Illegall Scofflaws

American Scofflaw
Illegal immigrants who lack Social Security numbers could not get tax credits under the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus package making its way through Congress.

Two senior GOP congressional officials expressed concern Thursday that the bill could steer government checks to undocumented workers, but in fact the measure indicates that Social Security numbers are needed to claim tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple. It also expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens.

The Republicans spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But Democrats were quick to reject the notion.

"This legislation is directed toward people who are legal in our country. It is about time the Republicans got a different piece of reading material and get off this illegal immigrant stuff," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This bill has nothing to do with anything illegal as far as immigration. It creates jobs for people who are lawfully in this country."

A revolt among GOP conservatives to provisions of last year's economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.

This Man Knows Where The Bodies Are

After keeping mostly out of the public eye since it was announced he is facing federal corruption charges, embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is reversing course.

He's recently held a series of interviews and made statements portraying himself as the victim of vengeful lawmakers who can't wait to toss him out of office.

"The heart and soul of this has been a struggle of me against the system," Blagojevich said at a news conference Friday.

He denied any wrongdoing but wouldn't discuss the federal corruption charges filed against him last month. Instead, he focused on his efforts to expand government health care programs without raising taxes.

He has chosen not to mount any defense in the Senate impeachment trial that begins Monday and could remove him from office within days.

The governor, a fan of Western movies, drew a long analogy between his situation and that of a cowboy accused of stealing a horse. His story ended with one cowboy suggesting that the accused thief be hanged, but the other suggesting he first be tried, then hanged.

"Under these rules, I'm not even getting a fair trial; they're just hanging me. And when they hang me under these rules that prevent due process, they're hanging the 12 million people of Illinois who twice have elected a governor," he said.

On Thursday, the governor turned to the history books to describe the emotional strain on him and his family, comparing his arrest last month to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

"Dec. 9 to my family, to us, to me, is what Pearl Harbor Day was to the United States," he told The Associated Press. "It was a complete surprise, completely unexpected. And just like the United States prevailed in that, we'll prevail in this."

The two-term Democrat said there was no chance he would resign before his impeachment trial.

"I'm going to fight this to the very end," he said.

Also Friday, Blagojevich's lead attorney, Ed Genson, says he plans to resign from the Illinois governor's criminal case.

Genson is one of Chicago's best-known lawyers and has represented such clients as rock star R. Kelly and Canadian-born press lord Conrad Black.

It's All True

Thank You, May I Have Another

Rubin's alleged Ponzi scheme dwarf's Madoff's

American Scofflaw
So why isn't this story getting more coverage?

By PAUL THARP

A new Citigroup scandal is engulfing Robert Rubin and his former disciple Chuck Prince for their roles in an alleged Ponzi-style scheme that's now choking world banking.

Director Rubin and ousted CEO Prince - and their lieutenants over the past five years - are named in a federal lawsuit for an alleged complex cover-up of toxic securities that spread across the globe, wiping out trillions of dollars in their destructive paths.

Investor-plaintiffs in the suit accuse Citi management of overseeing the repackaging of unmarketable collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that no one wanted - and then reselling them to Citi and hiding the poisonous exposure off the books in shell entities.

The lawsuit said that when the bottom fell out of the shaky assets in the past year, Citi's stock collapsed, wiping out more than $122 billion of shareholder value.

However, Rubin and other top insiders were able to keep Citi shares afloat until they could cash out more than $150 million for themselves in "suspicious" stock sales "calculated to maximize the personal benefits from undisclosed inside information," the lawsuit said.

The latest troubles for Rubin, Prince and others emerged in a 500-page investigation by Citigroup investors represented by law firm Kirby McInerney.

The probe was used to amend and add new details to a blanket investor lawsuit filed against Citigroup a year ago. The amended suit called the actions of Citi leaders "a quasi-Ponzi scheme" to hide troubles - and keep Citi stock afloat while insiders unloaded about 3 million shares between Jan. 1, 2004 and Feb. 22, 2008 for huge profits.

