The Jeffrey And Tracey Info Emporium

Let’s make one thing clear: This Dan Nelson Automotive fiasco is not the bloggers’ fault, not KELOLAND’s fault, not the Iowa Attorney General’s fault, not my fault. Let’s take a look.

There were THOUSANDS of complaints against DNA in Iowa to the Iowa AG. All of those people weren’t Democrats.

“Buy here pay here” is a controversial means of selling people with distressed credit vehicles, particularly when interest rates are 25% in a time when interest rates in general are at historic lows.
The Iowa AG’s investigation apparently found not just smoke but fire at DNA.

John Thune had a close, long term relationship with Dan Nelson.
Dan Nelson had a close, long term relationship with MetaBank’s Tyler Haahr.
Large loans that were made on the cusp of DNA’s bankruptcy by MetaBank. John Thune sat on the Board of Directors at MetaBank at the time.
There is an appearance of conflict of interest with Thune sitting on the board (where the buck literally stops) and Nelson. What we don’t know is if Thune pulled any strings for Nelson. We’re still trying to figure out if there is actual conflict of interest. That hasn’t been proven or disproven yet.

Thune has denied he has pulled any strings for Nelson. That is yet to be proven or disproven.

The reporting on MetaGate, even by the Lefty blogs, has been almost exclusively based on public records and court filings. There is a paper trail and my buddies on the Left have simply followed it. Now, some of the SDMSM is also following it.

A formerly small, family owned Iowa bank could be in financial trouble because of its bad loans. The full extent of that trouble, if any, has not been determined yet.

This case is ultimately about Dan and John’s own personal responsibility and DNA’s and MetaBank’s own corporate responsibility. I find it funny that some Republicans like John Thune are great about preaching responsibility but when things get a little hot that they are involved in, it is suddenly somebody else’s responsibility. Like the bloggers. Geez.

Sen. Thune said in the Senate campaign that he was better than Tom Daschle because he “had the President’s ear” on Ellsworth and generally had more clout. Then, when EAFB goes south, he suddenly has no clout and is no better than an unknown freshman Senator from a small state. He puts on this “oh poor me” act about having to throw hardballs at the President’s head to get his attention on issues like the Bolton nomination and CAFTA. Again, geez.

Same with MetaBank. You have to imagine he was put on the MetaBank board because of his connections (former Congressman, Congressional lobbyist, former legislative lobbyist, former Senate staffer, former SBA staffer), ties to President Bush (convinced him twice to run for Senate), friendship with Nelson, and the distinct possibility that he would be the next U.S. Senator from South Dakota. Now, he says he’s a Lee Harvey Oswald-like “patsy” who just went to a few meetings and lots of other people signed off on loans.

If Thune was put on the MetaBank board because of his friendship with Nelson, that in and of itself is not a problem. That is how business works. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. The problem is if Thune knew of the extent of Nelson’s problems at DNA and whether he disclosed those problems to MetaBank when they were considering the loans.

Either Thune has clout and connections or he doesn’t. He apparently turns his clout on and off like a faucet, depending upon the the political mess he is in.

Todd D. Epp is an attorney, Democratic activist, former broadcast journalist, and editor of “S.D. Watch” (http://thunewatch.squaresapce.com)

It is also plain that the protection of the rights granted under the constitution is not solely the domain of the courts: the executive and legislative branches have some obligation to use their powers to encourage protected values such as free speech as well. See Lawrence Gene Sager, Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced Constitutional Norms, 91 HARV. L. REV. 1212 (1978). This obligation is only made more powerful by the judicial reluctance to review and invalidate executive decision-making: where, as in military matters, the executive is not subject to external constitutional review, it has an added obligation to review and constrain its own actions to ensure that they do not violate the spirit or the letter of constitutional protections. Rana Jazayerli, Note, War and the First Amendment: A Call for Legislation to Protect A Press’ Right of Access to Military Operations, 35 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 131, 155-58 (1997) (arguing that because the Executive apparently has sole discretion for constitutional review of the national security “exception”, it should take care in exercising it).

An analysis of the effect of these restrictions and the embedded journalism program as a whole on freedom of the press has to begin with weighing the costs and benefits of the program, as Section III of this paper attempts. Even for die-hard supporters of embedded journalism, this analysis is important because it can produce changes in the program that advance the freedom of the press. There are several other points about the program, however, that bear on freedom of the press and need to be discussed.

