:02 PM US/Eastern

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Four conservative activists accused of trying to tamper with the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu's office have pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of entering federal property under false pretenses.

The most prominent activist, James O'Keefe, was sentenced to three years probation, 100 hours of community service and fined a $1,500 fine. The 25-year-old is known for wearing a pimp costume in a video that embarrassed ACORN.

Magistrate Daniel Knowles III sentenced the three others to two years probation, 75 hours of community service and fined them $1,500.

The FBI has said O'Keefe used his cell phone to try to capture video of two men who posed as telephone repairmen and asked to see the phones. O'Keefe spokesman Denis Calabrese disputed an earlier allegation that a fourth suspect waited in a car with a listening device, which was not mentioned in court records.

Twain Bio

Got some good news from da news. Mark Twain's autobiography is going to be released. Three volumns, the first comes out this fall. Definite read.

(CBS) The most celebrated American author and humorist of all time has assured his place in the 21st century.

Mark Twain's autobiography, shut inside a vault for 100 years since his death in 1910, will finally be published.

The author of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," "The Prince and the Pauper" and the iconic 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" left 5,000 pages of his memoirs at the University of California at Berkeley under orders that they not see the light of day for a century, reports the Independent.

Why did he want to keep scholars and literary devotees waiting for so many years?

Many speculate that the pages are filled with criticism of the politics of the day, of his former lovers and views on God.

"There is a perception that Twain spent his final years basking in the adoration of fans. The autobiography will perhaps show that it wasn't such a happy time," the historian Laura Trombley told the Independent. "He spent six months of the last year of his life writing a manuscript full of vitriol, saying things that he'd never said about anyone in print before. It really is 400 pages of bile."

Twain struggled with financial problems in his later years and had many debts. He had also struggled with depression following the deaths of his wife and daughter.

This is the first time that the world will have access to these pages.

"There are so many biographies of Twain, and many of them have used bits and pieces of the autobiography," Robert Hirst, who is leading the team at Berkeley editing the complete text told the Independent. "But biographers pick and choose what bits to quote. By publishing Twain's book in full, we hope that people will be able to come to their own complete conclusions about what sort of a man he was."

Some things to take out of the NY Pravda on the Obama-Senator Meeting

Year ago the New Your Puke, err Times actually set the standard for journalism. That time has passed.

Yesterday B Hussein Obama and several senators had lunch and discussed current issues. Two things struck me from the article:

Republican Senators’ Lunch With Obama Is Marked by Spirited Confrontations

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s luncheon Tuesday with Senate Republicans was not televised like a similar session earlier this year with the House opposition, but evidently it would have made for captivating theater.

By nearly all accounts, pent-up frustrations boiled over as the president and the very lawmakers who have consistently opposed much of his agenda engaged in spirited and at times confrontational exchanges over immigration, spending, White House tactics and other issues during a private 75-minute session.

Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s former presidential rival, lashed out at the administration for its portrayal of the new immigration law in his home state of Arizona. And Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee suggested that the administration had been less than sincere in trying to seek a bipartisan deal on the financial regulatory overhaul, which was passed last week with just four Republican votes....

During the meeting, Mr. Corker, who had been negotiating with Democrats over the Wall Street legislation, said there was a “tremendous disconnect” between the president’s call for bipartisanship and the way the administration conducted itself during the debate on the financial legislation.

But according to aides, Mr. Obama said that while he would have loved to have 70 or 80 overall votes in favor of the measure, he was not going to water down the legislation in the interest of running up the vote total....

In response to Mr. McCain, the president said, according to those present, that he had read and understood Arizona’s tough new immigration law. He pointed out that his administration had done more than others in the area of border security and enforcement. He also expressed confidence that he could persuade a majority of Democratic senators to support tougher border security but said that “solving the problems is not going to just be a function of border security.”

Funny, I don't recall the Times saying Democrats were confrontational when then opposed Bush's attempt to reform banking regulations or Social Security. Guess I must have missed that....

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who participants said served somewhat as a mediator during the session, said he warned the president not to try to move too quickly on immigration, saying a legislative failure on the issue like the one that occurred in 2007 could doom chances for any agreement for years.

Republicans said they believed that the president was too quick to take offense during the meeting. But despite the occasionally testy back-and-forth, they said, they still considered the session worthwhile and productive, expressing gratitude for the time allowed by Mr. Obama.

Graham is a wishey- washy moderate from South Carolina who is only in office because SC has an open primary. Democrats vote for him in the primary and he loves the attention he gets from the Times, Wash Post, etc for stabbing Conservatives in the back. Naturally he will get lots of airtime on the usual Sunday shows...

Gee, why is Bill Press though of as anything other than a joke

Why is it someone like Bill Press is taken seriously? He complains of the lack of civility on the air but for some reason personal attacks on George Bush, Dick Cheney and others are no real problem for him. From Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center:

Preposterous Bill Press

Radio talk-show host Bill Press is the tiniest of fish in the radio ocean, but this minnow's all over the place complaining about the whales. The problem is, of course, that if the market is any kind of measurement, no one knows, or cares, that he's written a book. So he's written a column to self-tout "Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America's Airwaves."

Press writes about the good ol' days of civil discourse, but "that's not what we hear nonstop today." And who's to blame? "Honest disagreement on the issues has been replaced by a barrage of ugly name-calling from today's ministers of hate on the right."


...He also writes in his column: "You never hear those kinds of ugly comments from progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, or Thom Hartmann, if you can find them on your radio dial at all."

Never?

Who said this: "You're damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I'm glad he didn't tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country."

Who said this: "How can Evan Bayh sit there as an honest player for health care reform when his wife works for an (insurance) industry that is just absolutely butchering the American people?" The same host denounced Mrs. Joe Lieberman: "Does the word 'whore' apply? Are we there yet?"

Who said this: "You rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah Federal Building explosion, you are. And then ... maybe at that point, Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out. Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead. Maybe then O'Reilly will just drink a vat of the poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death." Even the Christian evangelist Franklin Graham recently made this host's please-kill-yourself list.

Who offered a Limbaugh song parody, with lyrics including these: "I'm a Nazi! ...That's right! I really I am! ... I'm a Nazi! That's right, you're being scammed! I'm a Nazi! I don't care about the middle class. I'm a big fat conservative butthead, with the face of a horse's ass."

And finally, who said this: "Taking a page right out of a Nazi playbook, (conservative) organizers bus in professional protestors and arm them with instructions on how to take over meetings, shut down discussion, shout over any pro-health care reform speakers, and then post video of the resulting chaos on YouTube. It's mob rule, pure and simple."

The answers are: Leftwing radio and MSNBC talk-show host Ed Schultz offered the first two pearls. The third comes from the especially vicious left-wing radio host Mike Malloy. The fourth attack, words and music, comes from Randi Rhodes, the former Air America darling.

And the fifth should be familiar to Bill Press -- since it came from Bill Press.

If an objective journalist would actually interview Mr Press he would resarch these things and bring them up...but for some reason I don't see them doing that. The truth doesn't fit the template.

Abused wives....abused reporters...what's the difference

It's an open secret that most reporters are liberal and they loved Mr. Bill Clinton and they are currently in lust of B Hussein Obama. Now has this love turned into a "battered wife" syndrome? That's what Byron York wonders...Barry has gone almost a year without a press conference and his spokes idiot is just blocking legitimate questions.

I think Obama said it best to the assembled reporters last year at the 2009 White House Correspondents' Association dinner, “Most of you covered me...All of you voted for me."

Fawning press now gets cold shoulder from Obama

By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent, May 25, 2010

Will Barack Obama go an entire year without holding a formal news conference? He's getting close: The president's last full-scale session with the press was on July 22, 2009, which was 307 days ago.

When Obama last held a big news conference, there had not yet been terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Detroit, and Times Square. Scott Brown was an unknown Massachusetts state senator. There was no national health care bill, much less national health care law. Tiger Woods appeared to be a model family man.

A lot can happen in 307 days, which is far longer than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ever went between news conferences.

In its defense, the White House says Obama answers a lot of questions from reporters, just not in the traditional news-conference setting. In fact, the president does a lot of one-on-one interviews, frequently with sympathetic reporters. ...

..."Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?" CBS's Chip Reid asked Obama after the signing.

