Work in Massachusetts is Just Beginning

About 534,000 people voted in the Democratic primary in Massachusetts today, and about 185,000 people voted in the Republican primary. Back in 2010, Martha Coakley (Dem) and Scott Brown (Rep) won special election primaries with the following turnout numbers: Democrats 664,195, Republicans 162,706. Scott Brown went on to beat Martha Coakley by almost five points, winning 1,168,178 votes.

What those numbers tell us is that we can’t be complacent about retaining this seat even though Massachusetts has many more Democrats than Republicans. Tonight’s Democratic victor, Rep. Ed Markey, received many fewer votes than Martha Coakley did three years ago, and the Republicans turned out in higher numbers this time around.

It’s true that Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign. It’s also true that the January 2010 election was held during peak Tea Party season in the midst of some of the worst economic conditions of the Great Recession. Early signs are that the Republican victor tonight, Gabriel Gomez, is probably not as ready for primetime as Scott Brown was at this point in his campaign. But the numbers don’t lie. The Republicans had better turnout tonight and the Democrats had worse turnout tonight than they did three years ago.

I still feel good about Ed Markey’s chances but one additional concern is his election history. Since he first won the Democratic primary in 1976 with 22% of the vote, he has rarely been seriously challenged. In 1984, he had a primary scare in which he won with only 54% of the vote. Eight times he has run for reelection unopposed, and the only time he even has had to break a sweat in a general election came 21 years ago when he won 62% in a three-way race. The truth is that tonight’s 58%-42% shellacking of Rep. Stephen Lynch is the closest election that Markey has had in twenty-nine years.

Meanwhile, a month ago, Gabriel Gomez was being criticized for a lackluster debate performance and was considered an also-ran in the race.

So, let no one assume that John Kerry’s seat is safely in our hands. Tomorrow it will be time to get to work.

Bloomberg sucks (warning: frustrated rant)

There are some things I like about Bloomberg, but when I listen to his satellite radio station, I hear the same old conservative crap. If I hear one more of those Masters of the Universe say that liberal governance causes business and consumers to have uncertainty, I am going to throw something at someone. I wonder just how confident these assholes were during the period of conservative governance leading up to the Great Recession? They say that they are strapped by regulations. I would like to hear just one conservative even once admit that some conservative policy contributed even a little bit to the near collapse of the financial industry. But no, conservatism is like their backward-assed, cult-like religious beliefs. It dare not be questioned. Only when people aren’t conservative enough is when conservatism fails. GW Bush was a failure because he expanded the government by adding Homeland Security  and gave prescription coverage to seniors. Never a fucking word about the cost of occupying countries (to win their hearts and minds), or about de-regulation, or about lowering taxes for rich people and raising our debt by $10 TRILLION (that somehow magically increases revenue). I no longer think that this debate is about facts. It’s about lacking moral foundations and having delusions. These pompous Bloomberg reporters are no different than the run-of-the-mill backward-assed conservative, bigoted, religious extremists and the hateful greedy people that don’t seem to mind the bigots so much (even the delusional ones with guns who say that regulations are tyranny!!)

Sorry to Inconvenience You

What is it? Something like 40% of all gun purchases are made without any background check? So, how is it that the status quo can keep the mentally ill from getting guns? The problem with the argument Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is making is that we can’t make any progress on keeping guns out of the hands of the insane unless we subject all gun sales to a background check. It’s all fine and dandy to improve the information in the database, but if the database is not used almost half the time, then what good is it?

Supporters of gun violence argue that criminals will not subject themselves to background checks. Well, why don’t those 2nd Amendment absolutists explain to us why, in 2010 alone, 80,000 people failed background checks after lying about their criminal records? Assuming that most criminals are smart enough to avoid background checks, we can assume that more than 80,000 people successfully purchased guns in 2010 despite being legally barred from doing so from a licensed gun dealer.

Erica Lafferty’s mother was the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. She was murdered in the hallway. Ms. Lafferty had a simple question for Ayotte during the senator’s town hall meeting.

“You had mentioned that day you voted, owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn’t more important than that,” Lafferty said.

This is pretty basic. Sen. Ayotte voted against expanded background checks. In doing so, she said “steps must be taken to improve the existing background check system.” What steps would those be?