The restrictions imposed by the military leave open unanswered questions about permissible coverage that place journalists in an unacceptable dilemma. It is unclear from the restrictions whether or not the news organizations which place the embedded journalists would be permitted to report restricted information that they had obtained from another, non-embedded source. The restrictions plainly contemplate that the program is dealing with news organizations as a whole: they state that “embed opportunities will be assigned to media organizations, not to individual reporters.” Public Affairs Guidance on Embedding Media. This raises the question of whether the reporters are the only entities bound by the restrictions issued in the military guidelines. If news organizations as a whole are bound, then the decision to embed even one journalist effectively applies the information restrictions to the coverage of the entire news organization. Even if another, completely independent journalist were to discover information restricted by the guidelines or a local commander from other sources, it would appear highly suspicious if the news organization were to include that information in any of its coverage. It is important to remember in this context that many of the embedded journalists came from traditional media such as newspapers: it was not merely a cable news affair. Mary Wiltenburg, All the News That’s Dangerous to Gather, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, April 9, 2003, at 02. This makes it all the more implausible that news organizations could set up a kind of internal “Chinese Wall” that would justify their use of restricted information from other sources. On television news, reports from embedded journalists are often visual recordings. For a newspaper, they mainly involve either written articles or written reports of information that are to be incorporated into other articles later. A news organization would have great difficulty proving that had obtained the information from another source, and even if it could, this would place the organization in the ethically impermissible situation of having to reveal information about its sources. See Laurence B. Alexander, Looking Out for the Watchdogs: A Legislative Proposal Limiting the Newsgathering Privilege to Journalists in the Greatest Need of Protection for Sources and Information, 20 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 97 (2002). In wartime, this might place the source in a great deal of personal danger and would probably be considered impermissible by most organizations. The only alternatives are to not report the information or to report it and risk being expelled from the embedding program. Joanne Ostrow, Iraq War Coverage More Eye-Catching Than Eye-Opening, DENVER POST, April 27, 2003, at F-07 (noting the expulsion of several embedded reporters for failing to follow guidelines). Given the informal credentialing system discussed above, this is a dramatic risk to take: it could result in the organization being shut out of most information for the duration of the conflict. See Schafer. To ensure that any program of embedded journalism protects the freedom of the press, the military should make some modifications to either clarify the guidelines in the context of outside information, apply them to journalists and not news organizations, or it should scrap them entirely. A failure to deal with this problem forces news organizations to choose between gathering information from official military sources and gathering it from independent investigations, and this development threatens the independence of the press.

Even if the restrictions were to be clarified, the very idea of prior restraints on what a media organization can and cannot publish is unsettling to many. Frederick Schauer, The Speech of Law and the Law of Speech, 49 Ark. L. Rev. 687, 690-91 (1997) (”From John Milton to William Blackstone to Oliver Wendell Holmes to the present, prior restraints have been taken to be the worst of all possible violations of freedom of speech.”). The arbitrary ability of local commanders to exclude information makes this burden even more onerous. While such restrictions may not be judicially actionable violations of the First Amendment under current doctrines, it is plain that they conflict with the principles of free speech in many ways. At the very least, the military should review the restrictions and find ways to minimize their interference with the freedoms constitutionally guaranteed to the press.

V. Conclusion

Embedded journalism has ushered in, for better or worse, a new age of media coverage of conflicts. It is unlikely that the media will ever go back to traditional methods, if only because the desire for a constant stream of up-to-date information necessitates some cooperation with the military. Embedded journalism has satisfied this need, but it has brought with it the potential for a serious breach in the wall that should separate media from government. There may well be no constitutional solution to this problem, at least not one that would remedy abuses in time to correct them. The best remedy may come from within the press itself: the media, so long encouraged to watch for abuses of government, may find the restrictions that accompanied the embedded journalism program to be a perfect opportunity to exercise the role that the Framers intended them to.

Teve Torbes is a prolific author about such subjects as flea control along with his favorite things which are air mattresses. He has also created a valuable air purifier site.

Many people who don’t vote and remain aloof to all political
participation are unaware of the long history of the American
Civil Liberties Union. That is one of the ACLU’s greatest
strengths. Although much newer the ACLJ has quite a different
history and it would cause little embarrassment if it were
discovered by more Americans.

The ACLU has championed many causes since it was founded in 1920
by Mr. Roger Baldwin. Some of the most notable causes or rulings
the ACLU supported have to do with abortion rights, homosexual
and lesbian rights and removal of prayer from the public
schools. Some of its most notable positions were of lesser
significance but created much more press because they bordered
on the frivolous and were more a nuisance than a legitimate
cause. They adopted positions against bible studies and prayer
groups in public schools and the removal of manger scenes in
public during the Christmas season. Can’t you hear the voices of
many grateful Americans in a resounding…gee thanks?

Not to be mistaken for something that actually qualifies as the
protection of our civil liberties is the new battlefield
conjured up by the ACLU in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The three
crosses adorning the city logo is a point of pride and history
for the residents there but for the ACLU, they have given cause
for it to rear its head and wield the battle axe. It has
resulted in making “what ever happened to common sense” being
the most oft used phrase in internet blogging history. But wait,
it doesn’t stop there.