"You're certainly free to ask them, Chip," Obama said.

"Will you answer them?" Reid continued. "How about a question on Iran?"

"We won't be answering -- I'm not doing a press conference today," Obama said. "But we'll be seeing you guys during the course of this week. OK?"

And that was that. In the spirit of the day, Obama conceded that the press had the freedom to ask questions -- he just didn't have to answer them. ...

While Obama dodges questions, his spokesman stonewalls them.

...The situation amazes veterans of previous administrations. "I think it is astonishing that there isn't carping about this from the press every day," says former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino. "Believe me, they would have nailed us to the wall."

...That's the attitude coming out of the Oval Office every day. Why does Obama do it? Because he can.

Why does a man hit a woman...because he's a low life....and he can.

EU, Germany, France, Poland and Russia

Germany and France.....US and the Poles....let's see how this works out....

Germany After the EU and the Russian Scenario
May 25, 2010

By George Friedman

Discussions about Europe currently are focused on the Greek financial crisis and its potential effect on the future of the European Union. Discussions these days involving military matters and Europe appear insignificant and even anachronistic. Certainly, we would agree that the future of the European Union towers over all other considerations at the moment, but we would argue that scenarios for the future of the European Union exist in which military matters are far from archaic.

Russia and the Polish Patriots

For example, the Polish government recently announced that the United States would deploy a battery of Patriot missiles to Poland (see map below). The missiles arrived this week. When the United States canceled its land-based ballistic missile defense system under intense Russian pressure, the Obama administration appeared surprised at Poland’s intense displeasure with the decision. Washington responded by promising the Patriots instead, the technology the Poles had wanted all along. While the Patriot does not enhance America’s ability to protect itself against long-range ballistic missiles from, for example, Iran, it does give Poland some defense against shorter-ranged ballistic missiles and substantial defense against conventional air attack.
Russia is the only country capable of such attacks on Poland with even the most distant potential interest in doing so, and at this point, this is truly an abstract threat. In removing a system that was really not a threat to Russian interests — U.S. ballistic missile defense at most can handle only a score of missiles, meaning it would have a negligible impact on the Russian nuclear deterrent — the United States ironically has installed a system that could affect Russia. Under the current circumstances, this is not really significant. While much is being made of having a few U.S. boots on the ground east of Germany within 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) of the Russian Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, a few hundred technicians and guards are simply not an offensive threat.

Still, the Russians — with a long history of seeing improbable threats turning into very real ones — tend to take hypothetical limits on their power seriously. They also tend to take gestures seriously, knowing that gestures often germinate into strategic intent. The Russians obviously oppose this deployment, as the Patriots would allow Poland in league with NATO — and perhaps even by itself — to achieve local air superiority. There are many crosscurrents in Russian policy, however.
For the moment, the Russians are interested in encouraging better economic relations with the West, as they could use technology and investment that would make them more than a commodity exporter. Moreover, with the Europeans preoccupied with their economic crisis and the United States still bogged down in the Middle East and needing Russian support on Iran, Moscow has found little outside resistance to its efforts to increase its influence in the former Soviet Union. Moscow is not unhappy about the European crisis and wouldn’t want to do anything that might engender greater European solidarity. After all, a solid economic bloc turning into an increasingly powerful and integrated state would pose challenges to Russia in the long run that Moscow is happy to do without. The Patriot deployment is a current irritation and a hypothetical military problem, but the Russians are not inclined to create a crisis with Europe over it — though this doesn’t mean Moscow won’t make countermoves on the margins when it senses opportunities.

For its part, the Obama administration is not focused on Poland at present. It is obsessed with internal matters, South Asia and the Middle East. The Patriots were shipped based on a promise made months ago to calm Central European nerves over the Obama administration’s perceived lack of commitment to the region. In the U.S. State and Defense department sections charged with shipping Patriots to Poland, the delivery process was almost an afterthought; repeated delays in deploying the system highlighted Washington’s lack of strategic intent.

It is therefore tempting to dismiss the Patriots as of little importance, as merely the combination of a hangover from a Cold War mentality and a minor Obama administration misstep. Indeed, even a sophisticated observer of the international system might barely note it. But we would argue that it is more important than it appears precisely because of everything else going on.
Existential Crisis in the EU

The European Union is experiencing an existential crisis. This crisis is not about Greece, but rather, what it is that members of the European Union owe each other and what controls the European Union has over its members. The European Union did well during a generation of prosperity. As financial crisis struck, better-off members were called on to help worse-off members. Again, this is not just about Greece — the 2008 credit crisis in Central Europe was about the same thing. The wealthier countries, Germany in particular, are not happy at the prospect of spending taxpayer money to assist countries dealing with popped credit bubbles.

They really don’t want to do that, and if they do, they really want to have controls over the ways these other countries spend their money so this circumstance doesn’t arise again. Needless to say, Greece — and countries that might wind up like Greece — do not want foreign control over their finances.

If there are no mutual obligations among EU member nations, and the German and Greek publics don’t want to bail out or submit, respectively, then the profound question is raised of what Europe is going to be — beyond a mere free trade zone — after this crisis. This is not simply a question of the euro surviving, although that is no trivial matter.

The euro and the European Union will probably survive this crisis — although their mutual failure is not nearly as unthinkable as the Europeans would have thought even a few months ago — but this is not the only crisis Europe will experience. Something always will be going wrong, and Europe does not have institutions that could handle these problems. Events in the past few weeks indicate that European countries are not inclined to create such institutions, and that public opinion will limit European governments’ ability to create or participate in these institutions. Remember, building a super state requires one of two things: a war to determine who is in charge or political unanimity to forge a treaty. Europe is — vividly — demonstrating the limitations on the second strategy.

Whatever happens in the short run, it is difficult to envision any further integration of European institutions. And it is very easy to see how the European Union will devolve from its ambitious vision into an alliance of convenience built around economic benefits negotiated and renegotiated among the partners. It would thus devolve from a union to a treaty, with no interest beyond self-interest.

The German Question Revisited

We return to the question that has defined Europe since 1871, namely, the status of Germany in Europe. As we have seen during the current crisis, Germany is clearly the economic center of gravity in Europe, and this crisis has shown that the economic and the political issues are very much one and the same. Unless Germany agrees, nothing can be done, and if Germany so wishes, something will be done. Germany has tremendous power in Europe, even if it is confined largely to economic matters. But just as Germany is the blocker and enabler of Europe, over time that makes Germany the central problem of Europe.

If Germany is the key decision maker in Europe, then Germany defines whatever policies Europe as a whole undertakes. If Europe fragments, then Germany is the only country in Europe with the ability to create alternative coalitions that are both powerful and cohesive. That means that if the European Union weakens, Germany will have the greatest say in what Europe will become. Right now, the Germans are working assiduously to reformulate the European Union and the eurozone in a manner more to their liking. But as this requires many partners to offer sovereignty to German control — sovereignty they have jealously guarded throughout the European project — it is worth exploring alternatives to Germany in the European Union.

For that we first must understand Germany’s limits. The German problem is the same problem it has had since unification: It is enormously powerful, but it is far from omnipotent. Its very power makes it the focus of other powers, and together, these other powers can cripple Germany. Thus, Germany is indispensable for any decision within the European Union at present, and it will be the single center of power in Europe in the future — but Germany can’t just go it alone. Germany needs a coalition, meaning the long-term question is this: If the EU were to weaken or even fail, what alternative coalition would Germany seek?

The casual answer is France, as the two economies are somewhat similar and the countries are next-door neighbors. But historically, this similarity in structure and location has been a source not of collaboration and fondness but of competition and friction. Within the European Union, with its broad diversity, Germany and France have been able to put aside their frictions, finding a common interest in managing Europe to their mutual advantage. That co-management, of course, helped bring us to this current crisis. Moreover, the biggest thing that France has that Germany wants is its market; an ideal partner for Germany would offer more. By itself at least, France is not a foundation for long-term German economic strategy. The historic alternative for Germany has been Russia.