In addition to Citigroup, Rubin and Prince, the complaint names Vice Chairman Lewis Kaden, ex-CFO Sallie Krawcheck and her successor CFO Gary Crittenden.

Rubin cleared $30.6 million on his stock sales, while Prince got $26.5 million, former COO Robert Druskin got nearly $32 million and former Global Wealth Management unit chief Todd Thomson got $25.7 million, the suit said.

Citi denied the allegations and said it "will defend against it vigorously."

Keep Flying, Boys, Yee Ha

American Scofflaw
Crisscrossing the country in corporate jets may no longer fly in Detroit after car executives got a dressing down from Congress. But on Wall Street, the coveted executive perk has hardly been grounded.

Six financial firms that received billions in bailout dollars still own and operate fleets of jets to carry executives to company events and sometimes personal trips, according to an Associated Press review.

The jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money - lots of money. And some firms are cutting back, either by selling the planes or leasing them.

Still, Wall Street's reliance of the rarified mode of travel has largely escaped the scorn poured on the Big Three automakers.

Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.

"Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now," AIG spokesman Nicholas J. Ashooh said. "I'm not saying there's no use, but there's very minimal use."

To cut costs, AIG sold two jets earlier this year and is selling or canceling orders for four others.

Five other financial companies that got a combined $120 billion in government cash injections - Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley - all own aircraft for executive travel, according to regulatory filings earlier this year and interviews.

A cross-country trip in a mid-sized jet costs about $20,000 for fuel. Maintenance, storage and pilot fees put the cost far higher.

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

A few big U.S. companies have shunned jet ownership. Chip maker Intel Corp., for example, requires executives and employees to fly commercial. Intel occasionally charters jets for executives on overseas trips for security reasons, though.

For automakers, the public relations nightmare exploded last month when the chief executives of Ford, GM and Chrysler were criticized for flying on corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for federal bailout money.

"Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled, or something, to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked the CEOs.

When the executives went back to Capitol Hill two weeks later for a second round of hearings, they traveled by car.

So why were Wall Street executives spared from the corporate-jet backlash? One reason is that they didn't have to go before Congress to request bailout money, so no one asked how they traveled to Washington.

But an AP review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and FAA records offers a glimpse of Wall Street firms' ownership and use of private aircraft. Among the findings:

- CITIGROUP: Has a wholly owned subsidiary, Citiflight Inc., that handles air travel for executives. Citi spokeswoman Shannon Bell refused to comment on the size of the firm's fleet but said it has been reduced by two-thirds over the past eight years. FAA records show four jets and a helicopter registered to the company.

In 2007, then-CEO Charles Prince used company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons. Those trips cost the company $170,972 for that year. Current CEO Vikram Pandit began reimbursing the company for all personal travel on company planes since being appointed in November 2007.

Use of Citigroup's aircraft currently is confined to a "limited number of executives," Bell said. "Executives are encouraged to fly commercial whenever possible to reduce expenses."

- MORGAN STANLEY: Has reduced its executive jet fleet size from three planes to two since 2005, company spokesman Mark Lake said. FAA records show two Gulfstream G-Vs as registered to the company.

In 2007, CEO John Mack's personal use of company aircraft totaled $355,882, according to a February proxy filing. Mack is required to use company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons.

- JPMORGAN: Registered as the owner of four Gulfstream jets, including a 2007 ultra-long range flagship G550 model, FAA records show. A G550 ordered for delivery that year would have cost roughly $47.5 million.

CEO Jamie Dimon is required to use company aircraft for personal trips; In 2007, his personal use of company jets totaled $211,182, according to a May filing with the SEC. Company spokesman Joe Evangelisti refused to comment on whether the bank has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since accepting $25 billion in TARP money.

- BANK OF AMERICA: Registered as the owner of nine planes, including four Gulfstreams, FAA records show. Company spokesman Scott Silvestri refused to say whether the company has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since taking $15 billion in bailout money.