The latest fit the ACLU has begun; concerns prayer offered by
the U.S. military’s chaplains. In short the ACLU thinks it
should be stopped. Whew! That’s good thinking. I don’t know
about you but the last thing I would want to have happen to me
just before I went to battle for my country is to have my
country tell me I couldn’t go to God in prayer. In particular
they are trying to stop chaplains from praying in the name of
Jesus Christ. In a volunteer force made up of mostly Christian
men and women isn’t that an infringement of their religious
freedom? In fact it is more than that.

The constitution says “Congress shall make no laws touching
religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” What genius
does it take to see that the ACLU is actually crying
“unconstitutional” while they are proposing laws that are
clearly unconstitutional? Don’t want to be crass but perhaps the
ACLU lawyers and aides should all take a day off to watch
Forrest Gump together. If I remember correctly the most often
repeated line in that movie is, “stupid is, as stupid does”

Diametrically opposite the ACLU is the newly formed but no less
formidable, ACLJ. The American Center for Law and Justice
founded in 1990 is headed by Jay Sekulow who is the ACLJ’s Chief
Counsel. He is a well respected advocate for constitutional
freedoms and has argued many cases before the U.S, Supreme Court.

The Center for Law and Justice has successfully argued cases and
supported positions in other cases which resulted in an
impressive list of good common sense decisions and rulings. A
short list of the accomplishments of the ACLJ is as follows.

* A guarantee for minors who want to be involved in the
political process by protecting their free speech rights in
political affairs.

* Rulings to protect the constitutional rights of religious
groups to obtain equal access to public facilities.

* Protection for the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators

* The right for public school students to form and participate
in religious organizations such as Bible clubs.

The ACLJ is currently on the radio waves daily soliciting
signatures for a petition to stop the ban on prayer by the
military chaplains. The response is said to be very powerful at
the least. Upwards of ten thousand people a day are asking to
have their names added to the petitions.

It is shameful that Americans must pound away to ward off
organizations like the ACLU whose agenda looks like it
originated in la-la land. The constitution is under attack by
those who feign that they are working to protect it. After all
this is America and they have a constitutional right to mess
with the constitution. Let’s not mess with their right to do
that, but lets hope and pray (if they don’t stop us) that they
don’t prevail.

The Bible tells the believer to respect the rulings and laws
provided by the secular rulers because the powers that be, are
all ordained of God. Romans 13:1. Almost all bible believing
Christians take this mandate seriously and endeavor to be law
abiding citizens. You would think that this respect for secular
law would hold things in balance between those who believe in
the Bible and revere the constitution and groups like the ACLU,
but it does not. The ACLU seems bent on removing all reference
and allusion to God on any level. What would the result be if
they were successful in this plight? I choose to let the Bible
answer that question.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient; Romans 1:28

Argentine President Nestor Kirchner managed to strengthen his support base in the Congress when final results from weekend elections showed his backers took control of the Senate and became the largest bloc in the lower house.

Results released on Monday had Kirchner allies winnings 40 of 72 seats in the Senate and taking about 100 seats out of 257 in the lower house, still well short of a majority but a boon for the president nonetheless.

The new Congress commences in December.

The mid-term elections were seen as a test of the president’s popularity as he prepares his reelection bid in two years.

Kirchner assumed office in 2003 amid Argentina’s worst financial crisis in decades, which left millions jobless. Since then, he has presided over marked economic improvement and a reduction in unemployment.

The victories for his allies should allow him to push for more social spending and reforms that would make him popular with voters come time for presidential elections. However some analysts speculate that the results from Sunday’s election don’t necessary guarantee Kirchner a smooth ride until then.

“This will help Kirchner in the second half of his mandate, but he will still need to be able to forge the alliances to pass his projects,” said Argentine analyst Rosendo Fraga. “It is yet to be seen where that support will come from.”

Other analysts contend the president is riding an artificial high of sorts based on the economy’s perceived improvement among Argentines following its collapse in late 2001, when thousands took the streets in protest and dozens were killed, prompting then-President Fernando de la Rua to resign.

“The economy buoys the administration’s electoral position because the economy’s deep structural problems are not understood by the Argentine public and the problem of inflation has not become serious enough to affect the people,” Argentine economist Agustin Monteverde told ISN Security Watch.

Meanwhile, former Argentine president, Carlos Menem, who many blame for Argentina’s economic collapse following his decade in power during the 1990’s, won a Senate seat representing his home province of La Rioja.

Kirchner and Menem were once allies, both hailing from the Peronist Party. But the former split from the Peronists in 2003 to run against Menem, forming his own Victory Party. This movement split the Peronist into two factions, forcing members and lawmakers to align themselves with Menem or the new candidate Kirchner.

Formerly a governor from Argentina’s Santa Cruz province, Kirchner arrived on the national stage with the support of then-President Eduardo Duhalde.