The Russian Option

A great deal of potential synergy exists between the German and Russian economies. Germany imports large amounts of energy and other resources from Russia. As mentioned, Russia needs sources of technology and capital to move it beyond its current position of mere resource exporter. Germany has a shrinking population and needs a source of labor — preferably a source that doesn’t actually want to move to Germany. Russia’s Soviet-era economy continues to de-industrialize, and while that has a plethora of negative impacts, there is one often-overlooked positive: Russia now has more labor than it can effectively metabolize in its economy given its capital structure. Germany doesn’t want more immigrants but needs access to labor. Russia wants factories in Russia to employ its surplus work force, and it wants technology. The logic of the German-Russian economic relationship is more obvious than the German-Greek or German-Spanish relationship. As for France, it can participate or not (and incidentally, the French are joining in on a number of ongoing German-Russian projects).

Therefore, if we simply focus on economics, and we assume that the European Union cannot survive as an integrated system (a logical but not yet proven outcome), and we further assume that Germany is both the leading power of Europe and incapable of operating outside of a coalition, then we would argue that a German coalition with Russia is the most logical outcome of an EU decline.

This would leave many countries extremely uneasy. The first is Poland, caught as it is between Russia and Germany. The second is the United States, since Washington would see a Russo-German economic bloc as a more significant challenger than the European Union ever was for two reasons. First, it would be a more coherent relationship — forging common policies among two states with broadly parallel interests is far simpler and faster than doing so among 27. Second, and more important, where the European Union could not develop a military dimension due to internal dissensions, the emergence of a politico-military dimension to a Russo-German economic bloc is far less difficult to imagine. It would be built around the fact that both Germans and Russians resent and fear American power and assertiveness, and that the Americans have for years been courting allies who lie between the two powers. Germany and Russia would both view themselves defending against American pressure.

And this brings us back to the Patriot missiles. Regardless of the bureaucratic backwater this transfer might have emerged out of, or the political disinterest that generated the plan, the Patriot stationing fits neatly into a slowly maturing military relationship between Poland and the United States. A few months ago, the Poles and Americans conducted military exercises in the Baltic states, an incredibly sensitive region for the Russians. The Polish air force now flies some of the most modern U.S.-built F-16s in the world; this, plus Patriots, could seriously challenge the Russians. A Polish general commands a sector in Afghanistan, something not lost upon the Russians. By a host of processes, a close U.S.-Polish relationship is emerging.

The current economic problems may lead to a fundamental weakening of the European Union. Germany is economically powerful but needs economic coalition partners that contribute to German well-being rather than merely draw on it. A Russian-German relationship could logically emerge from this. If it did, the Americans and Poles would logically have their own relationship. The former would begin as economic and edge toward military. The latter begins as military, and with the weakening of the European Union, edges toward economics. The Russian-German bloc would attempt to bring others into its coalition, as would the Polish-U.S. bloc. Both would compete in Central Europe — and for France. During this process, the politics of NATO would shift from humdrum to absolutely riveting.

And thus, the Greek crisis and the Patriots might intersect, or in our view, will certainly in due course intersect. Though neither is of lasting importance in and of themselves, the two together point to a new logic in Europe. What appears impossible now in Europe might not be unthinkable in a few years. With Greece symbolizing the weakening of the European Union and the Patriots representing the remilitarization of at least part of Europe, ostensibly unconnected tendencies might well intersect.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR




Update....Or Predate:

U.S.: Patriot Missiles Arrive In Poland
May 24, 2010
U.S. Patriot missiles, with American crews, arrived in Poland on May 23 for the beginning stage of a rotating, two-year deployment, the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw said, Bloomberg reported May 24. Soldiers from the U.S. Armys 5th Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, will spend an average of 30 days a quarter in Morag, northern Poland, with plans to train Polish troops, before returning to their base in Kaiserslautern, Germany. The rotations will include about 100-150 U.S. soldiers, an embassy spokesman said.

Update The Second!

U.S.: No Missile Deployment Now - Russian Source

May 26, 2010

Russia does not currently plan to deploy Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad region in response to the positioning of U.S. Patriot missiles in Poland, an unnamed source in the Russian Foreign Ministry said on May 26, Itar-Tass reported. He said the Patriot is not an element of missile defense; rather it is a missile system that has significance for air defense. The source said answers from the Polish and Americans have so far been unsatisfactory, noting that the situation is unclear as Russia’s relations with the two countries are approaching a new level.

Update the Third!

Russia: U.S. Missile Deployment In Poland Questioned
May 27, 2010
Moscow expects an explanation on the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles near the Polish-Russian border, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, RIA Novosti reported May 27. Lavrov said Moscow was told the missiles are not aimed at Russia, but noted that statement was heard previously. He said the current nature of U.S.-Polish relations requires a more detailed explanation.

Law and Order

I got hooked on Law and Order when I was stuck on desk duty for over a year and life got boring quick...and back around 2000 it was an interesting show. But it did weaken during the 2000s...Brisco was the best character and he passed in 05 as I recall...and the writing in the last few years sucked. I mean everything was just a copy of a recent real world scandal...hey guys, can you come up with things better than this.

They did stretch it out to 20 years to say they went further than Gunsmoke, but sorry guys, Gunsmoke was a better show than this.

Still, it did have some great quotes that someone was assembled...what are yours?

Funny: Great Heeb Moments in Law & Order

Here are my Top Ten favorite L&O cliches:

1. The original DA, Adam Schiff (?), never wanted to prosecute a single frigging case, because, as he would say, "Go into court with only a signed confession and the murder weapon??!! The press'll have a field day with this! TAKE THE DEAL!!!"

This guy was no Donald Trump. He always wanted the first deal offered to him.

And he was no poker player...I preferreed Arthur Branch (Fred Thompson)....he would take a risk and win.

5. Oh My God, it was George Bush all along.

Enough people have written about this so I won't belabor it.

Especially in the last few years...Gitmo, the Special Prosecutor on Cllinton...they did show their liberal stripes a bit hard.

6. This guy is going to break down in the witness stand and either reveal he was guilty or offer some powerful reason for his crime that nearly justifies it or shock us with some Greater Truth about the Crime We're Not Even Allowed to Mention

Sorry guys, Perry Mason did it better

8. Jack McCoy spazzes out and starts spitting and shaking with righteous, Parkinsons-flavored indignation in his final six-minute question to the witness (which is never answered, and isn't meant to be answered, as it's rhetoric), delivering a tendentious, palsiated theory of the case (which is not a question at all, and thus not permitted in the not-even-pretending guise of a question, but the judges on L&O know better than to grant an objection to McCoy's spastic testimony once they hear that D-Minor (see above)), and then we're going to cut to the jury foreman delivering a verdict (or, to show you that this is a Crime Which Can't Even Be Mentioned (see above), he won't deliver a verdict, but will say "your honor, we are hopelessly deadlocked).

I never liked McCoy's stroke-acting during these completely-objectionable bouts of testifying outside of the witness box. I alway prefered Michael Moriarity's coolly polite and understated delivery. You could tell Moriarity was very serious minded without him having to spray the jury box with the Spittle of Justice.

That got old very quick...but he's a liberal and Hollywood lets him ramble on as long as he is trashing this country...


It was a good show at one point....died in the 2000s and should have been put to sleep back then...thankfully it's gone. RIP

That's The Chicago Way

In one of the greatest quotes from the 1987 movie "The Untouchables", Sean Connery told Kevin Coster, "He brings a knife, you bring a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue...that's The Chicago Way!"

Unfortunately "The Chicago Way" has morphed to "The Obama Way". And it's not a pretty sight.

Obama Exporting Chicago's Misery to a City Near You

Lurita Doan

If you want to get a good glimpse of what America will look like if President Obama continues to push his “change” agenda, take a close look at Chicago. But brace yourself: it is not a pretty picture.

Chicago, as we all know, is Mr. Obama’s home and the place where he served as a community organizer, a state legislator, and a US Senator. Obama championed a variety of jobs creation programs, advanced ideas to reduce crime, and sought earmarks totaling some $800 million dollars to boost the Chicago economy. By all accounts, he was energetic, determined, and successful pushing these programs.

But while many, including Obama, have focused almost exclusively on Mr. Obama’s noble intentions, few have focused on the results. Which of Obama’s efforts in Chicago delivered the promised benefits? None.

Chicago is a city in crisis. Crime rates have surged despite the many, Obama-led, community-building efforts. The number of Americans murdered in Chicago this year is about the same number of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past year. Two State Senators have argued that Chicago’s crime problem is too big for locals to solve and have called for deployment of the National Guard.