Obviously, they would have to be steps that don’t burden anyone.

Lafferty thanked Ayotte for meeting with her the day after senators took the vote on the Manchin-Toomey before challenging her for her vote.

After her exchange with Ayotte, Lafferty stood and stormed out of the town hall.

Asked afterward why she had done so, Lafferty said: “I had had enough.”

Ms. Lafferty stormed out of the meeting because Ayotte’s response to her was so non-sensical that it was insulting.

Ayotte responded: “Erica, I, certainly let me just say – I’m obviously so sorry.”

“And, um, I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that’s what drove this whole discussion — all of us want to make sure that doesn’t happen again,” Ayotte said.

That’s it?

Apparently, Ayotte had addressed the issue at the beginning of the townhall meeting, stating that “my focus has been on wanting to improve our current background check system.” So, like a robot, she repeats the same talking point. But what’s the burden of a dead mother compared to the burden of having a background check if you want to purchase something that kills people?

Our Schizophrenic Country

Mohamedou Ould Slahi completed a 466-page draft about his experiences in American and Jordanian detention in 2006. He had been rendered from his home country of Mauritania to Jordan, then transferred to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and finally moved to Guantanamo Bay prison, where he remains today despite being cleared for release by a judge in 2010.

He fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and formally joined al-Qaeda long before the organization turned its eyes on America. He belonged to the same Montreal mosque as the Millennium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, although he arrived there shortly after Ressam left. The most damning evidence against him tied him to the 9/11 plot itself.

In Germany, in 1999, Slahi had met Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, who now stands accused of facilitating the 9/11 hijackings, and two men the U.S. government alleges were among the hijackers, and housed the men for a night; under torture in a CIA black site, Bin al-Shibh claimed Slahi had directed the men to Afghanistan for training.

Slate is publishing a declassified and redacted version of Slahi’s memoir and it makes for some severely depressing and interesting reading. What I don’t understand is why the government is allowing any of it to be published. What kind of government tortures a man and then lets him write a memoir about it while in prison and then allows the publication of this memoir with only the names of the torturers redacted but not the torture itself? Is the Obama administration readying us to come to our milk? Will we also see the declassified version of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture? Will we ever hold people accountable?

Personally, I am all for truth and transparency, but only if it comes with accountability. Without accountability, this memoir is just a giant stain on our nation’s reputation and an incitement for payback. It’s like our country is schizophrenic. We set aside all our principles and keep this man in indefinite detention after having tortured him severely, and yet we allow him to publish his version of events with only slight redactions?

Isn’t that insane?

But, once again, it’s our cowardly Congress, led by Republicans and abetted by Democratic bedwetters, that refuses to allow us to close Guantanamo Bay. Maybe the Obama administration is beginning a campaign to humiliate Congress in the hope that they will relent on these injustices. But I just don’t know.

Assign Blame Correctly

The FEC is completely broken. The Judicial Branch is completely broken. We can’t have a vote on a bill to curb gun violence. We may not be able to have a vote on immigration reform. We can’t turn off the sequester, so the budget process is broken.

These problems are all created by the radicalism of the Republicans and enabled by the 60-vote rule in the Senate. Anyone who blames the president or the Democrats for any of this should have their mouth slapped. Anyone who assigns blame to anyone or anything other that the Republicans and the Senate rules is just enabling bad behavior that is beginning to have a cumulative effect that is dangerous and irresponsible.

I’m looking at you, Maureen Dowd.

Casual Observation

I think the reason that J-Rube is so unhappy with the conservative right is that she perceives that they are positioning themselves in a way that will consign them to one catastrophe after another in national elections. I thinks she’s right. I understand. J-Rube isn’t on board with the social conservatism of the right. She wants them to win primarily because she thinks the right will do a better job protecting Israel. That’s her prerogative. But if she really thinks that Rand Paul is a better friend of Israel than Ted Cruz, she’s sadly mistaken.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Went Off to the Forest in Dagerstan

h/t Shaun Appleby Thanks for the link!

Tsarnaev had gone off to the forest

It was determined that Tsarnaev came to Makhachkala at the end of January 2012 to see his father and to turn in his Russian passport. He didn’t have a return ticket. During his stay in Dagestan, Tamerlan lived in Makhachkala the entire time and only in March went for a brief period to the Chechen Republic to see his relatives in the Tsarnaevs’ native village of Chiri-Yurt.

On May 19, 2012, during a special operation [raid] in Makhachkala, [Russian forces] killed Makhmud Nidal. I spoke with a man who was present during the special operation during the negotiations about surrender: “At first he agreed to turn himself in, but after they let out the women and children, he refused. Nidal knew that the siloviki had a lot of information on him.” After the special operation, the national anti-terrorist committee published a photograph of Makhmud Nidal in the foreset with fighters who were in the Makhachkala group.

After Nidal’s death, according to operations [surveillance] information, Tamerlan moved out of his father’s apartment to the apartment of relatives and did not go out in public without extreme necessity. His Aunt Patimat even brought him food.

After two months, on July 14, 2012, eight people were killed during another special operation near the village of Utamysh in Kayakent District. Among them was William Plotnikov, who for several months before his death moved to “illegal status,” or to put it simply, went off with the fighters into the forest. And from that moment, agents lost sight of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The police came to visit his father, but the father claimed that everything was fine, that his son had returned to the USA. They didn’t believe his father, and supposed that Tsarnaev had gone off to the forest. They were made cautious by the fact that Tamerlan left without waiting to pick up his passport, the documents for which he had submitted at the end of June 2012.

It was after this story that the FSB sent their second inquiry – and now to the CIA – regarding Tamerlan Tsarnaev with a request to trace his activity and contacts in the USA and share information. But that inquiry remained without an answer as well.

“Judging from everything,” says the RDCCE official, “Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Dagestan with the purpose of linking up with the fighters. However, it didn’t work. It’s not easy, first you have to make connection with a liaison, and then go through a period of ‘quarantine’ – before accepting a person, the fighters vet him for several months. After the annihilation of Nidal and Plotnikov, having lost his ‘contacts,’ he, Tsarnaev, was frightened and `jumped'”.

Inside Tsarnaevs’ Chechen roots there is more to come in a CNN documentary.

 

North Caucasus to Boston: Rise and fall of the Tsarnaev brothers

(McClatchy) – Tamerlan moved to trainers at gyms across Massachusetts as he rose in the regional heavyweight class, winning a local Golden Gloves novice cup. He went on to represent Team New England in the national Golden Gloves championship tournament in 2009, but he was disqualified in 2010 because of complaints that non-U.S. citizens should not be allowed to compete. It also killed his Olympic dream.

In a video from a fight in Lowell, the pounding theme music from “Rocky” roused the crowd as Tamerlan was introduced, wearing yellow head gear, long white trunks and a blue sleeveless shirt. He circled the ring, testing. He threw a left jab. Then another. A third. Suddenly he landed a powerful right punch to his opponent’s head. Tamerlan won the round.

But some fighters mocked him for his fancy clothes and for being so high on himself. Johnathan Pabon, a sparring partner, said Tamerlan’s shoes looked like alligator, and he wore a scarf of chinchilla.

“Nobody liked him,” Pabon said. “They thought he was too cocky and self-centered. But what boxer isn’t?” Even outside the ring, his violent side – and family turmoil – was never far from the surface.

In 2007, Tamerlan confronted a Brazilian youth who had dated his younger sister, Bella, for about two years, and punched him in the face. Ana Merino, a high school friend of Bella’s, said Tamerlan did not approve because the boy was not a Muslim.

Tamerlan was “very overprotective” of his sisters,” Merino recalled. “He wanted them to date within their religion.” His other sister, Ailina, had married and moved to Bellingham, Wash. In May 2008, she complained to her mother, Zubeidat, over the phone that her husband, Elmirza Khozhugov, was cheating on her and beating her. Court records show he tried to strangle her and grabbed her hair; he pleaded guilty to assault.

Tamerlan immediately flew across the country to “straighten up the brains” of his brother-in-law, his mother said. Tamerlan “roughed up” Khozhugov, she said. Three weeks later, Ailina flew back to Boston.

On Aug. 12, 2009, Tamerlan was arrested after his then-girlfriend, Nadine Ascencao, called 911 “crying hysterically” and said he had beaten her. “Yes, I slapped her,” Tamerlan told officers who handcuffed him, according to Cambridge police reports. The case ultimately was dismissed.

By then, Tamerlan had started to explore religion and philosophy. He read Gandhi and Confucius, explored the history of Chechnya, and delved deeply into the Koran and the hadith, the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. He also began to look at Islamist websites.

“He was not a loner, but he spent so much time alone in front of his computer,” Zubeidat said. “He said to me once: ‘Mom, I don’t have friends and I don’t have enemies in America. I just don’t have time for them.'”

Ex-girlfriend Nadine Ascencao: Tamerlan Tsarnaev beat me, tried to make me ‘hate the U.S. like he did’

Gold


Remember when real estate was the only sure bet investment? It had real… estate value. You could pass it down to your children. You could live on it, or in it. It had physical size and was tangible. However, its value went up and up and up, far beyond its real affordability. Why? How? Because the banking game had changed and people who were not bankers were throwing money at unsophisticated ordinary citizens and telling them they could afford these homes and the extra demand pushed the price of houses up. When the houses became more expensive they just increased the amount of money they could loan people of a certain income. Prices went even higher and these non-traditional bankers started making loans to people without checking their credit worthiness or doing a check on anything. Volume was the watchword for these brokers. With every loan they made they collected a fee, and they experienced none of the consequences if the loan went bad after. Then they turned around and sold these mortgages in pieces of paper, telling the purchasers that the value of their paper was guaranteed because, even though these were risky investments, they were backed by something of real value, actual houses, which at the time was an unmistakably safe investment. Real estate had only gone down in value twice in the United State’s history and that was during the Great Depression and again during the Reagan years associated with the savings and loan crisis. Even though the new bank/brokerage houses were doing the very same things that lead to the Great Depression, in their eyes, the United States was an endless ocean of prosperity, it was like the atmosphere or the seemingly limitless number of fish in the sea, their illegal activity couldn’t possibly pollute it or diminish it, at least not to the extent that it would create any real damage to our economy. For them there wasn’t any danger of the United States going into anything that remotely looked like a Great Depression; to the new bank/brokerage houses that was like talking about ancient history. Things were different now. We have smart phones and super fast computers; we drive sophisticated cars that run on gasoline. Besides, real estate is real estate and will not go down in value. Unfortunately, we know now that that type of thinking is ludicrous. So use that critical thinking to think about what people are telling you about our money and gold?

The true value of gold is what others are willing to give up or do to get it from you. Gold, just like real estate, only has value when conditions are right to support that value. The value of gold is relative to the value of its importance to what you buy given a particular set of circumstances. Let me give you an example. If I am starving and I will die soon if I don’t get food and I have gold in my pocket, I will want to exchange that gold for food real fast. Gold has no value for me in comparison to food. However, if the food supply is limited and the person who has food also needs it to survive, my gold is worthless. It is worthless to both or us because you can’t eat it and survive. The decision of whether you will get food at all for your gold depends on either the goodness of the food holder’s charity or the timing when the food holder thinks there will be more food. Chances are the food holder will only give you at most a portion of his food for gold, and more likely then not, he or she will want all your gold for an amount of food that will most likely not sustain you. You can substitute anything that has a myth of value for the word gold here, such as jewels, platinum, stocks, bonds, money and even mansions. Let me explain. During the Bataan Death March wealthy people signed over mansions for food only to die anyway. Suddenly faced with dying their mansions weren’t that valuable anymore. Back to my point, things only have value relative to their worth during a given circumstance. It is an illusion to thing otherwise. So I am going to ask you, why do you think gold is any different than paper money? When you ask your self this question I want you to remember how real estate was discussed at the beginning of this post?