But over the last few months, Kirchner and Duhalde made a very public split, criticizing each other for their respective support for various candidates, which included both men’s wives.

Cristina Fernandez Kirchner won 44 per cent of the vote in mid-term elections while Hilda “Chichi” Duhalde took second place with 19.7 per cent of the vote.

Both will represent Buenos Aires province, considered the most influential senatorial seats in the Argentine Congress.

Sam Logan (http://www.samuellogan.com) is an investigative journalist who has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism, and black markets in Latin America since 1999.

President Bush has referred to Jim Gilchrist as a “Vigilante.”
Many American citizens have an opposite view, calling him a
Patriot. The vast majority of Republican voters want the problem
of a tidal wave of illegal aliens pouring across our borders
solved, not swept under the rug! Their reasons for concern range
from potential terrorist threats, and fears of the importation
of vicious gang violence, as well as the adverse economic impact
on wages and employment opportunities of illegal immigration.

Gilchrist is the widely known founder of the Minuteman Project,
which has mobilized the participation of thousands of volunteers
who have taken up stations along the U.S. border in an attempt
to reduce the numbers of illegal migrants crossing the border.
Although the Minutemen’s direct impact in reducing illegal
immigration could be viewed as negligible, there can be no
argument as to whether their “watch and report” mission has
raised this troubling issue to the forefront of political debate.

Most citizens of California are acutely aware of the rise in
violent crime implicated in gang related activities. The state
has experienced a dramatic increase in gang violence and
“syndicated “crime due to illegal immigration, which has risen
to epidemic proportions. The LA Times reported that more than
50,000 illegal aliens with serious criminal records were
deported in the last twelve years alone, including untold
numbers of gang members.

“One thing is clear, illegal immigration is directly feeding
significant increases in felony-level crime and gang-related
violence,” Gilchrist said. “While the economic consequences of
our broken borders have been severe, the alarming rise of crime
and violence resulting from the uncontrolled growth of these
gangs directly threatens our neighborhoods, our schools, and
every aspect of security necessary to our society’s well-being,”
said Gilchrist.

The MS-13 gang, which is comprised principally of Central
Americans, nearly all of whom are illegals, has grown to 50,000
members and is increasing. MS-13, with its signature machete
executions, is involved in appalling street violence,
racketeering, and many other crimes from coast to coast.

What troubles Gilchrist the most is the blind eye cast by
Republican leadership towards these crucial issues of illegal
“invasion” by foreign nationals, and the security threat it
poses to American territorial integrity. Critics inside and
outside of the party attribute this lack of political will, code
word for “courage,” to concerns by some politicians who fear the
loss of an emerging “Hispanic voting block” come election time.

Gilchrist, who is a candidate in the upcoming December 6 special
election tofill the vacancy in California’s 48th Congressional
District, blasted the National Republican Senate Campaign for
circulating a “Senate Leadership Survey” that omits any
questions which refer to illegal immigration or border security.

“How can any survey, which purports to address the major
political issues facing America, be taken seriously if it does
not include a single question on the issues of illegal
immigration or border security?” asked Gilchrist.

The answer may lie in these eye opening statistics. The number
of Hispanics now residing in the United States has risen past 40
million, out-numbering African Americans as a potential voting
block. Political insiders on both sides of the political
spectrum believe that the future of national elections may very
well rest in the hands of Hispanic voters. Consider that the
winner of Florida, Texas, and California presidential contests
could virtually lock up every future election.

Gilchrist believes that 90 percent of illegal immigrants are
coming to the U.S. to exploit an economic situation vastly more
advantageous than that left behind in their native countries.
Clearly, he says, their reasons for coming here are related
directly to what is happening socially, economically and
politically in their nations of origin. In one interview,
Gilchrist targeted Mexico by name stating that, “There is
something seriously wrong in a country where half its population
is trying to escape.” Gilchrist believes it is imperative that
strong actions be taken by the governments of countries south of
the border to improve the living standards of their own
populations. America, says Gilchrist, cannot continue as the
economic safety valve for every oligarchy and petty tyranny on
earth. We need to stay economically strong, while sustaining
America’s national unity upon the principles of western
civilization.

The 48th Congressional District, located in Orange County,
California, is thought of as one of the bastions of the
Republican Party. Gilchrist, who is running as an Independent,
has shaken the confidence of his Republican opponent, by
building strong support among many Grand Old Party members who
feel that the party is missing the boat on the issue of
immigration.

Is Gilchrist going to be a surprise winner in the 48th District,
much like former Governor Jesse Ventura was in 1998? In one of
the more unforeseen upsets in American political history, Reform
Party candidate Jesse “The Body” Ventura, once a pro wrestler
known for his spoiler tactics in the ring, shocked the pundits
and his two rivals — Democrat Hubert Humphrey III and
Republican Norm Coleman — to win Minnesota’s governorship. It
may be the right time again in U. S. history for an upset by an
Independent challenger, this time to create a mandate for
stiffening the U.S. border. Only time will tell — on December
6th to be exact.