Nor is crime the only problem in the windy city. Unemployment is at 11.2%, 1.3 points above the national average. Worse yet, minorities are particularly hit by a failing Chicago economy that continues to shed jobs as the unemployment rates among minorities top 20%.

Alas, the index of misery in Chicago earned the city the distinction as the third most miserable city in America, as high taxes cripple job growth, innovation, and entrepreneurialism.

No suprise at any of these things...Democratic controlled cities show failures...but this line put it simply:

Is it possible that Mr. Obama made Chicago’s problems worse by championing a philosophy of greater federal support, avoidance of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility? Was the nearly $1 billion of Obama earmarks spent, not on investments that might have helped spark economic activity, but instead directed to dubious causes aimed at rewarding key supporters such as the Unions? Did Obama help choke off economic vitality and entrepreneurialism by acquiescing to high taxes and growing regulatory burdens?

I think so.

Agreed. Leftist want people defendant on government. If they are independent they don't have the need of politicians and bureaucrats. I recall (going by memory) how early in the 2000s the unions and the city council (there are one in the same) kept Wal-Mart from opening a store in Chicago. Why you ask? Wal-Mart is not a union shop. So after enough aggravation Wal-Mart simply opened its first store in a small suburb of Chicago...it would bring millions into the city treasury and most of the people to be employed at the place were Chicago residents. All those jobs and taxes out of reach because the unions and leftist don't like industry...like our current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC.

Mr. Obama did not set Chicago on a path of ruin single-handedly. He had lots of help. Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat Party Whip, White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Valerie Jarrett and other Chicagoans occupy key positions in the Which House. Like Obama, Durbin and Emanuel have, for years, directed funding, both directly and indirectly to Illinois and to Chicago for assistance, entitlement programs, pork projects and perks. And yet, the problems in Chicago only grew.

Here is the scary part: now they are in Washington, working hard to duplicate on a national scale the failures they achieved in Chicago.

None of the powerful Chicago politicians now in Washington have practical experience creating jobs. All of them have a mistaken belief that the federal government can generate job growth by turning the spigot of taxpayer money in the intended direction. They also believe that ever larger and more intrusive government and regulatory regimes added to every level of American life are a prescription for economic growth. This same, failed philosophy that guided their actions in Chicago now guides their efforts in Washington.

As I've often said, Barry Obama isn't qualified to run the night shift at a McDonalds. The concept that people are best left alone to pursue their own self interest without the interference of government is something that is foreign to him and the rest of his followers. We can only pray conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) take control of the Congress and stop him....

The Statists, err Socialist, escuse Demo-rats show their true colors

Da Gov of Massacuttus seems to think B Hussein Obama is above criticism, reproach or opposition. Case in point:

Patrick says Obama critics are 'almost at the level of sedition'

Governor Deval Patrick, even as he decried partisanship in Washington, said today that Republican opposition to President Obama’s agenda has become so obstinate that it “is almost at the level of sedition.”

The Democratic governor, who is close to the president, made the comments at a forum at Suffolk Law School's Rappaport Center, where he was asked by an audience member about partisan battling in Congress.

Patrick said that even "on my worst day, when I’m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure," he doesn't face anything like the opposition faced by the president.

"It seems like child’s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,” Patrick said.

Merriam-Webster.com, the dictionary site, defines sedition as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.''

After the forum, Patrick explained his remarks.

“I think that the number of people in the Grand Old Party who seem to be absolutely committed to saying ‘no,' whenever he says ‘yes,’ no matter what it is, even if it’s an idea that they came up with, is just extraordinary,” the governor told reporters after the forum.

But did the opposition really border on sedition?

“That was a rhetorical flourish,” Patrick said.

Now a bit of an expanded definition of sedition comes from The Free Dictionary:

A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of Treason or Defamation against government.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.

Now like most leftists he gives no examples of people "...absolutely committed to saying ‘no,' whenever he says ‘yes,’ no matter what it is, even if it’s an idea that they came up with...” Naturally the "objective journalists" there didn't ask him to give examples...

I will give him the example of Limbaugh saying "I hope he fails" but Rush is not a Republican Party leader.

I 'm still waiting for an example of sedition...

The French Retirement Age

Again (and it galls me to say it) France is showing what this country needs to do for a major problem

France poised to raise retirement age

Expectations are growing that France is set to remove the right to retire at 60, as it embarks on a contentious reform of its debt-laden pension system and brings public finances back into line...

...The government is expected to announce its planned reforms next month and expects to have a draft bill before parliament by September. Nicolas Sarkozy, president, has made pensions the last big reform of his government before the campaign for the next presidential election in 2012 gets under way.

All but one of France’s five main unions have rejected suggestions that the retirement age should be increased, favouring instead taxes to fill a deficit expected to hit €32bn this year, as much as €45bn in 2020 and possibly more than €100bn in 2050.

...A similar percentage of respondents agreed that the retirement age needed to be raised from 60 to 62.

After the oil shock of the mid 70s, France switched to nuclear for its electric power. It now gets 85% of its electricity from atomic plants. The US…we’ve gone from 25% of our oil coming from the Middle East to over 50%...and getting a nuke plant built is an act of God.

When Social Security was imposed on the American people, the average life span was around 62 years…and you got full benefits at 65…now people live to 80. We started to move the retirement age to 67 and we need to get that up to at least 75… but I don’t see that happening with the current administration and their efforts to bankrupt the country.

Officer Down

Police Officer Thomas E. Wortham IV
Chicago Police Department
End of Watch: Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Age: 30
Tour of Duty: 2 years, 11 months
Badge Number: 6181
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Officer Thomas Wortham was shot and killed after identifying himself as a police officer when four suspects attempted to rob him while he was off duty at 11:25 pm.

Officer Wortham was visiting his parent's home to show pictures from the previous week's Police Week activities that he attended in Washington, DC. As he was leaving, four men approached and attempted to rob him of his motorcycle. Officer Wortham drew his service weapon and fired at the suspects, but was fatally shot.

His father, a retired Chicago police sergeant, witnessed the shooting from his window. He exited the house, exchanging shots with the suspects, killing one and seriously wounding another. The remaining two suspects fled in a vehicle, but were taken into custody the following day.

Officer Wortham had served with the Chicago Police Department for nearly three years and was assigned to the Englewood District. He had recently returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq while serving with the Wisconsin Army National Guard.


Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch
Day is done, gone the sun,
From the lake, from the hills,
From the sky.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.

Cartoon Network has really gone too far now

This really gives me some negative waves. The picture of Bugs and Daffy eating sushi...

Cartoon Network reviving 'Looney Tunes'Channel also announces new awards show honoring athletes

Cartoon Network's "Looney Tunes" reboot

...The network also said Wednesday during its upfront presentation that it is launching a new version of Warner Bros.' classic "Looney Tunes" series starring Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and unveiled several new series and pilots.

"We're delivering and adding great brands and beloved franchises that represent the breadth and scope of Cartoon Network's ongoing evolution," said Stuart Snyder, president and COO of Turner Broadcasting's Animation, Young Adults and Kids Media division.

...Meanwhile, "The Looney Tunes Show," from Warner Bros. Animation and executive producer Stan Register ("Teen Titans"), takes Bugs and Daffy out of the woods and puts them into the suburbs with "colorful neighbors" including Yosemite Sam, Granny, Tweety and Sylvester,

"Looney" will also have classic characters singing original songs in two-minute music videos called "Merrie Melodies" and the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote in CG shorts. Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone ("Duck Dodgers") are the supervising producers.
....

OK...Hollywood doing the Looney Toons today...lets see:

1. Bugs and Daffy will be leading an "alternative lifestyle"

2. Taz will be in an anger management program.

3. Pepe Le Pieu will be in a half way house undergoing a court ordered sexual harassment class.

4. Yosemite Sam is on the terrorist watch list for weapons' violations.

5. Porky Pig is in a mandatory Obamacare obesity program.

6. Elmer Fudd is now a vegan hunting for great tofu.

7. The Road Runner has a protective order on Wile E. Coyote.

8. Speedy Gonzales is now running a coyote network on the California-Mexico Border.

9. Foghorn Leghorn is being protested by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for racial profiling.

10. Sylvester is undergoing a sex change to be closer to Tweety.

11. Finally Marvin Martian showed up to conquer the world, looked at Cartoon Network and said "F#$% this place, it ain't worth it!"