Paper money is the truest form of exchange under trading goods themselves for goods, or at least it should be. It truly has no value on its own. The value of paper money is in the exchange of goods. For example, socks are worth a buck a pair, let’s say, and shoes are worth 10 bucks. You can also say shoes are worth 10 pairs of socks. Money is just a medium of exchange. If you put gold into the equation things get more complicated. Let’s say that you purchase wool and knitting needles with 2 bit of gold and you make ten socks. You go to buy shoes but the person isn’t willing to sell you his shoes for your 10 socks. He wants gold. He says you have to have ten bits of gold first. So you have to go to someone who has gold to buy gold but the only gold in this economy is the gold you first used to purchase your wool and needles that you used to make socks. You go to him and he wants three pairs of socks for the one bit of gold, because he wants to rent shoes from the guy with the shoes when he goes outside and renting shoes only costs one bit of gold and he plans to go out twice. Now, think of this simple example on a Macro level.


Why is gold valuable? One reason is that it is not a common metal found in abundant quantity. It is scarce compared to the demand for it. Just imagine how valuable gold would be if it was the medium of exchange for the world’s economy. Very few people would be capable of possessing it. All the gold in the world would not equal all of the active money being handed over for goods in a single day in the current size of our world’s economy. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that gold simply doesn’t work in a modern economy as it didn’t work in my example about the socks.

There is another factor, perhaps an even more important one about how money works in our economy that makes using gold not beneficial to the ordinary citizen. The factor is how ordinary people and businesses create added value goods. Money is created in an economy by adding value. For example, clay has little value alone. You or I, if we know where to look for it, can probably get clay for free. However, you take that clay, shape it, glaze it and fire it and it becomes a useable bowl. This is something that has value to a lot of people. Let’s say that those people specialize in making spoons, or soup or something else. Let’s say you have made more bowls than you need and you want to explore the idea of not using your hands to eat soup out of your bowls. You are willing to exchange a bowl that you made to a person who has made spoons in excess of what they need. You come to an agreement that the bowl is worth four spoons. The value of the clay, plus your know-how and labor now has a measurable value in spoons. Spoons, in this example, become the de facto currency since compared to other goods spoons have a traded value when it comes to bowls. Bowls have an exchange value measured in spoons, thereby creating the “spoon” standard much like the so called “gold” standard. Substitute currency for spoons and now the bowl has an added value over clay of some figure of money. You, the lowly bowl maker has just created money in an economy over the value of nearly valueless clay. This happens almost every time goods or services are exchanged in our economy.


I know it is hard to believe, but you can replace the word “profit” quite comfortably with the words “value added” without messing up the meaning too badly. You purchase bowls in bulk that are priced at a value added over clay, and you sell the bowls in smaller quantities in a nice display at your retail establishment at an added value over bowls purchased in bulk. Every step of the way creates money. In order to deal with the ever-expanding value of raw materials being turned into value added goods you need something that will grow with it, and gold can’t do that. In order for gold to keep up with this enormous engine of economies creating money, mining of gold would have to be on a level comparable to how we mine for coal or drill for oil. Gold, like oil and coal is a finite commodity. We probably in a year or two after switching to a gold standard would begin talking about peak gold.


Currency, however, doesn’t have these problems. It is just a medium of exchange. The value of goods and services should not be based on the currency, but the value of your goods or services against all goods and services. What makes the value of money go up or down isn’t a factor of the money itself, but its supply in the economy. In order for money to not go up or down in value is how close the government agency hits the mark of how much money was created during a particular period. In the United States the agency in charge with matching the production of money so as not to create inflation or deflation is the Federal Reserve.

Our reserve bank tries to keep the amount of money in our economy at the level of the economies creation of money. This is a bit of guesswork and is not an exact science. If they project too low then the value of currency will increase and you have deflation, if they put too much money into the economy the value of currency will decrease and you have inflation. The Federal Reserve adds or detracts money from the economy by printing money and lending it to the banks that circulate it into our economy in the form of loans. If interest rates are high, fewer people get loans and the money supply in the economy drops, if interest rates are low, loans are more affordable and many more people barrow money and increase the money supply.

The Federal Reserve is not a private institution; it is, however, an independent institution wholly owned by the Federal Government and the therefore owned by the citizens of this country. It is independent to free it from politics so that it may concentrate on its mandates. It has two mandates, the first is to keep inflation under control and the second is to keep unemployment low. It makes a profit over its expenses and hands its profits to the US Treasury. This is apposed to the Federal Reserve banks that distribute the money from the Federal Reserve. They own unsalable “shares” in the Federal Reserve, which entitles them to 6% of the Fed’s earnings. The Fed and the Federal Reserve Banks make up the entirety of the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve system is necessary because we industrious Americans keep taking things that are worth nothing or of little value and making them more valuable, (i.e. making clay into bowls). We create money in our economy and so the money supply has to increase with that. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates at the bank level by the interest rates it is willing to lend to banks. (Oh, so that is why they report the Federal Reserves interest rates so much on the news.) The interest rates asked for by the Fed are directly linked to two things, the cost of borrowing and the rate of inflation; however, inflation has other factors affecting it as well. Remember that when interest rates are high people and businesses tend to barrow less. This dampens economic growth, but maybe necessary to slow down inflation. If it makes interest rates low then businesses and people tend to barrow more and grow their businesses and employ more people. However, more money flowing to people and businesses tends to increase demand and that causes inflation. Remember the example of the cost of real estate? Banks made credit to people wanting to buy houses really easy and it inflated the prices of homes? Low interest mortgage loans that were too easy to get by nearly everyone, caused housing prices to go up and up, in other words, caused there to be inflation in the housing market. This can happen with an entire economy such as one the size of the United States as well.

Gold doesn’t have the capacity to do anything that the Federal Reserve Bank can do to regulate inflation or deflation. Gold doesn’t allow money supply to keep up with money creation, which is what happens in a sound economy. Gold is a limited supply commodity that is finite. All the mined gold in the world today would fill up a little over two Olympic sized swimming pools. It won’t reach to cover the entirety of the United State’s economy and there ain’t a prayer that it will cover the worlds economy.

Moving to the gold standard would probably cause a supreme amount of deflation.


Deflation has economic problems that can be just as bad as inflation. If we tried to use gold as our currency, we would have massive deflation. Massive deflation leads to money hording rather than investing and banks can’t lend because the value of things are going down. Deflation is mostly associated with depressions.

Just like what happened in the housing market and the supposed incorruptibility of the value of real estate, we have been manipulated in believing the value of certain things such as gold don’t go down only to have them change in value dramatically. If you can’t remember back 14 or 15 years ago to the end of the 1990s let me remind you, gold had gone down in value to a 22 year low. That means that those who had purchased gold close to their retirement as a sure bet in the late 1970s, for the intervening 22 years of their life, they would have seen their savings drop by 69%. If someone had saved 100 thousand dollars and purchased gold with it in the late 1970s, at the end of the 22 years, provided that they hadn’t touched it for living expenses, they would have had only gold worth $31,000 by the end of the 1990s. If they would have kept their money as cash in a bank, they would have been far ahead even while earning relatively low interest on their deposit. I am sure with every drop in the price of gold during those 22 years; investors were told that gold had enduring value, that you can’t beat gold as an investment, etc. etc. But the reality was that gold went from a high of over $800 per ounce around 1980 to a low of somewhere around $250 in 1998 and stayed there until 2001. That drop in value would have given us an inflation rate of over 14% a year for 22 years on average. The truth of the matter is that most of that 69% drop occurred in the first 5 years. Most average citizens would have experienced an inflation rate of 50% or more per year. 50% inflation for half a decade would have been devastating to our economy. Given this historical reality anyone can understand why gold doesn’t work as a currency anymore.

If we truly are thinking of social and economic justice then think of this. One percent of the wealth of the United States is controlled by 1% of the population. Murphy’s golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

During deep recessions there isn’t a lot of economic activity so interest rates come down to encourage companies to barrow and pump that money into the economy. That part of our economy is not working the way it should work. Businesses are holding huge amounts of cash on the sidelines. They don’t even need to barrow to do what they may want to do. Growth has stopped and many businesses have gone out of business. Ordinary citizens have gone bankrupt or had their homes foreclosed on or are upside down on their mortgages. The housing market, which would normally be the leader out of a recession, is still in very bad shape with trillions of loaned dollars still at very high risk.

How did we get in this mess? We repealed a very important law called Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall prohibited investment houses from entering into the mainline banking business of lending to homeowners and small businesses traditional loans. Allowing investment houses, now often referred to as investment banks, into traditional banking is what created the mortgage crisis and destroyed our economy. It is Wall Street for the last decade and the Republican controlled congress of the Clinton era and not the Federal Reserve that screwed things up.

In conclusion gold simply isn’t a good investment right now since it is at economic bubble values, gold won’t hold its value over time because investors will abandon it so that they can use the cash from its sale to invest in something else that will be growing in value or is proclaimed to have the ability to retain its value over currency, also, gold won’t be a good substitute for US currency because there just isn’t enough of it around to make it a practical currency. In order for our economy to work we need a money supply that can grow with the creation of money that happens naturally in a healthy economy. Currency that has no real commodity value such as paper and coin money is an ideal medium of exchange as long as the supply is controlled in the economy the way the Federal Reserve controls the entrance of money into our economy. We as a nation could reduce the swings of inflation and deflation of our currency by instead of only backing the US currency with the full faith and credit of the US government, we instead index the value of the US dollar to the cost of goods commonly traded between countries. This would enhance the dollar as “the” exchange currency by having the US government promise to exchange the US currency with supplies of goods on the index. This would make the Federal Reserve’s job a lot easier since heavy swings of inflation and deflation would largely be non-existent. The Federal Reserve would only have to get close to what the money supply should be for that time period, but the index value would be the ultimate arbiter of the value of the currency. In other words sell your gold and invest in yourself and in things with which you have experience.

Let’s Not Get Carried Away

I think it’s important that all U.S. citizens are afforded their constitutional rights, even when they are accused of committing a mass casualty attack. And it’s important that people understand what their rights are. But let’s not get overwrought about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s alleged mistreatment. If it’s true that he repeatedly asked for a lawyer and was ignored, then he can use that in his defense at trial. Anything he said prior to getting his Miranda rights read to him wasn’t going to be admissible anyway.

This man has supposedly confessed to setting off a bomb that along with the bomb set by his brother killed three people and injured 264 more. He was shot in the throat and barely able to speak at all, using pen and paper instead. Despite reassuring comments by public officials, it was not possible to know whether there was an ongoing threat to public safety, and that is precisely what the questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was intended to determine.

While it is highly unusual to deny or delay a suspect’s request for counsel, it is also highly unusual to question a suspect without reading them their Miranda rights. The reason is the same in both cases. It is rarely the case that the police want to purposively ruin the evidence for trial.

The bigger sin, in my opinion, was to broadcast this man’s inadmissible confession to the world, and therefore to the jury pool. They could have reassured the public without being needlessly prejudicial.

I’m not sure this will go to trial. It’s quite possible that a guilty plea can be obtained in exchange for dropping the death penalty. If it does go to trial, the initial denial of counsel and pre-Miranda questioning won’t have much impact at all, and will mainly benefit the defendant. The challenge will be to find a jury that hasn’t already heard the defendant’s confession.

Coming to Our Milk

Joe Biden agrees with John McCain that the government should share what they’ve learned about the torture committed during the Bush administration. Then Biden goes further and compares Bush and Cheney to Slobodan Milošević and Adolf Hitler.

Speaking about the classified Senate Intelligence report on the use of torture or enhanced interrogation by the United States, Biden suggested that his personal view is that he agrees with McCain that more information should be made public, while he noted it has been the subject of intense debate at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Now this voluminous study has been done,” Biden said. “And the internal debate that goes on in the Congress and in the White House is, do we go back and do we expose it? Do we lay out who was responsible and how we got to where we are?”

“It offends the fundamentals of what kind of country we are, and the practical side of it is, don’t think it didn’t damage the United States’ image in the world in ways that we’ll be paying for for years to come,” McCain said, noting his support for disclosing more details of what happened.

“It is not resolved yet, John, but I’m where you are. I think the only way you excise the demons is you acknowledge, you acknowledge exactly what happened straightforward,” Biden said. He explained his position that issues related to torture must be laid out before a country can move beyond them, citing the war crimes committed in the Balkans and other acts of torture overseas.

“The single best thing that ever happened to Germany were the war crimes tribunals, because it forced Germany to come to its milk about what in fact has happened,” Biden said. “That’s why they’ve become the great democracy they’ve become.”

Can America come to its milk?