October 18, 2005

“Poverty doesn’t cause substandard education”article by Bruce
Raynor on 10/18/05 is absolutely right. Back in the 50’s and
60’s all people has the same opportunities. Guilford County was
a small working mill town. Very few people were born with a
’silver spoon’, as the old saying goes! It’s always been that
everyone who wants to work has a job! Today it’s welfare and
social programs, free bus rides, lunches, schools, day cares,
rent, insurance, and medical care! It doesn’t take a rocket
scientist to figure out this has caused poverty and bankrupted
America. My friends, of all races, talk about the issues I write
about. We believe in birth control! We feel a person can make a
mistake and have one illegitimate, it’s the other ones we’re
highly opposed to! We’re against the government and it’s
agencies bankrupting Social Security (which was supposed to be
for the elderly and their retirement who paid this money into
this program only to see it bankrupted by people that think
Taxpayers owe them free rides) to pay for welfare recipients
that don’t work and never intend to! We’re against Tax cuts and
incentives for the wealthy, for private companies, the drug and
insurance companies! We’re against the non-profit organizations
that promote their ’causes’, ‘pet projects’ and ‘properties’
using Taxpayers monies!

Recent article “Racial Divide” ! I quote ” 27% of High Point’s
population is black! 54% of DSS investigated cases involve
blacks and 52% of residents taken into DSS custody are black.
There is much anger and dismay out there about this!” Everyone
would be angry and violent if they had no Dads or role models in
their lives! Who’s fault is this? Daily we’re reminded that
social programs and welfare aren’t working and these programs
are creating hatred, anger, violence, and terrorism in America.
Who’s suppose to be stopping this type behavior? Why do you keep
blaming other people for what you’ve created? Taxpayers are fed
up with paying for all these social, welfare, and school
programs that’s never worked and never will.

I’m quoting an article by Leonard Pitts - “Little has changed 10
years after Million Man March”. “Ten years later more than 65%
of our children are born out of wedlock. I know what’s needed to
fix our communities requires no white person’s consent!” Good
article!

“The only way government can give to you is to take away other
people’s monies and rights!” I call this ‘Discrimination against
Taxpayers!’

In typical bureaucratese, the pensive EBRD analyst ventures with the appearance of compunction: “A number of projects have fallen short of acceptable standards (notice the passive, exculpating voice - SV) and have put the reputation of the bank at risk”. If so, very little was risked. The outlandish lavishness of its City headquarters, the apotheosis of the inevitable narcissism of its first French Chairman (sliding marble slabs, motion sensitive lighting and designer furniture) - is, at this stage, its only tangible achievement. In the territories of its constituencies and shareholders it is known equally for its logy pomposity, the irrelevance of its projects, its lack of perspicacity and its Kafkaesque procedures. And where the IMF sometimes indulges in oblique malice and corrupt opaqueness, the EBRD wallows merely in avuncular inefficacy. Both are havens of insouciant third rate economists and bankers beyond rating.

Established in 1991, “it exists to foster the transition towards open market oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics. The EBRD seeks to help its 26 countries of operations to implement structural and sectoral economic reforms, promoting competition, privatization and entrepreneurship, taking into account the particular needs of countries at different stages of transition. Through its investments it promotes private sector activity, the strengthening of financial institutions and legal systems, and the development of the infrastructure needed to support the private sector. The Bank applies sound banking and investment principles in all of its operations. In fulfilling its role as a catalyst of change, the Bank encourages co-financing and foreign direct investment from the private and public sectors, helps to mobilize domestic capital, and provides technical co-operation in relevant areas. It works in close co-operation with international financial institutions and other international and national organizations. In all of its activities, the Bank promotes environmentally sound and sustainable development.”

Grandiloquence aside, the EBRD was supposed to foster the formation of the private sector in the revenant wreckage of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkan, Russia and the New Independent States. This it was mandated to do by providing finance where there was none (”bridging the gaps in the post communist financial system” to quote “The Economist”). Put more intelligibly, it was NOT supposed to transform itself into a long-term investment portfolio with equity holdings in most blue-chips in the region. Yet, this is precisely what it ended up becoming. It avoided project financing like the plague and met the burgeoning capital needs of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) grudgingly. And it refuses to divest itself of stakes in the best run and most efficiently managed firms from Russia to the Czech Republic. In a way, it competes head on with other investors and commercial banks - often crowding them out with its subsidized financing.