Officer Down

Sergeant Brandon Paudert
West Memphis Police Department Arkansas
End of Watch: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Age: 39
Tour of Duty: 7 years
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Suspect Info: Shot and killed





Police Officer Bill Evans
West Memphis Police Department Arkansas
End of Watch: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tour of Duty: 9 years
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Sergeant Brandon Paudert and Police Officer Bill Evans were shot and killed during a vehicle stop.

Officer Evans was on patrol on Interstate-40 when, at 1136 hours, he pulled over a vehicle, occupied by two men, for a violation. Sergeant Paudert arrived shortly after to provide back-up on the stop. During the stop, the officers had the vehicle occupants exit the vehicle. A struggle with one suspect ensued, followed by an exchange of gunfire; one suspect armed with a handgun, and the second with a long rifle. Officer Evans and Sergeant Paudert were both fatally wounded in an exchange of gunfire.

The suspect fled, and were later located at a nearby store. They were shot and killed in a shootout with members of the Crittenden County Sheriff's Office, in which the County Sheriff and the Chief of Patrol were seriously wounded.

Sergeant Paudert was a seven year veteran of the department and a member of the Drug Interdiction Unit. He was the son of the West Memphis Chief of Police. He is survived by his three children.

Officer Evans was a nine year veteran of the department and a member of the Drug Interdiction Unit. He was the nephew of the West Memphis Chief of Police. He is survived by his two children.

Rest in Peace Gentlemen...We'll Continue the Watch.

Day is done, gone the sun,
From the lake, from the hills,
From the sky.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.

Kidnappings and Intelligence

A Look at Kidnapping through the Lens of Protective Intelligence
May 20, 2010

By Scott Stewart

Looking at the world from a protective-intelligence perspective, the theme for the past week has not been improvised explosive devices or potential mass-casualty attacks. While there have been suicide bombings in Afghanistan, alleged threats to the World Cup and seemingly endless post-mortem discussions of the failed May 1 Times Square attack, one recurring and under-reported theme in a number of regions around the world has been kidnapping.

For example, in Heidenheim, Germany, Maria Boegerl, the wife of German banker Thomas Boegerl, was reportedly kidnapped from her home May 12. The kidnappers issued a ransom demand to the family and an amount was agreed upon. Mr. Boegerl placed the ransom payment at the arranged location, but the kidnappers never picked up the money (perhaps suspecting or detecting police involvement). The family has lost contact with the kidnappers, and fear for Mrs. Boegerl’s fate has caused German authorities to launch a massive search operation, which has included hundreds of searchers along with dogs, helicopters and divers.

Two days after the Boegerl kidnapping, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) posted a message on the Internet claiming to have custody of French citizen Michel Germaneau, a retired engineer who had previously worked in Algeria’s petroleum sector. Germaneau was reportedly kidnapped April 22, in northern Niger, close to the border with Mali and Algeria. The AQIM video contained a photo of Germaneau and of his identification card. The group demanded a prisoner exchange and said that French President Nicolas Sarkozy would be responsible for the captive’s well-being.
Also on May 14, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, a high-profile attorney and former presidential candidate, was kidnapped near his ranch in the Mexican state of Queretaro. Fernandez had left his home in Mexico City to drive to his ranch but never arrived. His vehicle was found abandoned near the ranch on Saturday morning and the vehicle reportedly showed signs of a struggle. It is not known who kidnapped Fernandez or what the motivation for the kidnapping was.

At the moment a kidnapping occurs, the abduction team usually has achieved tactical surprise and usually employs overwhelming force. To the previously unsuspecting victim, the abductors seemingly appear out of nowhere. But when examined carefully, kidnappings are, for the most part, the result of a long and carefully orchestrated process. They do not arise from a vacuum. There are almost always some indications or warnings that the process is in motion prior to the actual abduction, meaning that many kidnappings are avoidable. In light of this reality, let’s take a more detailed look at the phenomenon of kidnappings.

Types of Kidnappings

There are many different types of kidnappings. Although kidnappings for ransom and political kidnappings generate considerable news interest, most kidnappings have nothing to do with money or political statements. They are typically kidnappings conducted by family members in custody disputes, emotionally disturbed strangers wanting to take a child to raise or strangers who abduct a victim for sexual exploitation.

Even in financially motivated kidnappings, there are a number of different types. The stereotypical kidnapping of a high-value target comes most readily to mind, but there are also more spur-of-the-moment express kidnappings, where a person is held until his bank account can be drained using an ATM card, and even virtual kidnappings, where no kidnapping occurs at all but the victim is frightened by a claim that a loved one has been kidnapped and pays a ransom to the alleged abductors. Some of the piracy incidents in Somalia also move into the economic kidnapping realm, especially in cases where the crew or passengers are seen as being more valuable than the boat or its cargo.

Since kidnapping is such a broad topic, for the sake of this discussion, we will focus primarily on kidnappings that are financially motivated and those that are politically motivated. Financially motivated kidnappings can be conducted by a variety of criminal elements. At the highest level are highly trained professional kidnapping gangs that specialize in abducting high-net-worth individuals and who will frequently demand ransoms in the millions of dollars. Such groups often employ teams of specialists who carry out a variety of specific tasks such as collecting intelligence, conducting surveillance, snatching the target, negotiating with the victim’s family and establishing and guarding the safe-houses.

At the other end of the spectrum are gangs that randomly kidnap targets of opportunity. These gangs are generally far less skilled than the professional gangs and often will hold a victim for only a short time, as in an express kidnapping. Sometimes express kidnapping victims are held in the trunk of a car for the duration of their ordeal, which can sometimes last for days if the victim has a large amount in a checking account and a small daily ATM withdrawal limit. Other times, if an express kidnapping gang discovers it has grabbed a high-value target by accident, the gang will hold the victim longer and demand a much higher ransom. Occasionally, these express kidnapping groups will even “sell” a high-value victim to a more professional kidnapping gang. (On a side note, most express kidnapping victims tend to be male and are most frequently abducted while walking on the street after dark, and many have impaired their senses by consuming alcohol.)

In the United States, it is far more common for a relatively poor person to be kidnapped for financial motives than it is for a high-net-worth individual. This is because kidnapping groups frequently target groups of illegal immigrants, who they believe are far less likely to seek help from the authorities. In some cases, the police have found dozens of immigrant hostages being held in safe-houses.

Between the two extremes of kidnapping groups — those targeting the rich and those targeting the poor — there is a wide range of kidnapping gangs that might target a bank vice president or branch manager rather than the bank’s CEO, or that might kidnap the owner of a restaurant or other small business rather than an industrialist.

In the realm of political kidnappings, there are abductions that are very well-planned, such as the December 1981 kidnapping of Gen. James Dozier by the Italian Red Brigades, or Hezbollah’s March 1985 kidnapping of journalist Terry Anderson. However, there are also opportunistic cases of politically motivated kidnappings, such as when foreigners are abducted at a Taliban checkpoint in Afghanistan or AQIM militants grab a European tourist in the Sahel area of Africa. Of course, in the case of both the Taliban and AQIM, the groups see kidnapping as an important source of funding as well as a politically useful tool.

Understanding the Process

In deliberate (as opposed to opportunistic) kidnappings based on financial or political motives, the kidnappers generally follow a process that is very similar to what we call the terrorist attack cycle: target selection, planning, deployment, attack, escape and exploitation. In a kidnapping, this means the group must identify a victim; plan for the abduction, captivity and negotiation; conduct the abduction and secure the hostage; successfully leverage the life of the victim for financial or political gain; and then escape.

During some phases of this process, the kidnappers may not be visible to the target, but there are several points during the process when the kidnappers are forced to expose themselves to detection in order to accomplish their mission. Like the perpetrators of a terrorist attack, those planning a kidnapping are most vulnerable to detection while they are conducting surveillance — before they are ready to deploy and conduct their attack. As we have noted several times in past analyses, one of the secrets of countersurveillance is that most criminals are not very good at conducting surveillance. The primary reason they succeed is that no one is looking for them.

Of course, kidnappers are also very easy to spot once they launch their attack, pull their weapons and perhaps even begin to shoot. By this time, however, it might very well be too late to escape their attack. They will have selected their attack site and employed the forces they believe they need to overpower their victim and complete the operation. While the kidnappers could botch their operation and the target could escape unscathed, it is simply not practical to pin one’s hopes on that possibility. It is clearly better to spot the kidnappers early and avoid their trap before it is sprung and the guns come out.

Kidnappers, like other criminals, look for patterns and vulnerabilities that they can exploit. Their chances for success increase greatly if they are allowed to conduct surveillance at will and are given the opportunity to thoroughly assess the security measures (if any) employed by the target. We have seen several cases in Mexico in which the criminals even chose to attack despite security measures such as armored cars and armed security guards. In such cases, criminals attack with adequate resources to overcome existing security. For example, if there are protective agents, the attackers will plan to neutralize them first. If there is an armored vehicle, they will find ways to defeat the armor or grab the target when he or she is outside the vehicle. Because of this, criminals must not be allowed to conduct surveillance at will. Potential targets should practice a heightened but relaxed state of situational awareness that will help them spot hostile surveillance.

Potential targets should also conduct simple pattern and route analyses to determine where they are most predictable and vulnerable. Taking an objective look at your schedule and routes is really not as complicated as it may seem. While the ideal is to vary routes and times to avoid predictable locations, this is also difficult and disruptive and warranted only when the threat is extremely high. A more practical alternative is for potential targets to raise their situational awareness a notch as they travel through such areas at predictable times.
Of course, using the term “potential targets” points to another problem. Many kidnapping victims simply don’t believe they are potential targets until after they have been kidnapped, and therefore do not take commonsense security measures. Frequently, when such people are debriefed after their release from captivity, they are able to recall suspicious activity before their abduction that they did not take seriously because they did not consider themselves targets. One American businessman who was kidnapped in Central America said upon his release that he knew there was something odd about the behavior of a particular couple he saw frequently sitting on a park bench near his home prior to his kidnapping, but he didn’t think he was rich enough to be targeted for kidnapping. As soon as he was abducted, he said that he immediately knew that the awkward couple had been observing him to determine his pattern. He said that he often thought about that couple during his two months in captivity, and how a little bit of curiosity could have saved him from a terrifying ordeal and his family a substantial sum of money.

The same steps involved in a deliberate kidnapping are also followed in ad hoc, opportunistic kidnappings — though the steps may be condensed and accomplished in seconds or minutes rather than the weeks or months normally associated with a well-planned kidnapping operation. And the same problems with lack of awareness often apply. It is not uncommon to talk to someone who was involved in an express kidnapping and hear the person say, “I got a bad feeling about those three guys standing near that car when I started walking down that block, but I kept walking anyway.” This frequent occurrence highlights the importance of situational awareness, attack recognition and proper mindset maintenance.

Potential targets do not have to institute security measures that will make them invulnerable to such crimes — something that is very difficult and that can be very expensive. Rather, the objective is to take measures that make them a harder target than other members of the specific class of individuals to which they belong. Groups conducting pre-operational surveillance, whether for an intentional kidnapping or an opportunistic kidnapping, prefer a target that is unaware and easy prey. Taking some basic security measures such as maintaining a healthy state of situational awareness will, in many cases, cause the criminals to choose another target who is less aware and therefore more vulnerable.

Also, most people who are kidnapped in places like Afghanistan or the Sahel know they are going into dangerous places and disregard the warnings not to go to those places. Many of these people, like journalists and aid workers, take the risk as part of their jobs. Others, like the European tourists abducted in the Sahel (and some of the pleasure boaters kidnapped by Somali pirates), appear to naively disregard the risk or to be thrill-seekers. In the recent Germaneau case in Niger, due to the number of highly publicized kidnappings in the Sahel region over the past eight years, and Germaneau’s personal history of working in Algeria, it would be hard to argue that he did not know what he could be getting himself into (though we are unsure at this point what motivated him to run that risk). After Germaneau’s kidnapping, his driver was subsequently arrested, raising the possibility that he was somehow complicit in the abduction. This is a reminder that it is not at all unusual for kidnapping gangs to have inside help, whether a maid, bodyguard, interpreter or taxi driver.

In retrospect, almost every person who is kidnapped either missed or ignored some indication or warning of danger. These warnings can range from observable criminal behavior to a consular information bulletin specifically warning people not to drive outside of cities in Guatemala after dark, for example. This means that, while kidnapping can be a devastating crime, it can also be an avoidable one.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

Officer Down

Police Officer Eydelmen Mani
Houston Police Department
End of Watch: Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Age: 30
Tour of Duty: 7 years
Cause of Death: Automobile accident
Date of Incident: Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Officer Eydelmen Mani was killed in an automobile accident while responding to a call at approximately 11:30 pm. He was traveling on the North Freeway access road, near Troy Road, when his patrol car struck a guardrail and overturned.

Rescue crews extricated him from the vehicle and transported him to Memorial Hermann Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries a short time later.

Officer Mani had served with the Houston Police Department for seven years. He is survived by his wife and 3-year-old child.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch
Day is done, gone the sun,
From the lake, from the hills,
From the sky.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.

Let's see if LA and CA mean what they say....

LA, I hope you enjoy not having the lights on this summer! :)

Power Play Over Immigration Law

LA's boycott resolution sparks a threat over power the city receives from Arizona

An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.

"That is one commissioner who has that idea -- whether he can do that or not is another idea," said LA Councilman Dennis Zine. "They are the ones who have to make the move, not us."

The commissioner's power grid play is in response to the city's approval of a resolution directing city staff to consider which contracts with Arizona can be terminated.

Here's part Arizona Corporation Commission member Gary Pierce's letter to the mayor:


"...If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.

I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy...."

...Councilmember Tom LaBonge said he'd like to talk with Pierce. LaBonge said the city needs to look into its long standing utility agreements with Arizona.

LaBonge met Wednesday morning with LA Department of Water and Power officials.

"We have right of ownership of the power plants," LaBonge told NBCLA. "We partially own them."

Other California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, have passed similar measures.

On Tuesday, Berkeley became the latest California city to boycott Arizona. The City Council voted unanimously to restrict staff from traveling to the state on city business....

From an article in FOXNEWS last week this boycott be painfull not only to Los Angles but California too:

The Golden State gets almost a third of its electricity from Arizona -- most of it coming from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

California also contracts to house 4,000 inmates in Arizona prisons, not to mention a $22 million contract at city-owned Los Angeles International Airport for Phoenix-based U.S. Airways and millions more in trucking contracts at the port of Los Angeles.

OK Mayor Villaraigosa and Governor ARNOLD....do you really mean it...will you cut off Arizona...and will the people of CA like it when Arizona cuts them off!

The Washington Pravda

Not to be outdone by the NY Puke, the Washington Pravda has this "objective story" or piece of "journalism" from it's front pages

Louisiana governor Jindal takes active role in dealing with spill

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; A01

OVER THE GULF OF MEXICO -- Strapped into a National Guard Black Hawk, peering down at green water mottled with oil sheen, the most serious man in Louisiana is starting to sound ridiculous.

Over the helicopter's intercom, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is explaining to the mayor of New Orleans about two of the state's efforts to keep back the oil slick. One is named for a Mexican-food entree. The other is named for a Cajun sausage.

The "burrito levee" and the "boudin bag" are part of a vast effort, overseen by Jindal, to hold back a slick that is already spitting up tar balls onto the state's coast. He also has a plan to create more Louisiana, building new barrier islands in the oil's path.

"It makes so much sense. It's so obvious. We gotta do it," Jindal said into his headphones. His call for a major government response stands in apparent contrast to his previous calls for small government.

Excuse me Dave..."His call for a major government response stands in apparent contrast to his previous calls for small government." This is what a state government with a major seashore is supposed to do. Yes, protection of its coast comes under the preview of state control. But more to the point, a smart swipe against the Governor is something for the Editorial pages or columns...then again with Washington Pravda, is there any difference?

The NY Puke says something intelligent for once

The New York Times for once says something intelligent in its Iditorial Pages....

A New Chance in New Orleans

The Justice Department described the New Orleans Police Department earlier this year as one of the nation’s worst. There is no doubt about that. The city suffers from one of the country’s highest rates of violent crime and unsolved murders. Its police force is currently the subject of at least eight federal investigations into accusations of brutality and unjustified killings of citizens at the hands of armed officers.

This week, city and federal officials took a big step toward resolving those problems. At the request of Mitch Landrieu, the new mayor of New Orleans, the Justice Department will conduct a full review of the police department. That will likely lead to a consent decree, a legally binding agreement between the city and the Justice Department on steps to reform the force.

Congress gave the Justice Department the authority in 1994 to restructure troubled police departments. Since then, the Civil Rights Division has reached agreement with 16 departments — including Pittsburgh, Detroit and the District of Columbia — to address problems in the use of force, racial discrimination or other misconduct. Last year, a federal judge released the Los Angeles Police Department from a consent decree after it made progress in reducing racial profiling and corruption.

The previous mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, repeatedly denied that the department had systemic problems and insisted that the city could clean things up on its own. He failed, utterly, to do that. Mr. Landrieu invited federal intervention on his second day in office, an act of political courage even if it was a few steps ahead of a court order.

Mayor Landrieu called for a “complete transformation” of the department. It will take a lot of work to make that happen. Four former police officers already have pleaded guilty in connection with the shootings of six unarmed residents on the Danziger Bridge in the days after Hurricane Katrina. The cover-up that followed suggests that the incident may be the tip of a horrific iceberg. Changing this culture may take years, but the city has now begun the process.

I rarely agree with the NY Pravda but one thing is definately on target with this. The previous mayor, Ray Nagin, wouldn't even say there were major problems in his department. I'll commend Landrieu for at least moving in the right direction.

STRATFOR: The European Dilemma

Germany, Greece and Exiting the Eurozone May 18, 2010

By Marko Papic, Robert Reinfrank and Peter Zeihan

Rumors of the imminent collapse of the eurozone continue to swirl despite the Europeans’ best efforts to hold the currency union together. Some accounts in the financial world have even suggested that Germany’s frustration with the crisis could cause Berlin to quit the eurozone — as soon as this past weekend, according to some — while at the most recent gathering of European leaders French President Nicolas Sarkozy apparently threatened to bolt the bloc if Berlin did not help Greece.

Meanwhile, many in Germany — including Chancellor Angela Merkel herself at one point — have called for the creation of a mechanism by which Greece — or the eurozone’s other over-indebted, uncompetitive economies — could be kicked out of the eurozone in the future should they not mend their “irresponsible” spending habits.
Rumors, hints, threats, suggestions and information “from well-placed sources” all seem to point to the hot topic in Europe at the moment, namely, the reconstitution of the eurozone whether by a German exit or a Greek expulsion. We turn to this topic with the question of whether such an option even exists.

The Geography of the European Monetary Union

As we consider the future of the euro, it is important to remember that the economic underpinnings of paper money are not nearly as important as the political underpinnings. Paper currencies in use throughout the world today hold no value without the underlying political decision to make them the legal tender of commercial activity. This means a government must be willing and capable enough to enforce the currency as a legal form of debt settlement, and refusal to accept paper currency is, within limitations, punishable by law.

The trouble with the euro is that it attempts to overlay a monetary dynamic on a geography that does not necessarily lend itself to a single economic or political “space.” The eurozone has a single central bank, the European Central Bank (ECB), and therefore has only one monetary policy, regardless of whether one is located in Northern or Southern Europe. Herein lies the fundamental geographic problem of the euro.

Europe is the second-smallest continent on the planet but has the second-largest number of states packed into its territory. This is not a coincidence. Europe’s multitude of peninsulas, large islands and mountain chains create the geographic conditions that often allow even the weakest political authority to persist. Thus, the Montenegrins have held out against the Ottomans, just as the Irish have against the English.

Despite this patchwork of political authorities, the Continent’s plentiful navigable rivers, large bays and serrated coastlines enable the easy movement of goods and ideas across Europe. This encourages the accumulation of capital due to the low costs of transport while simultaneously encouraging the rapid spread of technological advances, which has allowed the various European states to become astonishingly rich: Five of the top 10 world economies hail from the Continent despite their relatively small populations.

Europe’s network of rivers and seas are not integrated via a single dominant river or sea network, however, meaning capital generation occurs in small, sequestered economic centers. To this day, and despite significant political and economic integration, there is no European New York. In Europe’s case, the Danube has Vienna, the Po has Milan, the Baltic Sea has Stockholm, the Rhineland has both Amsterdam and Frankfurt and the Thames has London. This system of multiple capital centers is then overlaid on Europe’s states, which jealously guard control over their capital and, by extension, their banking systems.

Despite a multitude of different centers of economic — and by extension, political — power, some states, due to geography, are unable to access any capital centers of their own. Much of the Club Med states are geographically disadvantaged. Aside from the Po Valley of northern Italy — and to an extent the Rhone — southern Europe lacks a single river useful for commerce. Consequently, Northern Europe is more urban, industrial and technocratic while Southern Europe tends to be more rural, agricultural and capital-poor.

Introducing the Euro

Given the barrage of economic volatility and challenges the eurozone has confronted in recent quarters and the challenges presented by housing such divergent geography and history under one monetary roof, it is easy to forget why the eurozone was originally formed.

The Cold War made the European Union possible. For centuries, Europe was home to feuding empires and states. After World War II, it became the home of devastated peoples whose security was the responsibility of the United States. Through the Bretton Woods agreement, the United States crafted an economic grouping that regenerated Western Europe’s economic fortunes under a security rubric that Washington firmly controlled. Freed of security competition, the Europeans not only were free to pursue economic growth, they also enjoyed nearly unlimited access to the American market to fuel that growth. Economic integration within Europe to maximize these opportunities made perfect sense. The United States encouraged the economic and political integration because it gave a political underpinning to a security alliance it imposed on Europe, i.e., NATO. Thus, the European Economic Community — the predecessor to today’s European Union — was born.

When the United States abandoned the gold standard in 1971 (for reasons largely unconnected to things European), Washington essentially abrogated the Bretton Woods currency pegs that went with it. One result was a European panic. Floating currencies raised the inevitability of currency competition among the European states, the exact sort of competition that contributed to the Great Depression 40 years earlier. Almost immediately, the need to limit that competition sharpened, first with currency coordination efforts still concentrating on the U.S. dollar and then from 1979 on with efforts focused on the deutschmark. The specter of a unified Germany in 1989 further invigorated economic integration. The euro was in large part an attempt to give Berlin the necessary incentives so that it would not depart the EU project.

But to get Berlin on board with the idea of sharing its currency with the rest of Europe, the eurozone was modeled after the Bundesbank and its deutschmark. To join the eurozone, a country must abide by rigorous “convergence criteria” designed to synchronize the economy of the acceding country with Germany’s economy. The criteria include a budget deficit of less than 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); government debt levels of less than 60 percent of GDP; annual inflation no higher than 1.5 percentage points above the average of the lowest three members’ annual inflation; and a two-year trial period during which the acceding country’s national currency must float within a plus-or-minus 15 percent currency band against the euro.
As cracks have begun to show in both the political and economic support for the eurozone, however, it is clear that the convergence criteria failed to overcome divergent geography and history. Greece’s violations of the Growth and Stability Pact are clearly the most egregious, but essentially all eurozone members — including France and Germany, which helped draft the rules — have contravened the rules from the very beginning.

Mechanics of a Euro Exit

The EU treaties as presently constituted contractually obligate every EU member state — except Denmark and the United Kingdom, which negotiated opt-outs — to become a eurozone member state at some point. Forcible expulsion or self-imposed exit is technically illegal, or at best would require the approval of all 27 member states (never mind the question about why a troubled eurozone member would approve its own expulsion). Even if it could be managed, surely there are current and soon-to-be eurozone members that would be wary of establishing such a precedent, especially when their fiscal situation could soon be similar to Athens’ situation.
One creative option making the rounds would allow the European Union to technically expel members without breaking the treaties. It would involve setting up a new European Union without the offending state (say, Greece) and establishing within the new institutions a new eurozone as well. Such manipulations would not necessarily destroy the existing European Union; its major members would “simply” recreate the institutions without the member they do not much care for.

Though creative, the proposed solution it is still rife with problems. In such a reduced eurozone, Germany would hold undisputed power, something the rest of Europe might not exactly embrace. If France and the Benelux countries reconstituted the eurozone with Berlin, Germany’s economy would go from constituting 26.8 percent of eurozone version 1.0’s overall output to 45.6 percent of eurozone version 2.0’s overall output. Even states that would be expressly excluded would be able to get in a devastating parting shot: The southern European economies could simply default on any debt held by entities within the countries of the new eurozone.

With these political issues and complications in mind, we turn to the two scenarios of eurozone reconstitution that have garnered the most attention in the media.

Scenario 1: Germany Reinstitutes the Deutschmark

The option of leaving the eurozone for Germany boils down to the potential liabilities that Berlin would be on the hook for if Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland followed Greece down the default path. As Germany prepares itself to vote on its 123 billion euro contribution to the 750 billion euro financial aid mechanism for the eurozone — which sits on top of the 23 billion euros it already approved for Athens alone — the question of whether “it is all worth it” must be on top of every German policymaker’s mind.

This is especially the case as political opposition to the bailout mounts among German voters and Merkel’s coalition partners and political allies. In the latest polls, 47 percent of Germans favor adopting the deutschmark. Furthermore, Merkel’s governing coalition lost a crucial state-level election May 9 in a sign of mounting dissatisfaction with her Christian Democratic Union and its coalition ally, the Free Democratic Party. Even though the governing coalition managed to push through the Greek bailout, there are now serious doubts that Merkel will be able to do the same with the eurozone-wide mechanism May 21.

Germany would therefore not be leaving the eurozone to save its economy or extricate itself from its own debts, but rather to avoid the financial burden of supporting the Club Med economies and their ability to service their 3 trillion euro mountain of debt. At some point, Germany may decide to cut its losses — potentially as much as 500 billion euros, which is the approximate exposure of German banks to Club Med debt — and decide that further bailouts are just throwing money into a bottomless pit. Furthermore, while Germany could always simply rely on the ECB to break all of its rules and begin the policy of purchasing the debt of troubled eurozone governments with newly created money (“quantitative easing”), that in itself would also constitute a bailout. The rest of the eurozone, including Germany, would be paying for it through the weakening of the euro.

Were this moment to dawn on Germany it would have to mean that the situation had deteriorated significantly. As STRATFOR has recently argued, the eurozone provides Germany with considerable economic benefits. Its neighbors are unable to undercut German exports with currency depreciation, and German exports have in turn gained in terms of overall eurozone exports on both the global and eurozone markets. Since euro adoption, unit labor costs in Club Med have increased relative to Germany’s by approximately 25 percent, further entrenching Germany’s competitive edge.
Before Germany could again use the deutschmark, Germany would first have to reinstate its central bank (the Bundesbank), withdraw its reserves from the ECB, print its own currency and then re-denominate the country’s assets and liabilities in deutschmarks. While it would not necessarily be a smooth or easy process, Germany could reintroduce its national currency with far more ease than other eurozone members could.

The deutschmark had a well-established reputation for being a store of value, as the renowned Bundesbank directed Germany’s monetary policy. If Germany were to reintroduce its national currency, it is highly unlikely that Europeans would believe that Germany had forgotten how to run a central bank — Germany’s institutional memory would return quickly, re-establishing the credibility of both the Bundesbank and, by extension, the deutschmark.

As Germany would be replacing a weaker and weakening currency with a stronger and more stable one, if market participants did not simply welcome the exchange, they would be substantially less resistant to the change than what could be expected in other eurozone countries. Germany would therefore not necessarily have to resort to militant crackdowns on capital flows to halt capital trying to escape conversion.
Germany would probably also be able to re-denominate all its debts in the deutschmark via bond swaps. Market participants would accept this exchange because they would probably have far more faith in a deutschmark backed by Germany than in a euro backed by the remaining eurozone member states.

Reinstituting the deutschmark would still be an imperfect process, however, and there would likely be some collateral damage, particularly to Germany’s financial sector. German banks own much of the debt issued by Club Med, which would likely default on repayment in the event Germany parted with the euro. If it reached the point that Germany was going to break with the eurozone, those losses would likely pale in comparison to the costs — be they economic or political — of remaining within the eurozone and financially supporting its continued existence.

Scenario 2: Greece Leaves the Euro

If Athens were able to control its monetary policy, it would ostensibly be able to “solve” the two major problems currently plaguing the Greek economy.
First, Athens could ease its financing problems substantially. The Greek central bank could print money and purchase government debt, bypassing the credit markets. Second, reintroducing its currency would allow Athens to then devalue it, which would stimulate external demand for Greek exports and spur economic growth. This would obviate the need to undergo painful “internal devaluation” via austerity measures that the Greeks have been forced to impose as a condition for their bailout by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the EU.

If Athens were to reinstitute its national currency with the goal of being able to control monetary policy, however, the government would first have to get its national currency circulating (a necessary condition for devaluation).
The first practical problem is that no one is going to want this new currency, principally because it would be clear that the government would only be reintroducing it to devalue it. Unlike during the Eurozone accession process — where participation was motivated by the actual and perceived benefits of adopting a strong/stable currency and receiving lower interest rates, new funds and the ability to transact in many more places — “de-euroizing” offers no such incentives for market participants:

• The drachma would not be a store of value, given that the objective in
reintroducing it is to reduce its value.

• The drachma would likely only be accepted within Greece, and even there it would not be accepted everywhere — a condition likely to persist for some time.

• Reinstituting the drachma unilaterally would likely see Greece cast out of the eurozone, and therefore also the European Union as per rules explained above.
The government would essentially be asking investors and its own population to sign a social contract that the government clearly intends to abrogate in the future, if not immediately once it is able to. Therefore, the only way to get the currency circulating would be by force.

The goal would not be to convert every euro-denominated asset into drachmas but rather to get a sufficiently large chunk of the assets so that the government could jumpstart the drachma’s circulation. To be done effectively, the government would want to minimize the amount of money that could escape conversion by either being withdrawn or transferred into asset classes easy to conceal from discovery and appropriation. This would require capital controls and shutting down banks and likely also physical force to prevent even more chaos on the streets of Athens than seen at present. Once the money was locked down, the government would then forcibly convert banks’ holdings by literally replacing banks’ holdings with a similar amount in the national currency. Greeks could then only withdraw their funds in newly issued drachmas that the government gave the banks to service those requests. At the same time, all government spending/payments would be made in the national currency, boosting circulation. The government also would have to show willingness to prosecute anyone using euros on the black market, lest the newly instituted drachma become completely worthless.

Since nobody save the government would want to do this, at the first hint that the government would be moving in this direction, the first thing the Greeks will want to do is withdraw all funds from any institution where their wealth would be at risk. Similarly, the first thing that investors would do — and remember that Greece is as capital-poor as Germany is capital-rich — is cut all exposure. This would require that the forcible conversion be coordinated and definitive, and most important, it would need to be as unexpected as possible.

Realistically, the only way to make this transition without completely unhinging the Greek economy and shredding Greece’s social fabric would be to coordinate with organizations that could provide assistance and oversight. If the IMF, ECB or eurozone member states were to coordinate the transition period and perhaps provide some backing for the national currency’s value during that transition period, the chances of a less-than-completely-disruptive transition would increase.

It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which such help would manifest itself in assistance that would dwarf the 110 billion euro bailout already on the table. For if Europe’s populations are so resistant to the Greek bailout now, what would they think about their governments assuming even more risk by propping up a former eurozone country’s entire financial system so that the country could escape its debt responsibilities to the rest of the eurozone?

The European Dilemma

Europe therefore finds itself being tied in a Gordian knot. On one hand, the Continent’s geography presents a number of incongruities that cannot be overcome without a Herculean (and politically unpalatable) effort on the part of Southern Europe and (equally unpopular) accommodation on the part of Northern Europe. On the other hand, the cost of exit from the eurozone — particularly at a time of global financial calamity, when the move would be in danger of precipitating an even greater crisis — is daunting to say the least.
The resulting conundrum is one in which reconstitution of the eurozone may make sense at some point down the line. But the interlinked web of economic, political, legal and institutional relationships makes this nearly impossible. The cost of exit is prohibitively high, regardless of whether it makes sense.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR