Slate does the math

This was a bit of an eye opener. Slate.com has a delegate calculator that shows the pledged delegate count based on percentage of the popular vote in the remaining contests.

If they're right - Sen. Clinton has no chance of catching Sen. Obama in pledged delegates:


This is ignoring Florida and Michigan re-vote scenarios. The snapshot above assumes that Sen. Clinton carries every state by 30 points and ties in North Carolina (where Obama is currently ahead in the polls).

Due respect to Sen. Clinton - but this is an impossible scenario. She can pin her hopes on the superdelegates, but the remaining primaries are nothing for her campaign to look forward to.

I guess she can hope to rack up a string of victories and beg the superdelegates to save her bid - but that's it.

Sheep in wolf's clothing

Given the recent national financial mess – I was surprised and somewhat impressed that the Sec. Paulson and his team had advanced a plan for increased regulation (jump to Laissez Farewell).

You'd think I'd learn.

(H/t to CJR) The NYT pretty much takes apart Sec. Paulson's "regulation" and shows you what it is:

Although the proposal would impose the first regulation of hedge funds and private equity funds, that oversight would have a light touch, enabling the government to do little beyond collecting information — except in times of crisis.

The regulatory umbrella created in the 1930s would grow wider, with power concentrated in fewer agencies. But that authority would be limited, doing virtually nothing to regulate the many new financial products whose unwise use has been a culprit in the current financial crisis.

In response to a financial crisis where the Federal Reserve takes unprecedented action to stall a credit meltdown, the White House's money man burns the midnight oil to deliver a plan to – codify the same process that got us here.

It is the same pattern, seen over and over again. When this administration responds to Wall Street's latest &^%@!-up, big financial firms get fat checks, and consumers get lip service.

Oh, they'll provide the appearance of regulation, without the actual regulation. Heaven forfend the boneheads that got us into this mess actually have to open their books and own up to the risks they are taking.

Lord knows the end investors would never want to know information like that.

Way to go, Treasury.

They are not alone

This morning, an NPR correspondent in Iraq described the fighting in Basra as one that was an Iraqi operation. They then described Apache gunships operating in the city before conceding the Iraqi soldiers would "request air support."

If they'd bothered to finish that thought - this wouldn't be worth mentioning, but they just left it at that. The passive voice construction leaves out the 'who' - and therefore tells you what subject is being avoided.

Iraqi forces are requesting air support from who? The United States Fricking Army, that's who.

I'm constantly amazed by how often the terminology appearing in the media seems borrowed from BS press releases that are intended to further message management, rather than inform the public.

Language like

Iraqi Security Forces conducted a large joint operation...

Yes, I'm quite sure Iraqi forces were involved - but if this was a joint operation, who was it joint with? The United State Fricking Army again.

Now, it very well may be that the Iraqi government started this furball in Basra by themselves, but it rapidly becoming clear that US forces are getting pulled into the mix.

(Via TPM)

Iraqi police in Baghdad are apparently deserting en masse to the Mahdi Army, thus leaving city police checkpoints to be manned by Iraqi Army soldiers, who are conveniently available because the US military is getting pulled in to take over the fight with the Mahdi Army.

I'm all for us supporting the Iraqi government crush the militias - but media outlets should stop minimizing our involvement. We've got 140,000 troops in country, and we're bankrolling at least that many contractors.

It makes no sense to pretend that we're just hanging out in the Green Zone and building schools.

I mean, Gen. Petraeus is about to tell people we should stop troop withdrawals (not "pause" goddammit - it's going to be quite some time, by all indications - so stop with the branding already).

The number of times media outlets lead with the "official phrasing" ("Iraqi-led, with coalition forces providing air support") only to walk that back when you have statements like:

A British Ministry of Defense spokesman said U.S. warplanes had opened fire in Basra for the first time, dropping bombs in support of Iraqi units on the direction of U.S. or British control teams operating with Iraqis on the ground.

[snip]


"There have been engagements going on in and around Sadr City. We've engaged the enemy with artillery, we've engaged the enemy with aircraft, we've engaged the enemy with direct fire," said Major Mark Cheadle, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.


In one strike before dawn, a U.S. helicopter fired a hellfire missile at gunmen firing from the roof of a building, killing four of them, Cheadle said. A Reuters photographer there filmed windows blown out of cars and walls pocked with shrapnel.


Later in the day cars were engulfed in flames after an apparent air strike on a Sadr City parking lot. Police said another U.S. air strike in Kadhimiya, a Sadr stronghold in northern Baghdad, killed five people. U.S. forces said they killed 27 fighters in operations in the capital on Thursday.

Is there some rule that you have to just parrot the talking point until it is demonstrably proven false?

Perhaps we've grown too accustomed to being lied to, but you'd think some guarded terminology is justified at this point.

Basra breakdown

TPM does a nice job of spelling out just what the hell is going on in southern Iraq.

Who's shooting at who, why it's spilling over into Baghdad, and why this shouldn't be much of a surprise to people.

...now it's chaos, as the operation deepens in Basra and there are clashes in Baghdad -- where the Iraqi forces are also attacking "special groups" (as an American official calls them, meaning Shiite militias with Iranian backing) with American support. Shiite insurgents have responded in part by firing rockets into the Green Zone. There's also a good deal of violence between the rival Shiite militias in Baghdad and elsewhere.

[snip]

As the Post observes it's an awkward time for the biggest test yet of the preparedness of the Iraqi forces: "It was unclear why U.S. forces would take part in a broad armed challenge to Sadr and his thousands-strong militia on the eve of Petraeus's assessment, which the Bush administration has said would greatly influence its decision on whether to draw down troop levels."

It's a hairball, to be sure - but TPM adds some clarity.

Who's the bigger idiot?

-Jim Cramer or CNBC for spinning his Bear Stearns call as "100 percent right" ?

I mean, go back and listen to this turkey.

Seriously. I'll wait.

Mr. Cramer said this:

Bear Stearns is not in trouble. It’s more likely to be taken over. Don’t move your money from Bear. That’s just being silly. Don’t be silly.

-about a stock that was going to be worthless in less than five days.

CNBC calls this genius.

Cramer's line is that he's differentiating between holding money at Bear Stearns and investing in their common stock.

Well, obviously. I mean he makes that perfectly clear when you read the remarks in context-

Hang on - no, the F he doesn't. I think Cramer and CNBC ought to have their heads examined, or worse.

Luckily, CJR's the Audit steps up and gives them the evisceration they so richly deserve.

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and be witness.

Bear Stearns - dying a second death?

Bear Stearns deal with JP Morgan smells more and more like the bailout we knew it was.

Now it looks like the Fed might need a bigger bucket.

From CJR:

• JPMorgan Chase is discussing quintupling its $2 bid for Bear Stearns to help the deal go through
• the Federal Reserve [...] put the deal together by guaranteeing $30 billion in shaky debt
• JPMorgan is in talks with the Fed to assume at least the first $1 billion in losses on that $30 billion.

NTY has this as front page news, because JPMorgan goofed in their contract language:

One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said. When the error was discovered, James Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, who was described by one participant as “apoplectic,”

CJR adds:

Sorkin also reports that Dimon has said privately he would “send Bear back into bankruptcy” if shareholders don’t agree to the deal but advisers have told him to tone it down.

So, it's not a bailout - its the right thing to do. Except, it was so "right" - that neither the buyers nor the current owners are too happy about it.

The shareholders are trying to kill this deal and JPMorgan is ringing the Fed on the way out the back door.

This thing keeps spinning out of control and the Fed's band aid just might come off.

Keystone-freaking-cops.

Hail, Mary...

(H/t to Once upon a time's Arthur Silber)

If Silber, William R Polk, and U.S. News & World Report's Terry Atlas are to be believed - there are signs the US is ramping up towards attacking Iran.

I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm sure as hell worried. Restraint has not been signature trait of this administration, and it's clear they enjoy rattling their saber.

If VP Cheney and Sec. Gates start glad handing our allies in the region - I think it's time to dust off the impeachment rulebook.

War with Iran is insane.
Striking Iran would be the precursor to war with Iran - and is also insane.

There is no way we remove Iranian nuclear capability without prolonged military action. Prolonged military action in Iran will not end their nuclear ambitions, defeat Al Qaeda, or save the economy.

Mr. President? There is no silver bullet.

Just sit on your hands for the next ten months and maybe we'll all get out of this mess in one piece, eh?

Late Edit:
Gen. Petraeus is shaking his saber today (via the BBC):

"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.
"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

Okay, the rockets hit yesterday. I'll grant that they can figure out that the rockets match rockets made in Iran in a day.


-But I'm supposed to believe that the military can find out who fired them, their ties to Iran, and definitively say that these weapons were provided by and with the knowledge of the Iranian government - in 24 hours?


I don't think so. And even if it were so, the General should start providing more than a blanket accusation. We've seen this dog and pony show before.

Program note

Set your TiVo.

PBS's Frontline to air a two part documentary of the Bush administration's war on terror tonight and tomorrow night.

UK PSA

An awareness test that's rather clever.

Well, that's something

Scooter Libby disbarred for "crimes of moral turpitude."

(H/t to Emptywheel)

Their heads are empty, but they keep talking

Consumers of media have been conditioned to expect immediate feedback - a plane crashes, and we demand video of the still-burning fires. The talking heads of media rush into the path of our attention, intent on holding it for as long as possible – even if there are scant facts to report on.

With disasters and crime – the voice over is often irrelevant. Watching a bank robber spray automatic fire at police - live – the narration can hardly damage our understanding.

It's when this model is applied to less visceral events that it breaks down. The investigation of why the plane crashed is not something that has good video. Seeing that is not the same as understanding it.

Still, we ask for someone to help us understand – and the media, like an eager-to-please adolescent, spouts the first thing that comes to mind and calls it analysis.

With the initial reaction to Sen. Obama's historic and substantive Philadelphia speech, we've seen this pattern highlighted to a degree that should embarrass even our shameless media outlets.

Fox's Frank Lutz offered his probing analysis of how effectively Sen. Obama used the teleprompter. Other pundits analyzed the subtext of his stage background, the city he chose to speak in, or the proximity of Independence Hall. The printed speech is scanned for the required denouncements. These are counted and the strength of their language is weighed.

These are all easy things to pick up on and can rapidly be converted into commentary.

It's just that any commentary on these items is worthless.

A substantive speech is entirely unsuitable for immediate, live analysis. Despite this, we still have million dollar anchormen telling us how many times the President was stopped by applause during the State of the Union address (or how many times the audience stood up to applaud – or who applauded, or didn't). As if any of that has any value whatsoever.

We are told these "facts," because no other facts are available and they must say something. The camera demands it – even if the audience doesn't.

How would it be if the speech was broadcast, and then the camera went dark? Would the absence of rapid fire commentary by a battalion of pundits somehow harm our ability to comprehend the spoken word?

I doubt it.

-------
Late edit:
CJR does the kind of analysis of Sen. Obama's speech that takes awhile - and it shows that there is such a thing as a healthy interval between when you hear something, and when you choose to give an opinion.

My grandfather was a bigot

…and I have lots of company.

Among the many good points made by Sen. Obama today was a near universality:

my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

– we all have some association with bigoted thoughts. Whether they come from our family members, our friends, or the depths of our own mind - they are unavoidable.

It’s too easy to call this smart tactics by the Obama campaign. Those who reflexively condemn the senator for his pastor have to step past their own racial baggage to do so.

That’s certainly true, but I think it’s more than that. You read the words that surround that quote and it’s clear the senator is making a larger point - a point worth making on a national stage.

You can't just turn a blind eye to your own prejudices, point the finger at the prejudices of others and expect this situation to get any better. We need to be challenged, and finally we have a national candidate who is asking us to do more than just point and denounce.

He uses the immediate (and entirely necessary) example of his pastor to make his point. Were this any other candidate - he'd hurl his pastor under the bus, bunker in for a news cycle or two and then try to change the subject.

But he doesn't say that - Obama takes great pains to say his pastor "has been like family to me," and then bothers to explain on why he feels that way. That's a huge political risk - the right wing smear machine is undoubtedly working overtime to parse out his language to manufacture the outrage their movement demands. (I bet they had to re-tool a few talking points, though. No way they thought this speech would be this courageous.)

Obama then goes on to his masterstroke and relates the story of his grandmother. Grandmother, drinking buddy, we all have anecdotes like this. He's using this anecdote to make the discussion personal - and not about him - but to get people to start thinking about their own attitudes.

Well, it works.

My Grandfather was a great guy - generous, loved to laugh, a brilliant storyteller. And he was a bigot. He'd tell this story about a guy he used to know back when he worked on the railroad. There was a watering hole in southern Illinois where the railworkers would have a few, and this guy would walk in every few weeks, order a drink, and hold up one or two fingers.

According to my grandfather - this would indicate the number of black people he'd shot since the last time he'd been there. And of course, he wouldn't say "black people."

My grandfather was an incorrigible fabulist, so I have no idea if this story was true - but that's not the issue. My grandfather would tell this story because it made him laugh. It was funny to him because this guy was doing what my grandfather thought everybody else would do if they had a chance.

I was ten when I first heard this story and I remember being incredulous. That, and my grandfather chuckling as if to encourage me. Go ahead, you can laugh - there's no one else around. I was ten, so I'm sure I smiled and played along. Over the countless times he told me this story, I think I might have worked my way up to a disapproving frown.

He was a bigot - and he was my grandpa. I remember blaming it on this Hungarian friend of his, on the coffee crowd he'd surround himself with. "They got him into all this," I'd think. "He's still a good guy."

And he was - but he also a bigot.

When the Yoshihiro Hattori killing happened - I can remember my Grampa working up a rant about how this fool student deserved to be shot - that all the angry Japanese citizens should be "taken to Pearl Harbor." And at that point I just yelled at him - "This kid had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor - he wasn't even born when it happened. He was a 16 year old kid!"

I'd love to think that my unswerving moral compass made me say this, but the likely reason was that I was a know-it-all college student at the time - a walking screed looking for a reason to happen.

I think Grampa was genuinely shocked by the exchange - and I don't recall how the subject got changed - but it did. I thought that was the end of it.

About a year later over breakfast (at Country Kitchen of all places), my Grampa said he was sorry about what he'd said. I doubt I'd changed his mind on the issues - but it was clear he felt bad, and thereafter he focused his revulsion on groups we could both agree on (like the government and people who romanticize the Confederacy).

Point is, my Grandfather was a good guy - but he was in an environment that would never challenge him. The coffee guys and the Hungarian would group think their way into all sorts of foolishness. You'd agree with your coffee buddies not because they were right, but because they were your buddies. Inch by inch, you'd end up in some terrible places.

Again, I doubt Grampa did a 180 on racial issues because I shamed him in a roomful of adults - but he at least had to think about what he'd said for a change.

People have been challenged very little in discussions about race in this country. Historically, demagogues (on the right or left) pick a target and feign outrage. They demand an apology, a resignation, some kind of concession that they can parade in front of their supporters -

- and then they move on.

The kind of probing discussion that Sen. Obama just put in front of Americans is entirely unlike that. It asks you to examine your own viewpoint as well as those held by people you disagree with. Obama illustrates viewpoints that are universes apart and asks people to think about them.

That, I would argue, is what a leader should do.

This is why I voted for Obama

Because he talks about issues like a grown up.

(From the NYT transcript of Sen. Obama's speech)

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
[snip]
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
[Snip]
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

I'm sure his political opponents are slicing and dicing these words to find and create a negative context. Plenty will say these are just words.

Words matter.

The right words at the right time can change things.

And it's for damn sure this country needs a change.

Comrade Skynyrd-ski

I'll let DangerRoom do the intro, but this is easily the freakiest thing I've seen in weeks.

What do you get when you take a Finnish rock group that calls itself Leningrad Cowboys, back them up with the Red Army Choir, and put them in front of a stadium full of screaming Russian teenagers to sing Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama?

Easy, you get this:



If old Russia isn't already dead, I'm thinking this oughta do it.

Bears across the pond

(H/t to the aptly-named Sadly, No!)

Telegraph.co.uk is reporting:

Foreign investors veto Fed rescue

As feared, foreign bond holders have begun to exercise a collective vote of no confidence in the devaluation policies of the US government. The Federal Reserve faces a potential veto of its rescue measures.

Asian, Mid East and European investors stood aside at last week's auction of 10-year US Treasury notes. "It was a disaster," said Ray Attrill from 4castweb. "We may be close to the point where the uglier consequences of benign neglect towards the currency are revealed."

The share of foreign buyers ("indirect bidders") plummeted to 5.8pc, from an average 25pc over the last eight weeks. On the Richter Scale of unfolding dramas, this matches the death of Bear Stearns.

Great... just great.

Bear meat: 93% Off

That's what JP Morgan is buying Bear Stearns at.

(H/t to Emptywheel)

They were $30.00 a share - JP Morgan gets them for two bucks a share. For a company that was $170 per share last year, that's a bit of a drubbing.

digby's saying 'buckle up,' and I'd believe her. This kind of crap keeps happening, the Fed's money tree is going to start wilting soon.

Late edit:
As ever, CJR provides clarity on this story and asks some questions about this story's first draft.

And there's this:
No matter how dumb a thing you do today, you're nowhere close to this guy's screw up:


(H/t TPM)
Moral: never get your financial advice from insane yelling guy.

And then there's this, too:
(TPM again)

the Fed apparently had to make guarantees to J.P. Morgan of $30 billion in order to get the bank to take Bear Stearns even at this price. That suggests the bank had a lot of real garbage on its books. The markets are right to be worried.

[snip]
One person who does not have to worry is James Cayne, the recently departed chief executive of Bear Stearns. According to the New York Times, he walked with $232 million in compensation over the period from 1993 to 2006. This is just another example of how the global economy rewards extraordinary talent.

Nice.

Are there any more at home like you?

CNN winds out their (not to shabby) coverage of the immunity showdown's secret session in the House with a quote from one of my favorite Congressional smartasses, Rep. Dave Obey.

Secret sessions were common in the early 1800s, but the House has held only three since 1830, not counting Thursday's, according to the Congressional Research Service. The third was in 1983, to discuss U.S. support for efforts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.

Rep. David Obey, a veteran Wisconsin Democrat, said he took part in that session and the two previous ones, in 1979 and 1980.

"And I think the great utility of having another one, given the mumbo-jumbo I heard in the last three, is to demonstrate the almost total uselessness of secret sessions," he said.

Makes ya just wanna shake his hand.

Mississippi's knight falls on his sword

If Elliot Spitzer was a white knight - his foil would look a lot like Richard "Dickie" Scruggs.

Scruggs, a self styled champion of the victims of hurricane Katrina, has now pled guilty to bribing a judge over a dispute with his fellow litigators. Scruggs created the Scruggs Katrina Group (SKG), which apparently tag teamed with the Mississippi AG's office to win money from insurers over their scant payouts for storm damage.

Scruggs nabbed millions upon millions in the tobacco civil suits and (I'm guessing) smelled a similar windfall if he went after State Farm's deep pockets.

Insurance turned out to be a better fighter than tobacco, and SKG started crossing lines and butting heads with his own - all in pursuit of the big payoff.

I'm no fan of State Farm, but the claims were always rather thin - and those who suffered from the storm deserved a better champion than this man.

He might get five years, which would be nice.

Not nearly as interesting as a high-priced call girl, but just as stupid.

Miracle of miracles...

The House votes down Telecom immunity.

GG has it right - even if this bill goes nowhere, it stops the disastrous Senate bill from becoming law - and that is a huge victory.

And then there's his priceless closing shot:

"the impasse is now so deep that the issue may not be resolved until a new president takes office next year." That sentence should be set to music.

Definitely. Something with a good beat.

"It must be exciting for you...romantic"

(H/t to Sadly, No!)
Okay, one of G.W.'s handlers needs to b!tch-slap him right the f(_)ck now. Here he is, in a videoconference with military and civilian workers in Afghanistan:

“I must say, I’m a little envious,” Bush said. “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.”

“It must be exciting for you…in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.”

I mean - most everyone knows how bad this man is at public speaking, but does he have to prove how insensitive and clueless he is every time he opens his pie-hole?

Romantic... yes I'm sure that's how they see it.

Microsoft does a good thing

SitePoint is telling me that Microsoft has decided to do the right thing after all:

We’ve decided that [Internet Explorer version 8] will, by default, interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can. This decision is a change from what we’ve posted previously. Microsoft recently published a set of interoperability Principles. Thinking about IE8’s behavior with these principles in mind, interpreting web content in the most standards compliant way possible is a better thing to do.

For some reason - MS had decided to make IE8 standards compliant, to the point where it passed the acid 2 test. Then, they'd decided to make the standards compliant behavior the default mode. So, virtually no one would ever use it.

Developers, who have long dreamed of writing standardized web pages were incensed. Yet another version of IE, and still they will be asked to have an IE-specific stylesheet.

Well, MS has changed their minds (no takebacks!) so IE8 will be standards compliant, and the most popular browser in the world will no longer force developers to kowtow to its quirks.

Score!

Financial whoppers

CJRs The Audit nabbed two money stories that are compelling and depressing at the same time.

In the the first, Eakes! CJR lets the air out of a Forbes article trashing Martin Eakes - an anti-predatory lending crusader - and finds there's not much to it beyond competent punctuation.

Clearly, Forbes wants its readers to know there’s something wrong with Eakes, who heads the Center for Responsible Lending, a Durham, North Carolina, nonprofit that has made a name for itself with valuable research on, and prescient warnings about, abusive practices among subprime and other bottom-tier lenders.

Trouble is, Forbes can’t find any facts—not even one—that even remotely qualify as mud. To support its premise, the piece crosses the line from tough to unfair by trying to cast benign or irrelevant facts as somehow sinister.

The second piece is (unfortunately) another hedge fund implosion. This time, it's Carlyle Capital and they're collapsing to the tune of $16 billion dollars. Like many stories like this, there's always a quote from a financial expert who tells you the bad news is just the beginning.

This time, it comes from Bloomberg:

“Carlyle won’t be the end of it,” said Greg Bundy, executive chairman of Sydney-based merger advisory firm InterFinancial Ltd. and a former head of Merrill Lynch & Co.’s Australian unit. “There’s more to come. The problem is no one can give you an educated guess about how much.”

Horay! More work for the Fed to sort out - maybe they'll start swapping debts with hedge funds next.

Band-aid on a bullet hole

Once again, the corporate lenders have gotten themselves into trouble, and once again they put their hand out.

(H/t CJR)

Stocks posted their biggest one-day gain in five years yesterday, after the Federal Reserve said it would dump $200 billion in cash into the frozen mortgage-backed securities market.

Essentially the Fed is going to lend money to Wall Street in exchange for the toxic debt that no one else will take—privately issued, AAA-rated, mortgage-backed securities and those guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—in a bid to stop the downward spiral of forced selling caused by margin calls.

Yet another example of socializing the risk of private investors. I'm all for saving the economy - but even assuming this was a long term solution instead of another band-aid - it will provide banks with no disincentive to be similarly foolish in the future.

- And it is a band-aid, according to those in the know (via the NYT)

“They are essentially creating a $300 billion bank out of nothing,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, a financial research firm.


But while the Fed’s moves may relieve short-term cash problems, Mr. Crandall said, “it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue, which is the decline of capital in the banking system.”

When confronted by a national financial crisis, fueled by over-exuberant (or irresponsible) lenders, the brain trust behind the national economy can't think of anything better to do than pat them on the head and open the federal coffers?

Sure, guys. Just kick the can down the road. Way to go.

Down goes Spitzer

ABC News is reporting that Gov. Spitzer will resign today.

Good riddance.

Now if only Sens. Vitter and Craig had done the same.

Creative license

Emptywheel Alberto angle keeps getting legs:

AT&T has unilaterally rewritten "a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General" to say "Attorney General or his designee." (And if you're wondering, 2518(7) doesn't say anything about "designees" either. Update: yes it does--though it specifies that they have to be investigative officers.)


Of course, we know why AT&T has unilaterally rewritten the law. That's because, as SSCI kindly told us, AT&T conducted its illegal wiretap program based on the authorization of Alberto Gonzales, then White House Counsel.

So, unless there's some bizarre reclassification that White House Counsel classifies under USC 2518(7) as-

"[an] investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State..."

-I think we have reason to suspect that the wiretapping was not, in fact, properly authorized.

Question for Temeka Rachelle Lewis

(h/t to Russ)

Damn.

Elliot Spitzer goes down in flames.

Co worker of mine had the right question:

What the hell did this woman do to Spitzer that was worth five grand an hour?

Are you really that acquiescent in the United States?

Tucker Carson proves that sadly, yes - we are.

Glenn Greenwald knocks yet another one out of the park.

The American media has been a lapdog, continues to be a lapdog, and is likely to be a lapdog in the future.

Shot in the Dark

Eleven at night, trying to avoid thinking about going to work in less than eight hours I fire up the TiVo and see that not only has soccer been recorded, but one of the games is my team.

Arsenal.

The downer is, the game is the second leg of their Champions League tie with AC Milan.

I'll explain.

Europe's Champions league is comprised of all the teams who won (or nearly won) their country's championship. They are the best each league has to offer. True, not all leagues are created equal. Bulgaria's best is still pretty lousy, but Europe has enough good leagues to ensure a quality competition.

Italy's league is arguably the best in the world. They have had their share of league-altering corruption scandals, but there is enough money coursing through Italy's Serie A to ensure the best players will gravitate there.

AC Milan is a perennial champion of the Serie A. They are one of the best teams in the best league on the planet.

At this stage of the tournament – teams are paired up against an opponent and play two games – one at each team's home stadium. The scores of both games are added together and the winner of that aggregate score advances to the next round. If there is a tie, goals scored on the road are the tiebreaker – if they are still tied, they go to penalty kicks.

This match was the second of this pairing. Arsenal had flubbed their way to a 0-0 draw at home – and now had to win on the road at Milan's home stadium, the San Siro.

Now, that's plenty of anxiety right there. Milan has never lost to an English side on their home field.

The game starts out with Milan owning the early play. Arsenal had miserable luck getting passes together and finding their lone striker, Adebayor.

Side note: I know lone strikers are truly not alone – but it bugs me when a talented forward is distanced from their support. They typically get the choice of a lone sprint into multiple defenders – or turn and wait for backup (while the multiple defenders hack on you).

Anyway – Milan's pushing Arsenal around for the first fifteen or so. The Arsenal playmaker, Fabregas, keeps getting cut off or run over.

Milan's racking up the possession and it starts to look dangerous. Their teen phenom, Pato, breezes past five Arsenal defenders (and misses) with alarming ease.

And then a great thing happens – although I didn't think so at the time. Arsenal's mifielder, Alexander Hleb gets hacked down by Allesandro Nesta right on the 18 yard line.

Unquestionably a foul, and a likely penalty. The Austrian ref storms over, reaching in his pocket for a yellow card.

-and he gives it to Hleb. For diving.

Hleb just about detonates – on the feed you can see his eyes bulge out as he mouths an incredulous "Me?"

The replay clearly shows Nesta swing his foot full on into Hleb's shin, right on the line.

Nesta slinks off, also incredulous.

I'm thinking this is shades of Milan having the ref in their pocket (I mean, there IS precedent for this sort of thing). Home field advantage? I'll just bet.

Hleb stalks back into the game – but something has changed. Arsenal was frustrated before, now they're pissed off.

Adebayor finds a previously untapped energy reserve and begins muscling his way through the right side of Milan's backfield at will. Hleb, Flamini and Fabregas start cutting off Milan's passes.

Milan's star players get stymied by the Arsenal defense. Pato vanishes, and Kaka gets so frustrated that he spikes the ball out of play and earns a yellow card.

Arsenal is swarming, owning possession. They do everything but score.

At this point, the game is looking to be a repeat of the first leg – Arsenal valiant, clearly the better side - but missing all their chances.

The clock is running down and Arsenal cannot sustain their tempo – no one could. Not without some payoff.

And then it happens. In the 84th minute, Fabregas – instead of his usual playmaking – gets the ball 25 yards out and just tees off.

It shouldn't go in, but it does – curling past Kalac's outstretched hands and just inside the post. The entire Arsenal squad goes nuts.

The crowd at the San Siro is stunned. Arsenal has scored on the road – since an away goal is the tiebreaker, Milan must now score twice in less than ten minutes or they lose.

Kaka, Maldini, Gattuso – they've got too much pride to quit, but they know they're all but finished.

Kaka keeps trying to sprint past the Arsenal defense – and keeps getting stuffed. There is a threatening corner kick, but it's cleared.

Then Arsenal's late sub Walcott surges around the end of Milan's back line. He falls just beyond his marker – and immediately rights himself to finish his turn and cross the ball to-

-Adebayor.

He deservedly thunders his shot in, sealing the victory and tearing the heart out of Milan's faithful.

It's the 92nd minute – past midnight for me - and I'm silently waving my arms in the air like a crazy man, since baby E is sleeping on my lap.

Milan – outplayed at home, beaten at home. And Arsenal's stars sealing the deal.

Scoreline - March 4, 2008
AC Milan: 0
Arsenal: 2
Fabregas 84'; Adebayor 90'

I have to get up in six hours, and I just don't care.

Arsenal! Damn right!

Goalscorers Cesc Fabregas and Emmanuel Adebayor celebrate

E. Gary Gygax has passed away

(h/t to Oz)

According to Troll Lord Games, (and the AP) E. Gary Gygax passed away earlier today:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is almost too much to get my mind about. But I've just had news that our dear Dungeon Master has passed away. Ernie called this morning, he thought we should let the fans know. He's just sent an email out.

Gary was in his home when he gathered himself up to cross the great divide.

He was a very dear friend of mine. And I will miss him so.

God Speed My Friend.

Steve
------------------

I certainly didn't know the man - but he helped create a pastime that (without question) altered the course of my life.

True, a lot of things alter your life: the route you take to work could make you late for a critical meeting, or get you in an accident. But your recurring activity has more opportunity to change and define you.

By that measure, gaming has had an enormous impact on my life. I have spent countless hours letting my imagination create characters, settings, plots and intrigues - or sitting among friends playing them all out. Absent the outlet of gaming – it's unclear what I would have spent that creative energy on. Perhaps something more tangible (or strenuous) – but I don't regret the choice.

Gaming was where I made friends – still is.

I met E through gaming.

Despite this, I don't discuss it with people. The stereotypes make most gamers a little reticent. You let a gaming reference slip in front of the wrong crowd – you spend too much time imagining what kind of assumptions will forever more be running through their mind when they think of you.

I always want to explain it as a hobby – but most people's interest (or what they are willing to retain) does not extend beyond a sentence or two.

"Is that the game where you pretend to be an elf?"

On the innumerable highway trips I've taken – I've tried to come up with an explanation of what gaming is, and why I enjoy it so much. Like many speeches aimed at the universe at large, it will never be done.

But if a person has only room for two sentences – I'd offer these:

Gaming is interactive storytelling. You don't read a story – you and your friends participate in writing one.

Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (and others) started the idea that a game shouldn't be limited to a gameboard or a set of playing pieces. It should have rules that adapt to what the players want to do.

The playing field is in your head – the setting is wherever you want.

This idea has followed a natural evolution and expansion, until we have OGL and GURPs and all the logical variants and derivatives. I'm sure some would argue that Gary's idea was inevitable, that he just happened to be the guy who got it out in front of the masses.

I'm fine with that – but I'm grateful he did it when he did.

It meant that my insane cousin had the opportunity to buy a game he didn't understand (and never took to) and then introduce it to me.

I remember looking at that Erol Otus art and wondering what on earth we had stumbled across.

If I'd only known.

Here's to the passing of E. Gary Gygax. Thank you for all the memories.