CEO Kenneth Lewis, also required to use company aircraft for personal trips, racked up $127,643 in such travel last year, according to a March filing with the SEC.

- WELLS FARGO: Owns a single jet that "is strictly for business purposes under appropriate circumstances," spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said. "No (government) funds will be used for corporate jet travel," she added.

SEC rules require publicly held companies to disclose executives' personal use of corporate aircraft. But there's "a lot of gray area" in how they do it, said David Yermack, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who has studied the matter.

"If you use the plane for a personal trip but make one business call, should you report it?" he said. "Or if you're playing golf with potential business partners, does a company report that as business or personal?"

As mounting losses force companies to cut costs, some are becoming stingier about personal use of the company plane. Merrill Lynch & Co., for example, has banned such trips, according to company filings.

Experts say other companies that took bailout money will probably follow suit.

"The personal use of these planes is virtually indefensible at this point," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Group. "Once you're on the federal dole, the pressure is going to become immense on these firms to cut these costs."

Private jet manufacturers say the debate over executive travel has been overblown.

"What people don't understand is that business jets are mobile offices," said Robert N. Baugniet, Gulfstream's director of corporate communications. "If time has any value to you, then you'll understand why people use business jets."

He said the dustup hasn't hurt orders for new planes.

Still, some firms have avoided corporate jet ownership. Goldman Sachs Group, whose executives in past years have been among the highest-paid in the industry, has never owned its own aircraft since going public in 1999, spokesman Michael DuVally said.

The company does make private planes available to some executives through a fractional jet agreement, a timeshare-style arrangement, according to filings. Duvally refused to say how much the company spends on its fractional agreement.

Wary of being perceived as opulent, most companies fly in unmarked jets. Aviation buffs can usually track planes over the Internet using aircraft tail numbers. But many companies, including AIG and Citigroup, have blocked the public's ability to do so for security reasons.

Some corporate chieftains make no excuses for flying the private skies.

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

Madoff Moved The Money To Israel: Amount May Be Closer To $100 Billion

By Mark Graffis

As more info comes in regarding the Madeoff scheme, news from several sources say that Madeoff and his clients were the largest bank account holders listed on a computer disk leaked by a Swiss bank worker regarding US persons with hidden Swiss bank accounts.

As the IRS approached him regarding the repayment of taxes from his hidden swiss account, Madeoff reportedly became admamant that his wealth would not be taxed by the US. He also realized that once the swiss records were exposed that his and his client's wealth were also within reach of seizure or judgement by a US court regarding past frauds of him or his clients.

Realizing that he was be certain to arrested on other securities and market making fraud issues in the near future, insiders say that it was at this point he made the decision to just say it was all lost in trading and move it directly to Israel. Insiders also report that he was ready to pay the taxes on the money in Israel but was adamant that taxes in the US would not be paid nor would any of the money be available for US court judgements in subprime, fraudlent trading and misrepresentation charges in the future.

Sources say that most of his and his clients wealth were gained through issuing subprime mortgages to unqualified borrowers and then tranching the mortgages into CDOs and circulating the CDOs among US pension funds including GM, GE, IBM and Califorina's State pension fund. Some of the wealth was also gotten through investments in Vegas housing sub divisions and Miami condo projects at the height of the real estate bubble.

Finally, sources say that the wealth from Madeoff's scam has been fully transfered to Israel and that "most if not all of the clients have been made aware" that their money is available to them in Israel and that it was felt that this was a necessary measure in protecting certain high level clients in the face of a collapse of the USA.

A European bank executive has said early this morning that the Banks involved in Madeoff's fund were exposed through loads and leveraging and that these loans will be repaid in full from Israel.

All of the charities involved have Israeli offices, so they also are of an understanding that their money is now available there.

Sources say that Madeoff has a base in Israel and that he will offer all clients his services there as a continuem to his services in New York.

Speculation has it that he is advising transfer of client's funds into physical gold holdings in coded safety deposit boxes. This advise jives with the notion that the money needed to be taken out of the US on fear of collapsing US dollar and seizure of funds by IRS and courts for frauds committed during the sub prime bubble.

The Swiss bank client leak has caused these banks to no longer be viable avenues for asset concealment.

Madeoff's clients are not just in the US. He has moved funds to Israel for clients in Russia, France, England and Swiss in the scheme in which he is involved.

Some insiders are saying the amount involved may be closer to $100 Billion.

Let Them Eat Shit

America Scofflaw
Records involving Fannie Mae, the largest source of U.S. home-loan money, were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury as part of a criminal investigation into claims made in a $7 billion civil lawsuit against the company.

Don't expect impartial coverage from MSNBC on this one. David Gregory's wife is Beth A. Wilkinson, who is Fannie Mae's executive vice president - general counsel and corporate secretary. She reports directly to the chief executive officer.

Wilkinson has oversight and management responsibility for all legal issues, strategies, services and resources. Additionally, she serves as the business-oriented, senior legal advisor to the board of directors, chief executive officer, and members of the senior management team.

Ponzi Madness

American Scofflaw

"It's all just one big lie."
- Bernard Madoff to his sons about his $50 billion "Ponzi" scheme

Here is the important point. Most white-collar fraud goes unreported. Corporations often see simply concealing the losses with creative accounting as preferable to the public admission of having been duped. As a result, only a small percentage of frauds ever become publicly know, fewer still result in prosecutions and convictions.

So, for every Bernard Madoff caught and jailed, it is safe to assume there are others just like him still operating and playing their games. White Collar crime costs Americans ten times as much as street crime (but street crime gets the press coverage).

And the comment about Bernard Madoff's scam being the largest may also be untrue. There are currently allegations against Citi, involving former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, of a ponzi scheme where the losses have reached into the trillions of dollars and may have been a major factor in the take down of the American economy!

Convicted Thugs Heart and Soul of Mass Film Biz

American Scofflaw
"O’Brien said the union does not do criminal background checks on members because removing a felon could be construed as an unfair labor practice. “We don’t discriminate against anyone,” he said."--------Sean O’Brien

Is this yo-yo kidding me????

By Dave Wedge

Teamsters Local 25 has sought to shed its shady film industry past, but the union still allows career felons - including a killer, bank robbers and repeat drunken drivers - to rake in up to $3,000 a week on taxpayer-subsidized movie sets without going through basic criminal background checks.

A Herald probe matched criminal records to the names of nearly a dozen Teamsters who drove stars and crew on the set-in-Boston Bruce Willis flick “The Surrogates” this summer, among them an armored car thief, a murderer-turned-accused rapist and various thugs, including a Hells Angel identified by law enforcement sources.

The cop drama, like other movies shot in the Bay State since 2007, received generous film industry tax breaks championed by Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray.

Local 25 president Sean O’Brien acknowledged several felons are active Teamsters working in the Hub film industry, but said there have been “no incidents” or complaints since he took over the troubled union in August 2006.

“I can’t change the sins of the past,” O’Brien said. “All I can control is what goes on on these movie sets.”

But Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield) called $100 million in film industry tax breaks “giveaways” and said news that felons are still landing on movie sets is “disheartening.”

“That is serious cause for concern,” Tisei said. “I was under the understanding that Massachusetts was making a fresh start.”

O’Brien said the union does not do criminal background checks on members because removing a felon could be construed as an unfair labor practice. “We don’t discriminate against anyone,” he said.

Among the felons who worked on “The Surrogates” according to criminal records and a Teamster source:

• Charles Doucette, 49, of Beverly: A killer and armed home invader paroled in 2006, he was fired from “The Surrogates” after crashing a truck, and is now in prison awaiting trial on rape charges.

• Jon M. Campagna, 50, of Winthrop: A Teamster driver, he’s got seven drunken driving convictions on his 30-year record, most recently in 2001.

• Gilbert J. “Gigi” Eatherton, 61, of Charlestown: A Teamster “captain,” or job site manager, he served 10 years in federal prison for a 1975 Boston bank heist and has two DUIs, the latest in 1995.

• Joseph Abruzzese, 57, of Lynn: A 33-year Teamster, he served six years in the 1980s for assault.

• Diulio “Lilo” Fabbo, 38, of Medford: He served a year for a 1995 gun rap, and was convicted of assault and battery in 1991.

• Keith A. Leahy, 38, of Charlestown: Shot in a wild shootout with armored car guards in Harvard Square in 1996, he was released in 2003 after serving seven years.

• Another Teamster working on local movie sets is convicted cocaine trafficker Michael Indelicato, who was released from federal prison in 2006 after serving 15 years.

It's All Good, Scofflaw, All Good

American Scofflaw
It's about freaking time, the feds have been unconstitutionally doing it for decades and decades and decades.

Milwaukee neighborhoods could print own money

They may be talking funny money, but it's not funny business.

Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession.

"You have all these people who have local currency, and they're going to spend it at local stores," said Sura Faraj, a community organizer who is helping spearhead the plan. "They can't spend it at the Wal-Mart or the Home Depot, but they can spend it at their local hardware store or their local grocery store."

Incentives could be used to entice consumers into using the new money. For example, perhaps they could trade $100 U.S. for $110 local, essentially netting them a 10 percent discount at participating stores.

It's not a new concept—experts estimate there are at least 2,000 local currencies all over the world—but it is a practice that tends to burgeon during economic downturns. During the Great Depression, scores of communities relied on their own currencies.

And it's completely legal.

As long as communities don't create coins, or print bills that resemble federal dollars, organizations are free to produce their own greenbacks—and they'd don't even have to be green.

In Wisconsin, could that mean dough that looks like cheese?

10 false flags operations that shaped our world

From Nero to 9/11, via Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident... Joe Crubaugh provides an "all time greatest hits" of false flag operations, whereby one scenario is repeated... as the world keeps falling for the same lie.

The most commonly known false flag operations consist of a government agency staging a terror attack, whereby an uninvolved entity gets blamed for the carnage. As at least two millennia have proven, false flag operations, with healthy doses of propaganda and ignorance, provided a great recipe for endless war.

In "War is a Racket", Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler wrote: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National

City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

You may not have heard of these operations, but perhaps you have heard of these?

Auto Workers: $70/hour, $38/hour, or $28/hour?

by Neil H. Buchanan

Much of the discussion about a possible rescue of the Big Three automakers has been colored by the claim that blue collar workers at those companies earn $70/hour. The original (or, at least, the most prominent) source of this claim seems to have been a recent column in The New York Times by Andrew Ross Sorkin: "At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

If this claim were true, it would mean that a 40-hour-per-week, 50-week-per-year worker earns $140,000 in annual gross income. In a column in The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn asks rhetorically: "Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?" Cohn quickly answers his own question: "Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading." He shows that GM's workers earned $28/hour in wages in 2007, plus about $10 in benefits. He continues:

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted friday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

Cohn concludes his article as follows:

If carried out as planned, by 2010--the final year of this existing contract--total compensation for the average UAW worker would actually be less than total compensation for the average non-unionized worker at a transplant factory. The only problem is that it will be several years before these gains show up on the bottom line--years the industry probably won't have if it doesn't get financial assistance from the government.

Make no mistake: The argument over a proposed rescue package is complicated, in no small part because over the years both management and labor made some truly awful decisions while postponing the inevitable reckoning with economic reality. And even if the government does provide money, it's a tough call whether restructuring should proceed with or without a formal bankruptcy filing. Either way, yet more downsizing is inevitable.

But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have--enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis.

Personally, I take great interest in the auto industry. I grew up in Toledo, Ohio, one of the many small cities that rises and falls with Detroit's fortunes. The best policy response to the current crisis is, as Cohn says, a tough call. As tax professors know better than most, however, getting the right answers is impossible if you are working with the wrong numbers (or if you don't understand the numbers you're working with).

What's The Difference

Americans On Alert

American Scofflaw
If Obama is blocked from taking office, there will be riots across the country and Bush will have his excuse to declare a national emergency and remain President while the Constitutional Crisis is resolved, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES!

You've got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn't give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong.

Something Nazi This Way Comes

American Scofflaw

Is this a harbinger of American fascism?

CARLY WEEKS

Globe and Mail

Your friend's new fuchsia fedora might be hideous. But don't call it gay, or you might get a language lesson from the conversation cops.

Students at Queen's University who sprinkle their dialogue with an assortment of "homo" or "retarded" could find out the hard way that not everyone finds their remarks acceptable.

The Kingston university has hired student facilitators to step in when they overhear homophobic slurs, remarks bashing women or racially tinged insults, along with an array of other language that could be deemed offensive.

That means tête-à-têtes in the residence hallways may no longer be just between friends.

"If people are having a conversation with offensive content and they're doing it loud enough for a third person to hear it ... it's not private," said Jason Laker, dean of student affairs at Queen's.

"If you're doing anything that's interfering with what other people need to be doing, that's not cool."

The initiative, believed to be the first of its kind in Canada, is part of a broader program begun at the school this fall to foster diversity and encourage students to think about their beliefs.

But the move is sparking fresh debate over the line between politically correct behaviour and freedom of expression. Some students fear the university's program borders on oppressive.

"Having a program like this in place could stifle public discussion if people are worried their private conversations are being monitored," said Angela Hickman, managing editor of the Queen's Journal, a campus newspaper. "For a lot of people, their opinions get formed in conversations and so stifling that is dangerous."

The newspaper published an editorial last week criticizing the program as a "lacklustre" attempt to deal with social issues that could actually create hostility among students.

But Mr. Laker said the new "intergroup dialogue program" focuses on respectful, non-confrontational discussions that don't impede freedoms.

"This is difficult work. It needs to be done very respectfully," Mr. Laker said. "There's really no interference."

Under the new program, six student facilitators live and work within campus residences. Their mission is threefold: to engage students "spontaneously" by talking to them about an issue that has arisen, for instance, on campus or in the media; to hold movie nights, book readings or discussions on a range of social issues; and to step in when conflicts arise.

And if students become uncomfortable when a facilitator calls out someone on an offensive slur, it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, Mr. Laker said. It means they're forced to think about their choices.

"That is an acceptable tension to have," he said. "I would go further. I would say it's a beneficial tension."

But some students wish it would remain a discussion between friends, rather than a dialogue with a university-appointed facilitator.

If the facilitators jump into a group conversation, "they risk hostility from students who don't want to be approached in what they consider private social settings," said the editorial published in the campus newspaper.

Intergroup dialogue programs are well established at many universities in the United States. But many of those consist of credit courses taught by faculty members or student facilitators who have received rigorous training over several semesters in a classroom environment.

The Queen's facilitators went through an intensive 11-day training course that touched on a variety of social issues and possible scenarios.

Patricia Gurin, professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the University of Michigan, is one of the founders of the intergroup dialogue concept.

While she didn't comment specifically on the program launched at Queen's, she warned that such activities could backfire if they are not carried out by highly trained individuals who have experience with a variety of conflicts and social issues.

"It takes a lot of skill to do this work," Ms. Gurin said in an interview yesterday.

She said that facilitators who haven't been trained properly could end up reinforcing defence mechanisms of privileged students.

"White males say 'This is more white-male bashing.' What are they learning from that? Reinforcement of defensiveness rather than opening up and exploring is the consequence."

Daniel Hayward is one of the six student facilitators who began their work at Queen's in August. A graduate student, Mr. Hayward said the group received extensive training and has already had success talking to students about a variety of social issues.

He said much of their work is passive and done on a casual level. For instance, they had a poster campaign on campus earlier this year using the phrase "That's so gay" to grab attention and then to point out why it's offensive to some.

"It's helping to create an atmosphere of inclusivity," Mr. Hayward said.

*****

Watch your language

A sampling of some behaviour that could warrant attention from university-appointed student

facilitators, tasked with policing students' offensive language

at Queen's:

If a student uses the phrase "That's so gay" in conversation.

If a student calls someone or something "retarded."

If a student writes a homophobic, racist or other derogatory remark in a public space, such as on a residence poster or classmate's door.

If a student avoids a classmate's birthday party for faith-based reasons.

Will The Real Owners of America Please Step Forward, Thank You

American Scofflaw

As a result of these developments, which are directly related to the financial meltdown, the entire ownership structure of real economy assets is in turmoil.

Paper wealth accumulated through insider trading and stock market manipulation is used to acquire control over real economic assets, displacing the preexisting ownership structures.

What we are dealing with is an unsavory relationship between the real economy and the financial sector. The financial conglomerates do not produce commodities. They essentially make money through the conduct of financial transactions. They use the proceeds of these transactions to take over bona fide real economy corporations which produce goods and services for household consumption.

In a bitter twist, the new owners of industry are the institutional speculators and financial manipulators. They are becoming the new captains of industry, displacing not only the preexisting structures of ownership but also instating their cronies in the seats of corporate management.

And on the lighter side, please avail yourself of this, and this and this. Justice does exist somewhere, you know.

Dirty Dershowitz Strikes Again

Why didn't Jimmy Carter speak from the podium at the Democratic National Convention? Alan Dershowitz said he had something to do with it.

In an interview with Shalom TV, the Harvard Law School professor says he "pushed" Barack Obama "very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz said in an interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."

"It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision," Dershowitz added.

Carter did appear in the convention hall after a video of the former prersident helping with Katrina relief was shown at the Denver gathering. But he did not make any remarks from the podium.

In the interview, Dershowitz also said he believes that Obama's support in the pro-Palestinian community could make it easier to advance the peace process.

"The fact that there are some in the pro-Palestinian community who like him may be a positive thing -- that he can reach out to both communities and be an honest broker who, without compromising Israel's security, can facilitate a kind of peace that will be both in the best interests of Israel and the best interests of the Palestinian people," Dershowitz said. "I have a high level of confidence, not perfect confidence but a high level of confidence, that he will do the right thing."

Here's Shalom TV's press release on the interview:

DERSHOWITZ HELPED KEEP CARTER FROM SPEAKING AT DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
Rates Obama's relations with the Jewish community as "near-perfect" and sees Obama's standing in pro-
Palestinian community as his chance to be an "honest broker"
Disturbed by Jewish racism during election
Would decline any offer to join Obama administration

November 14, 2008 (Fort Lee, NJ) -- In an exclusive Shalom TV interview, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz
revealed that he was among those who convinced Barack Obama to keep Jimmy Carter from addressing the Democratic
National Convention.

"I pushed him very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz explained in a conversation with Mark S. Golub on American Jewry's national cable
television network. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not
choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect. And I'm very glad he made that decision. It was a good
decision, a wise decision, a moral decision."

Speaking to fears among some American and Israeli Jews that Obama will be less supportive of the State of Israel than President Bush, Dershowitz predicted that Obama "will try to energize the peace process." Moreover, Dershowitz sees Obama's support in the pro-Palestinian community as an opportunity for the president-elect to move the peace process forward.

"The fact there are some in the Pro-Palestinian community who like him may be a positive thing--that he can reach out to both communities and be an honest broker who, without compromising Israel's security, can facilitate a kind of peace that will be both in the best interests of Israel and the best interests of the Palestinian people. I have a high level of confidence--not perfect confidence--but a high level of confidence that he will do the right thing."

Dershowitz also acknowledged that he received thousands of emails from Jews opposing Obama during the election campaign. While some emails where thoughtful and expressed legitimate concerns, Dershowitz is convinced that many were from "extreme right-wing Jews" and that some were "out-and-out racist."

"As a Jew I was appalled by some of the racism that I saw in some of the emails that I got," Dershowitz said. Dershowitz believes that Obama's election will be positive for Black-Jewish relations. "I think nothing could be better for Black-Jewish relations than the election of Barack Obama," he observed. "Barack Obama has expressed appreciation for the Jewish community and the role that we played in the Civil Rights Movement, and that's a good thing because some within the African-American community are very quick to forget that. So far, his relations with the Jewish community have been near-perfect."
Could Dershowitz be part of an Obama administration, perhaps as Attorney General? Dershowitz responded with a categorical, "no." Dershowitz also said he declined a request to represent Obama on the campaign trail, explaining, "I said I couldn't do that because I want to keep my own independent views independent. I don't want to be a surrogate for
anybody."

Shalom TV, America's national Jewish cable network, is available in more than twenty million homes nationwide.

By The Balls

Nicolas Sarkozy saved the President of Georgia from being hanged “by the balls” — a threat made last summer by Vladimir Putin, according to an account that emerged yesterday from the Élysée Palace.

The Russian Prime Minister had revealed his plans for disposing of Mr Saakashvili when Mr Sarkozy was in Moscow in August to broker a ceasefire in Georgia.

Jean-David Levitte, Mr Sarkozy’s chief diplomatic adviser, reported the exchange in a news magazine before an EU-Russia summit today. The meeting will be chaired by the French leader and President Medvedev.

With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

Mr Saakashvili, who was in Paris to meet Mr Sarkozy yesterday, laughed nervously when a French radio station read him the exchange. “I knew about this scene, but not all the details. It’s funny, all the same,” he said.

Mr Putin’s remarks confirmed that he was calling the shots in Moscow and not Mr Medvedev, who was Mr Sarkozy’s official host at the Kremlin meeting. The language was in keeping with Mr Putin’s fondness for coarse imagery: in 1999 he vowed to chase down Chechen separatists wherever they were — “we will rub them out in their s***houses,” he said.

In Brussels in 2002 he threatened a French journalist with circumcision — remarks that the news conference interpreter failed to translate. “I will recommend that they carry out the operation in such a way that nothing grows back,” he added.

Mr Sarkozy’s team leaked their exchange to bolster their claim that the French President’s intervention saved Georgia — or at least its leader — from further torment. They want to counter charges that he ceded too much in Europe’s name by accepting the Russian annexation of the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Mr Saakashvili denounced Mr Sarkozy for that, saying Europe’s acquiescence over Georgia was identical to its appeasement of Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938 after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. “I never imagined that I would be saying such things but unfortunately those are the facts,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy, who is under fire for his cosy relations with the two Russian leaders, hit back with sarcasm and an attack on Mr Bush for his supposed impotence towards Russia. Mr Bush had telephoned him and urged him repeatedly not to fly to Moscow to negotiate a ceasefire, he said. “When someone had to leave for Moscow or Tbilisi, who defended human rights?” Mr Sarkozy asked.

“Was it the President of the United States who said, ‘this is unacceptable’? Or was it France which kept up the dialogue [with Russia]? . . . We were in Moscow and, as if by chance, the ceasefire was announced.” He was speaking after receiving an annual Political Courage Prize from a French review.

Free-Spending? Moir??

American Scofflaw

Free-spending U.S. consumers?

Note the implication that this economic mess is somehow all our fault. No mention of two wars based on lies that impoverished the nation.

No mention of the millions of high paying jobs moved to foreign nations and the government tax credits handed out to corporations to make it easier!

No mention of the fact that the "money" spent by consumers is created out of thin air by the Federal reserve, a private bank with a license to counterfeit and the enthusiasm to do so at every opportunity!

No mention of a corporate culture that turned its back on manufacturing and dreamed of Enron-esque manipulations that made money pour from the skies without actually having to do anything for it!

No mention of Wall Street speculators who drove the price of stocks into the stratosphere even as their real value sank.

No, the economic crash is all the fault of Americans who bought a backyard BBQ on credit.