One of its main mistakes, in a depressingly impressive salmagundi, is that it channelled precious resources to this budding sector (SMEs), the dynamo of every economy, through the domestic, decrepit, venal and politically manhandled banking system. The inevitable result was a colossal waste of resources. The money was allocated to sycophantic cronies and sinecured relatives (often one and the same) and to gigantic, state-owned or state-favoured loss makers. Most of it lay idle and yielded to its hosts a hefty income in arbitrage and speculation. As banks went bankrupt, they wiped whole portfolios of EBRD SME funds, theoretically guaranteed by even more bankrupt states.

Thus, the only segments of the private sector to benefit handsomely from the EBRD were lawyers and accountants involved in the umpteen lawsuits the EBRD is mired in. It is a growth industry in “countries” such as Russia. This is the melancholy outcome of indiscriminate, politically-motivated lending and of a lackadaisical performance as both lenders and shareholders. In the spirit of its first chairman, the suave and titivated Attali, the bank is in a constant road show, mortified by the possibility of its dissolution by reason of irrelevance. It aims to impress the West with its grandiose projects, mega investments, fast returns and acquiescence. In thus behaving, it is engaged in a perditionable perfidy of its fiduciary obligations. It lends to criminal managers, winking at their off-shore shenanigans and turning a blind eye to the scapegrace slaughter of minority shareholders. It throws good money after bad, cosies up to oligarchs near and far and engages in creative accounting. Instead of Westernizing the Easterners - it has been Easternized by them. Its sedentary though peregrinating employees are more adept at wining and at dining the high and mighty and at haughtily maundering in the odd, tangential, seminar - than at managing a banking institution or looking after the interests of their nominal shareholders with the tutelary solicitude expected of a bank.

Consider two examples:

MACEDONIA

The nascent private sector is nowhere to be found in the list of projects the EBRD so sagely chose to falter into here. The Electricity and Telecoms monopolies are prime beneficiaries as is the airport. The EBRD is also a passive shareholder in both big universal banks - until recently, conduits of state mismanagement. The SME and Trade Facilitation credit lines were conveniently divvied up among five domestic banks (one went belly up, the managers of two are under criminal investigation and one was sold to a Greek state bank). Despite vigorous protestations to the contrary, none of this money reached its proclaimed entrepreneurial targets. Two loans were made to giant local firms - the natural preserve of commercial lenders and equity investors the world over. The EBRD contributed nothing to the emergence of a management culture, to the development of proper corporate governance, to the safeguarding of property rights and the protection of minority shareholders here. Instead, it colluded in the perpetuation of monopolies, shoddy and shady banking practices, the pertinacious robbery titled “privatization” and the pretence of funding languishing private sector enterprises.

RUSSIA

Its 2 billion US dollars portfolio all but wiped out in the August 1998 financial crisis, the EBRD has now returned with 700 million new Euros to be - conservatively but not more safely - lent in major energy and telecom behemoths.

The historic, pre-1998, portfolio appears impressive. Almost 11 billion US dollars were generated by the EBRD’s less than 4. The bottom line reads 94 projects. Yet, when one neutralizes the infrastructural ones (including the gas and energy sector) - one is left with less than 50% of the amount. Add “infrastructure-like” projects (water transportation and the like) - and less than 30% of the portfolio went to what can be called proper “private sector”. Moreover, even these investments and credits were geared towards traditional and smokestack industries: mining, food processing, pipelines, rubber and such. Not an entrepreneur in sight. And the EBRD’s meagre loan-loss provisions and reserves cast serious doubts regarding the mental state of both its directors and its auditors.

To varying degrees, these two countries are typical. Development banks, like industrial policy, import substitution and poverty reduction, have gone in and out of multilateral fashion several times in the last few decades. But there is a consensus regarding some minimum aims of such bureaucracy-laden establishments - and the EBRD achieves none. It does not encourage entrepreneurship. It does not improve corporate governance. It does not enhance property rights. It does not allocate economic resources efficiently. It competes directly with other - more desirable - financing alternatives. It is not equipped to monitor its vast and inert portfolio. By implication it collaborates in graft, tax evasion and worse. It is a waste of scarce resources badly needed elsewhere. It should be administered a coup de grace. And its marbled abode - so out of touch with the realities of its clients and its balance sheet - should be sold to someone more up to the task. A bank, for instance.

About The Author

Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited” and “After the Rain - How the West Lost the East”. He is a columnist in “Central Europe Review”, United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com

It is to be expected from Howard Dean.

According to a USA Today article, Howard Dean was quoted:

Republicans plan to use the vast problems caused by illegal immigration to try and divide Americans voting in next year’s midterm election, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Saturday. - U.S.A. Today

Can Mr. Dean explain to me, without losing his temper of course, how that is? Illegal immigration is a big issue in America right now, and both parties are trying to capitalize off of it.

How does Mr. Dean explain Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson declaring a state of emergency because of the unsecure border problems in their respective state? Are they trying to be divisive, or are they doing their jobs?

“Once again, the Republicans created problems so they think they can come in and solve them,” Dean told DNC members meeting in Phoenix.

So, there isn’t a problem when there are well over 12 million illegal aliens in this country? There is nothing that needs to be fixed?

Well, this explains how Dean would fix the problem:

Dean said the government should have an “earned legalization” program in which immigrants who contribute to society and pay taxes should be able to earn the right to become citizens.

So, the privilege we have - a privilege men died for us to have - you just want to give away because illegal aliens have contributed so much to our society? What have they contributed Mr. Dean? Cheap labor? Taking advantage of our welfare system?

These same people earn their citizenship by obviously disrespecting the laws of this land from the moment they come here.

But, while the Republicans are at least playing lip service to a real problem in America, the Democrats’ leader says:

Dean said Democrats will appeal to voters on other issues by offering tax law changes that treats middle-class families fairly, health care for more Americans and plan for withdrawing troops from the war in Iraq.

Okay, so now we’re going to continue taxing the rich, even though the rich provide jobs, and give more breaks to middle-class, who work for the rich people. So, the rich will look for tax shelters, much like they did during the Carter Administration, or even take their business elsewhere.

The government is now going to take over the private industry of health care. This health care will be used largely by the illegal aliens who are not a problem and will earn their citizenship.

Oh, and our troops are going to leave Iraq in the middle of a war because it’s unwinnable according to them. Then again, winning wars is not in the Democrats’ best interest these days, what with a Republican being President and all. God forbid, our troops succeed in this war and make President Bush look good.

Thanks, Mr. Dean. I didn’t know what was important and what wasn’t. I have seen the light.

Copyright 2005 - John St. Michael

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-03-immigration_x.htm?POE=click-refer

John St. Michael runs Yes, Another Conservative Blog and is a regular columnist for J.J. Jackson’s American Conservative Daily.

Dick Cheney- November, 2005: “The president and I cannot
prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their
backbone — but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite
history…”

Good point.

DoD Transcript excerpt of Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers on
Tuesday, February 10, 2004.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir — you
described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted
that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the U.N.
resolutions, there would have been no war.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.

Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the
same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had
chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly — and I’m sure
you’ll tell me if I’m not — (Laughter.) — in his case, if he
would have opened up the country, let the U.N. come in, the
United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of
mass destruction, he would have still been in power today,
correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position — or
you chose the word of the “position” — vis-à-vis no war,
Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us
hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to
remove him.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is — the world is fortunate,
the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate,
that he’s not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the
mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what
took place in that country has to feel the same way.

Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been
a war. I mean, that’s just a fact, just like — I mean, what
will Libya look like two, four, five years from now…

Oops. Weren’t the inspectors were in Iraq. Why did they leave?
Oh, right… Saddam kicked them out.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N.
inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N.
observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after
U.S. threats to launch war. FOX
(there are many other sources but FOX was chosen in this venue
because…’nuff said- it was all over the media- anybody who can
read, see, or hear knows this).

Oops. Anybody? Anybody? Ferris?

“This Week” (November 20, 2005)

Stephanopolous: If you had known that no WMD’s would be
found, would you still advocate invasion?

Rumsfeld: I didn’t advocate invasion.

Stephanopolous: You didn’t?

Rumsfeld: No. I wasn’t asked. If you read all the books on the
thing…

Stephanopolous: You weren’t? But why weren’t you asked? That’s
very puzzling.

Rumsfeld: No. I’m sure that the President understood what my
views were… but… but… as a technical matter, did he ever
look and say, “What should we do- should we do this or not do
that”- this is something that the president thought through very
carefully.

Stephanopolous: Are you trying to distance yourself on the war
with that…

Rumsfeld: Of course not. I agreed completely with the decision
to go to war. And I’ve said that 100 times and don’t even
suggest that…

Stephanopolous: I’m just asking…

Rumsfeld: Yeah. Well you know better…. uhhh… Look, the
interesting thing to me about the pre-war intelligence is
clearly it was wrong. It was wrong (inaudible). But everyone saw
the same thing in the Executive branch, in the Legislative
branch, in the other countries, it was presented at the U.N…
uhhh…

Stephanopolous: But would you have been for an invasion if we
had known that?

Rumsfeld: If I… I… the answer is probably yes. Our
planes were being shot at every day, every week in the no fly
zone. Here was a man who was giving $25,000 to the families of
suicide killers. Murderers who were doing it. Zarqawi was in
that country during that period. He’s a person that used
chemical weapons against his own people and against his
neighbors, had invaded Kuwait…

Hmmm… aren’t those the “other reasons” dismissed in
2004?

