Daily Nonsense

Besides, Obama is just trying to clean up the mess left by 8 years of Republican mismanagement.

Since November 19th, 2007, my ‘Worst Customer Service Award’ has been held by a company called goingTODAY.com.  You can read how they came to hold that title here:  GoingTODAY.com? GONE today!

Well, today I have nominated a new company for that singular honor.  The company is called Casanova Enterprises, Inc. doing business on EBay as jayco_tech.  Despite their 20119 comments and their gold star status on EBay, they have done nothing else but lie to me and disappoint me with their products and their pitiful attempt at customer service.  (Using that phrase, customer service, belies the total indifference and apathy I have experienced in all dealings with them).

I recently purchased an MSI Wind U100- 10-Inch Netbook computer.  It is being used to help stimulate my creative urges by allowing me to schlep the little thing around and work on my book when and where I want to.  One thing that wasn’t working well was the RealTek wireless card that comes standard with that model.  It works fine in Windows, but I’ve loaded Ubuntu 8.0.4 and there is no direct support from RealTek.  I decided to forgo compiling drivers myself and chose to buy an Intel Pro 3945 Wireless MINI Card on EBay to use as a substitute for the RealTek product.

After some careful searching I found this card from jayco_tech.  I thought that the price was good, the shipping was free and that I would have the card in a short amount of time.  Figuring that card only weighed a couple of ounces I guessed (correctly as it turned out) that it would be shipped USPS First Class Mail.  Coming from McAllen Texas, that should only have been a couple of days.

So, on April 1st I clicked the ‘Buy It Now’ button, paid through PayPal and awaited my new WiFi card.  On April 2nd I received an email from jayco_tech stating that my product had been shipped!  Well, that was the first lie.

But, what did I know at that point.  So I waited.  And waited, and waited……… Until April 9th when I received a message from from jayco_tech stating that my product had been shipped.  Huh?  Wasn’t it shipped on the 2nd?  A little research shows that the Post Office didn’t actually get the package until the 7th, 5 days after I was told it shipped!

So, now it is 9 days and counting.  4 days later,  on the 13th, I finally get a bubble envelope from Casanova Enterprises.  Guess what was in it?  No, really, guess….

The wrong frickin part is what was in it.  Click the pic below to see a bigger picture.

I immediately sent an EMail with this image attached and was surprised to receive an Email with the following explanation:

Sorry the boxes are right next to each other the guy who boxes these up probably reached into the wrong one. well really i can send you the right one or i can refund your money. let me know.

- jayco_tech

And again,this is from a company that has 20,000+ positive responses?

I followed up with an email asking what I should do with the wrong part.  I was told that my correct part would be shipped the next day and I should just put the wrong part back into the envelope when it arrived and ship it back.  they would credit my PayPal account with $3.00 when they received it.

OK, supposedly they shipped on the 14th but I have had no additional communication from these deadbeats.  I sent a follow-up with no reply.  So, today, 22 days after I initially paid for a part I haven’t received I went to the PayPal resolution center and started the formal complaint process.

But, since they do seem to have a high turnover I though I would publish my complaint in a forum where it will be more difficult to ‘hide’ it under the rug.

So, to conclude, there are tons of places on-line to spend your money.  Don’t spend it with Casanova  Enterprises, jayco_tech or goingTODAY.com.

Some additional jayco_tech issues that I’ve found on the interwebs:

• Dell 600M motherboard scam: http://www.hillcroftconsulting.net/index.htm
• Negative Feedback Removal Bribe:  http://www.djselectronics.com/TRUTH.htm

Due to gross malfeasance, fiscal irresponsibility and cronyism, the Republican party, under the management and leadership of George ‘W’ Bush and Dick(head) Cheney have brought our once strong country to the brink of disaster.  It is possible that we will weather this economic storm and not starve to death.  I wonder if the same can be said for some of the countries that have come to rely on the US for exports.  Here is a photo from a recent job fair in China.

A god this malevolent doesn’t even deserve my respect let alone my worship!

Something I found on boingboing this morning.  Thoughtful discussion on how the convergence of TV and the computer didn’t really result in a new appliance.  The apparent winner of the war is the computer which has been refined to supplant traditional TV distribution.

Although the advent of some of the devices that stream NetFlix does lay the foundation for an argument for a newer convergent appliance, they are the exception and not required to take advantage of the rich online content.

The incentive to figure out the technologies is not limited to the youth.  I’m a 51 year old man who streams NetFlix through a PlayOn server into a PlayStation 3 80GB and from there into my HDTV.  The incentive to use the Watch Instantly content on a screen bigger than my laptop was all it took.

Funny how this discussion mirrors the whole MP3 & music industry brouhahas in so many ways, staid and uninventive massive corporations trying to force a product down the throats of a demographic that want more than the ‘Top 40′.  It should be clear to almost everyone at this point that the consumer really makes the rules, not the mindless and faceless corporations.

Why TV Lost: a merry jig on the gogglebox’s grave

Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 3, 2009 11:48 AM | permalink

Paul Graham’s "Why TV Lost" is a sweet little schadenfreude bomb lobbed at the telly people, half neener-neener and half keen analysis and every word of it is lovable:

About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they’d produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers…

The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can’t physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it’s social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it…

After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they’d be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal described how TV networks were trying to add more live shows, partly as a way to make viewers watch TV synchronously instead of watching recorded shows when it suited them. Instead of delivering what viewers want, they’re trying to force them to change their habits to suit the networks’ obsolete business model. That never works unless you have a monopoly or cartel to enforce it, and even then it only works temporarily.

Why TV Lost (via Negatendo)

[Thanks, boingboing]

Finally, a design requirement that makes sense!

I hope that Motorola will live up to this agreement.  I have always found it ludicrous that the USB connector on the RAZR would not accept a standard USB cable connected to my computer.  It always said something like ‘Unauthorized charger’ or some such nonsense.

Single charger coming for mobile phones

By David Meyer ZDNet.co.uk
Posted on ZDNet News: Feb 17, 2009 8:37:00 AM

Major phone makers and mobile operators have agreed to adopt a single interface for handset chargers, the GSM Association announced on Tuesday.

By 2012, more than half of new handsets shipped will use Micro-USB as the interface for charging, the mobile trade body said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. People will be able to use a single charger to revive devices from the 17 manufacturers and operators participating in the initiative.

The adoption of Micro-USB as a common standard has several advantages for users and the industry, the GSM Association (GSMA) said. In particular, it allows manufacturers to stop shipping a new charger with every handset, and it lets buyers avoid the need to have multiple chargers for different devices.

“The mobile industry has a pivotal role to play in tackling environmental issues, and this program is an important step that could lead to huge savings in resources, not to mention convenience for consumers,” said Rob Conway, the GSMA’s chief executive, in a statement. “There is enormous potential in mobile to help people live and work in an eco-friendly way, and with the backing of some of the biggest names in the industry, this initiative will lead the way.”

Companies signed up to the initiative include Nokia, Motorola, Orange, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, T-Mobile, 3, Telefónica and Vodafone. HTC was not on the list of compliant companies in the announcement, but an HTC spokesperson told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that the manufacturer will participate in the scheme.

Separately, the Chinese government mandated the use of Micro-USB as the standard for phone chargers at the end of 2006.

In September 2007, the Open Mobile Terminal Platform industry forum announced that its members had decided on Micro-USB as a common charger-interface standard.

Asked why it took a year-and-a-half for the mobile industry to commit to a timescale for introduction, GSMA chief architect Ian Pannell said work was done during that time to toughen the interface specification up for regular mobile-phone use.

“A number of elements [of the revised specification] were only recently completed, such as building more safety and robustness into it for charging,” Pannell told ZDNet UK. He explained that Micro-USB was originally designed more for connectivity purposes than for charging.

While two or three versions of Micro-USB exist, the participants of the GSMA initiative will hold to just one, “bog-standard” version, Pannell said.

According to Pannell, Micro-USB has more longevity than the larger, more widely found Mini-USB standard. Micro-USB slots are able to withstand 10,000 insertions, rather than just 1,000 for Mini-USB, he said.

Pannell also said that peripherals makers, which have benefited from the multitude of charger interfaces, will “not necessarily lose out” because of the new standard, but will “have to respond to what’s happening and innovate”.

This article was originally published on ZDNet.co.uk.

[Thanks, ZDNet]

I found this article on the local Seattle PI web site and I think that it’s important enough to reproduce here.

Wily legal maneuver is holding off foreclosures

Homeowners demand to see original papers

By MITCH STACY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ZEPHYRHILLS, Fla. — Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

And just like that, the foreclosure proceedings came to a standstill.

Lovelace and other homeowners around the country are managing to stave off foreclosure by employing a strategy that goes to the heart of the whole nationwide mess.

During the real estate frenzy of the past decade, mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors. In many cases, the original note signed by the homeowner was lost, stored away in a distant warehouse or destroyed.

Persuading a judge to compel production of hard-to-find or nonexistent documents can, at the very least, delay foreclosure, buying the homeowner some time and turning up the pressure on the lender to renegotiate the mortgage.

“I’m going to hang on for dear life until they can prove to me it belongs to them,” said Lovelace, a 50-year-old divorced mother who owns a $200,000 home in Zephyrhills, near Tampa. “I’ll try everything I can because it’s all I have left.”

In interviews with The Associated Press, lawyers, homeowners and advocates outlined the produce-the-note strategy. Exactly how many homeowners have employed it is unknown. Nor is it clear how successful it has been; some judges are more sympathetic than others.

More than 2.3 million homeowners faced foreclosure proceedings last year and millions more are in danger of losing their homes. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama will unveil a plan to spend at least $50 billion to help homeowners fend off foreclosure.

Chris Hoyer, a Tampa lawyer whose Consumer Warning Network Web site offers the free court documents Lovelace used to file her request, has played a major role in promoting the produce-the-note strategy.

“We knew early on that the only relief that would ever come to people would be to the people who were in their houses,” Hoyer said. “Nobody was going to fashion any relief for people who have already lost their houses. So your only hope was to hang on any way you could.”

Tom Deutsch, deputy executive director of the American Securitization Forum, a group that represents banks, law firms and investors, dismissed the strategy as merely a stalling tactic, saying homeowners are “making lawyers jump through procedural hoops to delay what’s likely to be inevitable.”

Deutsch said the original note is almost always electronically retained and can eventually be found.

Judges are often willing to accept electronic documentation. And lenders are sometimes allowed to produce other paperwork to establish they are the holder of a loan. Still, assembling such documents to a judge’s satisfaction takes time, which to homeowners is the point.

Lovelace filed her produce-the-note demand last fall after the bank acknowledged that her original mortgage document had been lost or destroyed. Since then, there has been no activity on the foreclosure — no letters from the lender, no court filings.

The law firm handling the foreclosure for the lender refused to comment.

A University of Iowa study last year suggested that companies servicing mortgages are often negligent when it comes to producing the documentation to support foreclosure. In the study of more than 1,700 bankruptcy cases stemming from home foreclosures, the original note was missing more than 40 percent of the time, and other pieces of required documentation also were routinely left out.

The first big success of the produce-the-note movement came in 2007 when a federal judge in Cleveland threw out 14 foreclosures by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. because the bank failed to produce the original notes.

Michael Silver, a lawyer for two of the families in that case, said at least one eventually lost its home. Still, he considers the case a success.

“From the perspective of the person who’s in the home, you may have kept them in the house another 10 or 12 months,” he said. “If I can get a result with economic benefits to a client, then I think I won.”

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio endorsed the strategy in a fiery speech on the House floor during debate on the federal bank bailout last month.

“Don’t leave your home,” she said. “Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don’t have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street.”

April Charney, head of foreclosure defense for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida, said the strategy has been so successful for her that she now travels around the country to train other lawyers in how to use it. She said she has gotten cases delayed for years by demanding that lenders produce paperwork they cannot find.

“This is an army of lawyers getting out there to stop foreclosures so we can get to the serious business of creating solutions,” Charney said. “Nothing good is going to happen as long as we continue to bleed homeowners.”

[Thanks, SeattlePI]

A YouTube video that was pulled for “inappropriate content”. That’s right, there is no questioning the legitimacy of organized religion in America. As you all remember, Bush effectively negated your rights. It was all in your best interests (as defined by the radical republican christian right), so don’t worry too much about it. OK? OK! (I guess this is slightly older news, but it’s new to me.)

Religion – watch more funny videos

The RIAA has appealed to the court system to disallow the Web Cast streaming of the proceedings in the forthcoming case against Joel Tenenbaum.  Their argument?  They are afraid the results would be edited out of context and make them look bad.

Really?

How can they possibly look an worse?  Considering that they have waged a fruitless war upon children, the handicapped, and people who don’t even own computers, I think it’s hard for them to look any worse.

The issue in this particular trial is that the RIAA is also facing it’s fiercest opposition yet in the form of Charles Nesson, the William F. Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.  Now, it’s been obvious to everyone that the RIAA is deathly afraid of Harvard and the legal guns it could bring to bear against them.  In the 5 years of fruitless litigation against college students the RIAA has not served a single subpoena against Harvard or its students.

If the US Congress and the US Senate are not afraid of being re-mixed to look bad then why the hell should the RIAA?  Either their arguments have merit and will sway public opinion in their favor or not.

RIAA Fears ‘Manipulation’ of Courtroom Web Broadcast

By David Kravets January 20, 2009 | 4:16:18 PMCategories: RIAA Litigation

The Recording Industry Association of America is objecting to the webcasting of pretrial arguments in an upcoming file-sharing trial.

The RIAA claims that the re-runs “will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual.”

That is among the arguments the RIAA is making in urging a federal appeals court to reverse a Massachusetts federal judge’s order that would allow the pretrial broadcast this Thursday. The broadcast, assuming it goes forward, will include a Boston University student and his attorney challenging the RIAA’s copyright infringement case. It is believed to be the first time a U.S. federal trial court has allowed a live internet stream from the courtroom.

“Petitioners are concerned that, unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceeding through the internet will take on a life of its own in that forum,” the RIAA wrote (.pdf) the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. “The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced together with other statements and broadcast (sic) rebroadcast as if it were an accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner’s case.”

The RIAA is taking exception to the fact that the feed will be distributed on the Berkman Center for Internet and Society’s website. The head of the center is Charles Nesson, who is defending Joel Tennenbaum, the defendant in the case.

“Accordingly, in the name of ‘public interest,’ the district court has directed the general public to a website replete with propaganda regarding the Defendant’s position in connection with this case, and that is specifically designed to promote Defendant’s interests in this case,” the RIAA wrote.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner of Massachusetts granted the over-the-internet coverage for the 2 p.m. hearing. Only a handful of U.S. trial judges have ever allowed cameras in their courtrooms during a live proceeding. Most of the states grant local judges the discretion whether to allow cameras.

“At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation,” Gertner wrote in granting the internet coverage.

The 1st Circuit did not indicate when it would rule.

The RIAA also said the broadcast “creates a serious risk of unfairly infecting the pool from which the jury in this case will be selected.”

The RIAA, which has sued about 30,000 individuals on allegations of copyright infringement, claims it is winding down its 5-year-old litigation campaign. The recording industry’s litigation and lobbying arm told the circuit court that, “The public interest will not be served by broadcasting a single snippet of these proceedings, because doing so places a misleading emphasis on a limited aspect of the judicial process.”

Image: Modernhumorist.com

[Thanks, Wired]

Below I have pasted an article from my favorite non-American news source, The Guardian.  I read them frequently when I feel as if I can’t trust the ’standard’ news outlets.  Their agenda is quite different than say, Fox News or MSNBC.

Obama inauguration: Let the remaking of America begin today
Alan Rusbridger in Washington
Tuesday 20 January 2009 22.42 GMT

Barack Hussein Obama was today sworn in as 44th president of the United States of America in front of quite possibly the largest mass of humanity ever to have gathered in one place for a single political moment.

As many as 2 million people in ­Washington’s National Mall heard their new commander-in-chief deliver a sombre 20-minute speech in which he acknowledged that the country was in the midst of crisis – mired in wars, its economy struggling and its national confidence sapped. He promised the largely silent crowd that the challenges would be met, but warned it would take time, some sacrifice, a new form of politics and a re-engagement with the world, in which America would recognise that “power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please”.

President Obama took the oath just after midday under a crisp and ­cloudless azure sky in front of the glistening cream dome of the Capitol, which, it is now accepted, was partly built by slaves.

The day, cold enough to freeze breath, had begun with millions of individual journeys by coach, train and on foot as the crowds began converging before dawn for a moment widely taken as one of renewal and of double foreclosure. This was to be the end of the last eight years of Republican rule and of the bars which, at any previous time in history, would have made the election of an ­African American president unthinkable.

They had come to celebrate – and for days they had been doing just that in parties and balls all over town. The cheer as Obama swore his oath on ­Lincoln’s Bible rippled and roared all the way from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol, nearly two miles away.

But when Obama spoke it was immediately apparent that the tone of this inauguration was grave, addressed as much to the hundreds of millions tuned in around the world as to the shimmering sea of upturned faces in front of him.

“That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood,” he said. “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

“Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our healthcare is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”

If this was read as a repudiation of the previous eight years of Bush, there was plenty more of it. There was, said Obama, a nagging fear that American decline was inevitable; he wanted an end to “petty grievances and false promises”; the time had passed for “protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions”; a nation could not prosper long “when it favours only the prosperous”.

In one of the few lines to be greeted by fervent applause, he turned to defence, proclaiming “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”. In a thinly-veiled reference to Guantánamo and torture he promised not to abandon the rule of law and human rights “for expedience’s sake”.

There was further implicit criticism of his predecessor’s policies in his comments on science and the environment. He vowed to “restore science to its rightful place” and made several references to climate change, acknowledging the threat to our planet and saying America would in future “harness the sun and the winds and the soil” for energy.

On international affairs, he singled out the Muslim world, offering “a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect. America would leave Iraq “to its people” and forge a “hard-earned peace” in Afghanistan.

All inauguration ceremonies consciously celebrate, and reference, both the constitution and former presidents.

Four ghosts hovered over yesterday’s ceremony. Lincoln’s Gettysburg address gave the new president the overarching theme for his speech – the “new birth of freedom”. It is Lincoln, the gangly lawyer from ­Illinois, who has fascinated Obama more than any other previous president.

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves and yesterday’s inauguration were in some ways bookends to the darkest stain on America’s history. For many in the crowd this was the over-riding reason for the pilgrimage to Washington. Obama put it simply: “A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

The second ghost was Martin Luther King, who, had he lived, would have been an 80-year-old spectator. No one in the crowd could have been oblivious to the echo across time of the words that had rung out from the other end of the National Mall 45 years previously.

And then there were JFK and FDR. Obama’s call for responsibility and sacrifice recalled both Kennedy in 1961 and Roosevelt’s heartfelt cry in 1933: “We now realise as we have never realised before our ­interdependence on each other.”

Obama’s serious tone and his unflinching acknowledgement of the economic hurricane blowing through America echoed Roosevelt’s speech at the time of the last serious global depression, in which an incoming president vowed “to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly … with a candour … which the present situation of our nation impels”.

The endless crowd listened solemnly to the same sentiments today. They might have come wishing for something more uplifting, but, for many, the day reached beyond symbolism to a moment of genuine transformation after which nothing could be the same again.

As Obama headed back into the ­Capitol building at the end of the ­ceremony clouds began rolling over what had until then been a pure blue sky. But there was one final, rousing cheer as the helicopter carrying George W Bush rose over the gleaming dome of government and took the former president off to Texas – and out of public life for ever.

[Thanks, Guardian]

This is the full text of President Obama’s inauguration speech:
Tuesday, 20 January 2009

My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land – a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America – they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions – who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the fire-fighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends – hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism – these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have travelled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

In an interview with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Susan J. Crawford, has admitted that Mohammed al-Qahtani, the suspected 20th terrorist in the 9/11 attack on the US was brutally tortured while being detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.  Brutally tortured by Americans while being held without regard for the Geneva Convention.

Tortured by us.  Tortured by Americans.

Let’s couple this with Still Vice President Cheney’s admission on December 15th that he authorized and approved of the interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison,.  So Cheney admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

Where is the moral outrage?  Where are the arrests and public humiliation of these government officials?  Why is Still Vice President Dick Cheney not locked up right now?  We know that he believes that he is above the law (or worse, a law unto himself), but surely saner minds know better.

Why has there been no action?  Why has the name Cheney not be irrevocably linked with torture like Aaron Burr has been linked with treason?

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official
Trial Overseer Cites ‘Abusive’ Methods Against 9/11 Suspect

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009; A01

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot’s 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani’s interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman’s bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani’s heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

The Qahtani case underscores the challenges facing the incoming Obama administration as it seeks to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the dilemmas posed by individuals considered too dangerous to release but whose legal status is uncertain. FBI "clean teams," which gather evidence without using information gained during controversial interrogations, have established that Qahtani intended to join the 2001 hijackers. Mohamed Atta, the plot’s leader, who died steering American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center, went to the Orlando airport to meet Qahtani on Aug. 4, 2001, but the young Saudi was denied entry by a suspicious immigration inspector.

"There’s no doubt in my mind he would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He’s a muscle hijacker. . . . He’s a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don’t charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, ‘Let him go.’ "

That, she said, is a decision that President-elect Barack Obama will have to make. Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to close the Guantanamo center but acknowledged the challenges involved. "It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," Obama said on ABC’s "This Week," "and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it’s true."

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006, when 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons. And in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard, Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

"The Department has always taken allegations of abuse seriously," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail. "We have conducted more than a dozen investigations and reviews of our detention operations, including specifically the interrogation of Mohammed Al Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker. They concluded the interrogation methods used at GTMO, including the special techniques used on Qahtani in 2002, were lawful. However, subsequent to those reviews, the Department adopted new and more restrictive policies and procedures for interrogation and detention operations. Some of the aggressive questioning techniques used on Al Qahtani, although permissible at the time, are no longer allowed in the updated Army field manual."

After the Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the original military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, Congress rewrote the rules and passed the Military Commissions Act, creating a new structure for trials by commissions. The act bans torture but permits "coercive" testimony.

Crawford said she believes that coerced testimony should not be allowed. "You don’t allow it in a regular court," said Crawford, who served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces from 1991 to 2006.

Under the act, Crawford is a neutral official overseeing charges, trials and sentencing, with ultimate decision-making power over all cases coming before the military commissions.

In May 2008, Crawford ordered the war-crimes charges against Qahtani dropped but did not state publicly that the harsh interrogations were the reason. "It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that "Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." The committee found the interrogation techniques harsh and abusive but stopped short of calling them torture.

An aide to the former defense secretary accused the committee chairman, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), of pursuing a politically motivated "false narrative" that is "unencumbered by the preponderance of the facts."

In June 2005, Time magazine obtained 83 pages of Qahtani’s interrogation log and published excerpts that showed some of the extreme abuse. The report of a military investigation released the same year concluded that Qahtani’s interrogations were "degrading and abusive."

Crawford said she does not know whether five other detainees accused of participating in the Sept. 11 plot, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, were tortured. "I assume torture," she said, noting that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said publicly that Mohammed was one of three detainees waterboarded by the CIA. Crawford declined to say whether she considers waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, to be torture.

The five detainees face capital murder charges, and Crawford said she let the charges go forward because the FBI satisfied her that they gathered information without using harsh techniques. She noted that Mohammed has acknowledged his Sept. 11 role in court, whereas Qahtani has recanted his self-incriminating statements to the FBI.

"There is no doubt he was tortured," Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Qahtani’s civilian attorney, said this week. "He has loss of concentration and memory loss, and he suffers from paranoia. . . . He wants just to get back to Saudi Arabia, get married and have a family." She said Qahtani "adamantly denies he planned to join the 9/11 attack. . . . He has no connections to extremists." Gutierrez said she believes Saudi Arabia has an effective rehabilitation program and Qahtani ought to be returned there.

When she came in as convening authority in 2007, Crawford said, "the prosecution was unprepared" to bring cases to trial. Even after four years working possible cases, "they were lacking in experience and judgment and leadership," she said. "A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to review all the evidence before making a charging decision. And they didn’t have access to all the evidence, including medical records, interrogation logs, and they were making charging decisions without looking at everything."

She noted that prosecutors are required to determine whether any evidence possessed by the government could be exculpatory; if it is, they must turn it over to defense lawyers. It took more than a year, she said — and the intervention of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England — to ensure they had access to all the information, much of it classified.

Crawford said detainee interrogation practices are a blot on the reputation of the United States and its military judicial system. "There’s an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn’t tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." The system she oversees probably can’t function now, she said. "Certainly in the public’s mind, or politically speaking, and certainly in the international community" it may be forever tainted. "It may be too late."

She said Bush was right to create a system to try unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. The implementation, however, was flawed, she said. "I think he hurt his own effort. . . . I think someone should acknowledge that mistakes were made and that they hurt the effort and take responsibility for it."

"We learn as children it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission," Crawford said. "I think the buck stops in the Oval Office."

Researchers Julie Tate and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

I would like to wish everyone a happy and healthy 2009.  May all your dreams come true.

Defense Lawyers for the Blackwater 5 had thought to influence justice by having their clients surrender in Utah.  A state that traditionally supports the military, the lawyers for the defense hoped to find a sympathetic jury there.

Those hopes were squashed like bugs underfoot when a federal judge there ordered the defendants to report to a District of Columbia courthouse on January 6th of next year.  Considering the likelihood that this will be a high profile case that is sure to set precedent, I can only applaud the judge’s decision to move venue to the capitol.

Of course, the larger issues remain.  Will the corporation itself and the legislators who approved the no-bid contract which allowed Blackwater to be in Iraq in the first place ever be called to task?  Probably not in this lifetime, but Karma is a bitch and we will certainly hope for justice.

 

Judge: Blackwater guards must report to DC court

Staff and agencies
08 December, 2008

Blackwater charges: 14 counts of manslaughter

The shooting by the largest U.S. security contractor in Iraq sparked international condemnation, launched congressional hearings and inspired anti-American insurgent propaganda.

A sixth Blackwater guard struck a deal with prosecutors, turned on his former colleagues, and pleaded guilty to killing one Iraqi and wounding another.

Prosecutors said the slain included young children, women, people fleeing in cars and a man whose arms were raised in surrender as he was shot in the chest.

Blackwater, which was not charged in the case, maintains its guards were protecting themselves from what they believed was an imminent car bomb attack.

In all, 17 Iraqis were killed in the assault. But Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan said evidence in the case could only prove the guards shot 14, although he left open the possibility of future charges.

The guards are Donald Ball, a former Marine from West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, a former Marine from Knoxville, Tenn.; Evan Liberty, a former Marine from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from Sparta, Tenn., and Paul Slough, an Army veteran from Keller, Texas.

The sixth guard, who is cooperating with the government, is Jeremy Ridgeway of California. He pleaded guilty to one count each of manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, and aiding and abetting. In his plea agreement with prosecutors, Ridgeway admitted there was no threat from a white Kia sedan whose driver, a medical student, was killed and his mother, in the front passenger seat, was injured.

Following a car bombing elsewhere in the city, the heavily armed Blackwater convoy sought to shut down an intersection. Prosecutors said the convoy, known by the call sign Raven 23, had violated an order not to leave the U.S.-controlled Green Zone.

Khalid Ibrahim, a 40-year-old electrician who said his father, Ibrahim Abid, 78, died in the shooting, welcomed the charges.

"The killers must pay for their crime against innocent civilians, Ibrahim said in Iraq. "Justice must be achieved so that we can have rest from the agony we are living in. We know that the conviction of the people behind the shooting will not bring my father to life, but we will have peace in our minds and hearts."

But the drama is far from over. After more than a year of investigative missteps and fierce debate, the Justice Department now faces stiff challenges to the evidence and legal grounds at the heart of its case.

Most importantly, prosecutors must prove they did not rely on protected statements the guards gave to State Department investigators within hours of the shootings.

The State Department gave limited immunity to all the guards in the four-car convoy, promising not to prosecute them based on the initial statements recounting how the violence began. The move left Justice Department and FBI investigators with a crime scene long gone cold and with limited forensic evidence to bolster their case.

"We fully expect that the defendants will raise the issue," Rowan said. "We‘ve been very careful and very painstaking in the way we have investigated this case, the way we have assembled evidence. And we fully expect to prevail when the court hears that issue."

Defense attorneys also will argue that the guards cannot be charged under a law intended to cover soldiers and military contractors since the men worked as civilian contractors for the State Department. Rowan, however, said Blackwater was supporting the military‘s mission in Baghdad and the law therefore applies to them.

It is the first time prosecutors have used that argument to prosecute contractors. The Justice Department recently lost a somewhat similar case against former Marine Jose Luis Nazario Jr., who was charged in Riverside, Calif., with killing four unarmed Iraqi detainees.

The Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater said it stands behind the guards despite being "extremely disappointed and surprised" that one had pleaded guilty.

[Thanks, News One]

Remember those 17 Iraqi civilians murdered by member of the ‘elite’ security force, Blackwater?  On September 16th, 2007, a firefight (if the strafing of civilians with automatic weapons can be considered a firefight!) in Nisour Square left 17 civilians dead, 14 of whom the FBI has determined were unjustifiable.

Well, the 5 Blackwater murderers implicated in that heinous crime have agreed to surrender to US authorities in their home state of Utah. Specific charges against the murderous crew will be made public today.  Eye-witnesses are expected to testify that the killings were unprovoked.

Some of my original posts:

• Blackwater: Murderer, confession revealed.

• FBI Confirms: Blackwater Employees are Murderers

• Blackwater: Murderer, confession revealed.

Blackwater guards ‘to surrender’

Five employees of the US security firm Blackwater charged over the 2007 fatal shooting of 17 Iraqis will surrender to US federal authorities, reports say.

Contracted to defend US diplomats, the firm says its guards acted in self-defence when they opened fire when ambushed by Baghdad insurgents.

Details of the charges are expected to be made public on Monday, with reports saying the men will surrender in Utah.

The Iraqi government has welcomed the move to hold "criminals accountable".

The killings have become a central issue in Iraq’s relationship with the US and raised questions about the oversight of US contractors operating in war zones.

Witnesses and family members maintain the shooting on 16 September 2007 was unprovoked.

‘Politically motivated’

Although the indictment was made in Washington, the Associated Press reported that the men would surrender to federal marshals in Utah, the home state of one of the five guards, Donald Ball.

That way the men could argue that the case should be heard in Utah, considered more conservative and pro-gun than Washington, AP said.

"Donald Ball committed no crime," said his lawyer, Steven McCool. "We are confident that any jury will see this for what it is: a politically motivated prosecution to appease the Iraqi government."

Defence lawyers are expected to file a series of challenges before the guards can even go to trial.

While the exact charges remain unclear, the US justice department has been considering manslaughter and assault charges against the guards for weeks.

The New York Times has previously reported that an FBI investigation had concluded that 14 of the deaths at the busy Baghdad intersection were unjustified.

Young children were among the victims.

As well as Mr Ball, the other men indicted are Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten and Paul Slough.

A sixth Blackwater employee is negotiating a plea deal in return for testifying against his colleagues, AP reported, adding that the indicted men are decorated military veterans.

Contractor conditions

The problem of private armed guards in Iraq remains unresolved, mainly because they continue to provide security for the many American and other foreign officials in the country.

US law is unclear on whether contractors can be charged in the US or anywhere else for crimes committed overseas.

In October 2007, the Iraqi government approved a draft law revoking the immunity from prosecution that private security contractors enjoyed under Iraqi law.

The US has since put in place new guidelines for security contractors.

Based at a vast ranch complex in North Carolina, Blackwater is one of the main private providers of security within Iraq, and its contract there was extended in April.

[Thanks, BBC News]

As the ripples of the economic debacle continue to spread we will be seeing more cases like WaMu.  Washington Mutual collapsed in September and was acquired by JPMorgan for $1.9 billion. It was this nation’s largest bank failure in history.

Hopefully it will be the last such failure, but my guess is that the greed and malfeasance that fueled Wall Street for so many years under the tutelage and consent of still president Bush will find other companies at the brink of disaster.

WaMu cutting 3,400 Seattle-area jobs, 9,200 total

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is eliminating the jobs of 3,400 Washington Mutual employees in the Seattle area, part of 9,200 job reductions nationwide, a spokesman said Monday.

By TIM KLASS
Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE — JPMorgan Chase & Co. is eliminating the jobs of 3,400 Washington Mutual employees in the Seattle area, part of 9,200 job reductions nationwide, a spokesman said Monday.

Outside of Seattle, where WaMu is based, the biggest number of job cuts is 1,600 at credit card call centers in San Francisco and Pleasanton, Calif., and layoffs are generally no more than a few hundred in other areas, JPMorgan spokesman Thomas A. Kelly said.

None of the more than 20,000 workers in branch banks are being cut, he said.

"Our branch staff is not changing at all," Kelly said. "We need all the branch personnel we have now."

Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, collapsed in September and was acquired by JPMorgan for $1.9 billion. It was the nation’s largest bank failure in history.

WaMu had between 41,500 and 42,000 employees nationwide at the time, and the 3,400 Seattle-area layoffs amount to about 80 percent of the bank’s local work force, leaving about 900 workers, mostly at branches.

Earlier Monday, JPMorgan chief executive James L. "Jamie" Dimon met here behind closed doors with about 200 WaMu employees from retail branches. His visit came on the final day of WaMu pink slips, although "the vast majority were notified previously," especially in the last two weeks, Kelly said.

Dick Conway of Dick Conway & Associates, an economist and regional economic forecaster, said the job losses underscored his prediction that the four-county region that includes Seattle will have fallen into recession by the end of the month.

King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties already have been hard hit by the construction and homebuilding industry collapse, making layoffs in other sectors especially painful, "but this one doesn’t appreciably affect the (regional) forecast," Conway said.

The WaMu jobs being eliminated are almost entirely white-collar positions ranging from executives, managers and supervisors to less highly paid workers in areas where JPMorgan staff can assume the added load, Kelly said.

Kelly said 4,000 positions nationwide, including 1,500 in the Seattle area, will be gone by the end of January while another 5,200, including 1,900 in the Seattle area, will help with the transition to the new ownership, with some work extending through the end of 2009.

All are getting severance packages based on longevity under WaMu policies, and transition workers are being paid at twice their previous rate until their jobs end, he said. The Seattle Times quoted unnamed bank sources as saying that severance consists of five weeks’ pay for each of the first two years of service and two weeks’ pay for each succeeding year.

"The transition employees are helping us move from WaMu computing systems, accounting systems and branding to the Chase brand," Kelly said.

The extra pay for transition staff will cushion the impact of the layoffs "but will not in the end prevent it," Conway said.

Loss of the WaMu headquarters in the 55-story Washington Mutual Tower will likely boost the downtown Seattle office vacancy rate, especially as new buildings that were started before the economic tailspin are completed, he added.

Washington Mutual was weighed down by its deep exposure to the crumbling mortgage market, which has been the hardest hit area of the markets since the middle of 2007. As mortgages increasingly defaulted beginning in 2007, Washington Mutual was forced to set aside billions of dollars to cover losses.

Shares of JPMorgan fell $5.54, or 17.5 percent, to $26.12 Monday as the broader market tumbled as investors continue to worry about the sagging economy.

[Thanks, Seattle Times]

Yikes!  There is apparently an oft forgotten little clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article One, Section Six) that prohibits senators from taking a civil office if that legislator has ever voted to increase the pay for that job.  Could this preclude Hillary from accepting the post of Secretary of State?

There is also some ‘legal’ precedent that allows for Congress to lower the wage for that particular job.  This is some kind of smoke and mirrors band-aid that means Hillary wouldn’t benefit financially from the higher salary she’d previously voted on.  I’m far, far, far from being a legal expert, but the text in the article below seems unambiguous.

Obama likely to name Hillary Clinton to Cabinet. But wait! Can he?

The president-elect, no-drama Barack Obama, is expected to name his new secretary of State, all-drama Hillary Clinton, as early as tomorrow as part of the week’s rollout for his national security team.

But can he?

As pointed out by a number of bloggers in recent hours, including our eloquent friend Susan over at Wake Up America, there’s a clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article One, Section Six) that prohibits senators (or representatives) from taking a civil office if the legislator has voted to increase the pay for that job.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

A president-elect who’s a former part-time constitutional law professor, even one without his BlackBerry, presumably is aware of this prohibition, obviously designed to prevent double-dipping and raising your own salary, which is only allowed in Wall Street banks.

And Obama surely knows of its historical precedents.

And if Obama makes the appointment of his former bitter rival, she’ll no doubt take office as the point person for U.S. foreign policy.

But the appointment of the loser of the Democratic presidential nomination by the winner of that nomination and of the subsequent general election wouldn’t be properly Clintonian without some extra dramatic flourishes. This is likely only the beginning of such chapters.

Apparently, President Nixon ran into the same problem when he wanted to appoint Ohio’s Republican Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general.

The solution back then, since dubbed the "Saxbe fix," was for Congress to pass another law (not without some outspoken dissent from Democratic senators, by the way) reducing the AG’s pay so Saxbe wouldn’t benefit financially from the higher salary he’d previously voted on.

Similar fixes occurred when President Jimmy Carter named Edmund Muskie secretary of State and H. Clinton’s own husband Bill named Lloyd Bentsen to head Treasury.

So much for the actual money aspect and strict construction.

We’re not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn’t say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments."

It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee’s elected term. Period. Which it has.

This seems more like a TV scriptwriter’s trick to keep everyone hanging around through the commercials starting tomorrow.

– Andrew Malcolm

[Thanks, LA Times]

In spite of the promises by Detroit and the lavish spreads in Popular Mechanics, the flying car I was promised in the July 1957 is really no closer to a reality now than it was then.  Sure, there are some one off solutions, but honestly, who can afford to drive or fly something with the price of gas today?

In the 8 long years since still President Bush has been in the White House, my automobile desires have turned down a different path.  One that makes both good economic sense and good environmental sense.  For the most part, those dreams have centered around the ‘Smart Car’ type of vehicle. 

Small, urban and with great fuel economy, the only detracting factor has been the long distance potential of these vehicles.  In short, there is non long distance potential.  If I owned one of these as my only vehicle and wanted to visit my sister in Portland I would have to consider alternative transportation methods.  Train, bus or maybe even a rental car.  Not the best of choices as far as I’m concerned.

But now, the story is a little different.  Volkswagen AG is announced the forthcoming production of a diesel-electric hybrid that promises almost 70 miles to the gallon.  That was not a typo – 70 miles to the gallon.  Just where do I sign??

Coming Soon from VW: A 69.9 MPG Diesel Hybrid

By Chuck Squatriglia

It’s official – Volkswagen is unveiling a hybrid to challenge the mighty Toyota Prius. And not just any hybrid, but a diesel-electric hybrid it says will deliver 69.9 mpg.

VW’s been experimenting with hybrids of the gasoline-electric variety since the early 1990s, but the Golf hybrid it will unveil next month at the Geneva Motor Show is the first production model the German company’s rolled out. Volkswagen isn’t offering much in the way of details, but the car is expected to have a  parallel hybrid drivetrain with a 2.0 liter engine. Look for it to have an all-electric mode at low speed, start-stop capability, regenerative braking and a 7-speed DSG double-clutch transmission, according to Auto Express and AutoBlog Green.

What’s all the techno-jargon mean? The Golf Hybrid will get almost 70 mph mpg (ed. note: D’oh!) while meeting Europe’s stringent Euro V and America’s Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards, making it green enough even for California. The car is said to emit just 89 g/km of CO2. (For comparison, the Prius emits 104 g/km and Honda Civic Hybrid emits 116.)

The hybrid Golf may be just the start.

According to Britain’s Channel 4, VW is considering the hybrid drivetrain in a Jetta and Audi A3. DailyTech says it also could appear in the VW Tiguan and Audi Q5 crossover utility  vehicles.

Auto Express says the Golf hybrid will be offered for sale in Europe by the end of next year. No word yet on when we might see it on this side of the pond. VW hasn’t released a picture of the hybrid, so we’re offering a shot of its diesel Golf Bluemotion.

[Thanks, Wired]