“That’s not the way the world really works anymore… We’re an
empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you’re studying that reality - judiciously, as you will -
we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s
actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we
do.” - To Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter and
author of The Price of Loyalty by a senior advisor to George Bush

Ohhhh… why didn’t they just say so?

The full article with other sources, links, and information is
contained at AmeriPundit.com.

[Author’s Note: Another essay that I wrote on notebook paper during boring school hours. This wonderful little piece was starting in boring English class on Tuesday, November 26, 2002, and continued into Art class. It was finished in school on Tuesday, December 2, 2002, when I finished it in English class. I worked on it in no other class, and finished it within a few classes. Hooray for high school.]

The Beginning

If a group of people were to live on an island, who would govern who, how, and why? If person A suspected person B of possessing a deadly weapon (if this were a crime), then how could we justify person A searching person B? Whatever reason offered for justification of search and seizure, it aso justifies person B searching person A. On this island, who would be the government? Who would rule? Whatever can justify the rule of person A can also justify the rule of person B. If one person is elected on the island, through some sort of Republic process, how is he justified in passing and enforcing laws? If an elected ruler passes a law that anyone to wear a hat is killed, would it not be equally justified for one dissident to make their own government, passing legislation that wearing hats is acceptable?

A government may be defined as a person or a persons trying to enforce a rule or regulation. And if one government can be formed by one person, with legislation passed that possessing head fashion is illegal, so another one is not more wrong in making it legal.

By what right would one government have the right to tell one person to do, any more than the one person would have the right to tell what the government to do? Is there anything intrinsically distinctive of either the individual or the government that allows one to control the other without restraint? If this individual opposed the state’s regulation as much as the state opposed the individual’s actions, how is one more justified in controlling the other? There can be no appeal to one being intrinsically right and one being intrinsically wrong: there have been just as many bad governments as there have been bad rebels. So, if a party of people lived on an island, who would govern who, and how could it possibly be justified?

Take into consideration the lack of justification for government to rule anyone on this island, as for the United States to rule anyone on this land. Just as a government on the island can oppose an individual’s actions, so does our United States government oppose some of our actions, as they carry out their regulation. Use of Marijuana, a harmless practice, has been banned by the state. By what writ can the government jail Marijuana users, any more than Marijuana users can enforce their own regulation allowing Marijuana? If a police officer is justified in arresting members of society who do no harm but just commit a crime, then a citizen must be justified in arresting the government equally. There is no divine mandate given to anyone to rule, control, and kill others, be it any populace member or any government.

The similarities between the hypothetical island scenario and the United States government are undeniable. The United States government has no right to rule me any more than I have a right to rule those people who make up the government. Nor ar they justified in any of their legislation, and enforcing their legislation, whether it is outlawing murder, wearing hats, or believing what you want. The government has no right to pass such laws any more than I have the right to pass such laws.

The Middle

The Republic is a type of government where the people vote for one person to rule all. This varies from other types of governments where, more or less, a ruler maintains their power. By maintaining power, I do not mean by campaigning, but rather by an army theratening the populace. Such a ruler may be known as a dictator or a monarch. However, there are some who stipulate that a king’s rule is tryanny to the rule of an elected official. What can there be, honestly, to separate the rule of a dictator and the rule of an elected official? Historically, both are prone to commit the most atrocious acts, often defending themselves with the idea that they are defending their land.

Furthermore, both presidents and kings have accepted bribery and corruption. What can there be to separate a Dictatorship and a Republic? It still gives one person, out of thousands, possibly millions, it gives this one person control over the rest of the populace. And whether or not a Constitution exists in this Monarchy or Republic, kings and presidents have both trampled them to pieces in the wake of their search for power and wealth. There is one solitary difference between a dictator and a president: one is elected, one is not. The similarities between these two, though, is endless: their cruel search for power, the history of their relentlessness in eliminating enemies, they rule a population without restrain or control, save the remnants of their conscience.

The United States’ administration differs from that of a Latin Dictatorship in one way: how they are chosen. The United States goes through the process of election where we choose our president, but even this failed, as the majority voted against the president who seized power. If there is any proof of corruption of power, of how a president is nothing more than a dictator, then let it be this: our current president was voted against by the people, but he rules us anyway. His laws control our bodies, even though we did not choose him. George W. Bush is not in power because he was elected. He is in power because of his army, because of his secret, underground spy network which keeps tabs on +300 million American suspects. The difference between a Republic and a Dictatorship is election, but both governments give unfair power to one person to rule all people, and both are productive of heartless, cruel atrocities.

The Ending

By what right does a police officer have to detain me, anymore than I have the right to detain the police officer? How isa president more qualified to rule a populace than a dictator? Why is it so impossible to imagine a society that rules itself, with Direct Democracy, and no leaders or police officers?

For Life,
Punkerslut
http://www.punkerslut.com

Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on social issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website http://www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings.