Some Context for my Concern with Government Corruption

I realize that I probably look obsessed due to my many posts about government corruption. Perhaps that is because I saw it first-hand when I worked as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Missouri. That was back in the late '80s, when William Webster served as Missouri Attorney General. My job required me to prosecute consumer fraud. That's not quite how it worked, however. If the target was a significant contributor, I would be given lots of excuses that good cases were "not good cases." I resisted for many months, documenting my cases as best I could and refusing to close good files--this behavior confused me at first, but then it became all too clear. Ultimately, several substantial cases against major contributors convinced Webster to transfer me out of of the Trade Offense Division. Because I refused his transfer, Webster fired me. Little did I know that my experiences would become a focus for the 1992 Missouri Governor's debate. The debate featured Mel Carnahan (the Democrat) versus William Webster (the Republican). Prior to this debate Webster had held a 20-point lead. The election occurred two weeks after this debate, and Webster conceded by 7:30 pm on election night. During the debate Carnahan blistered Webster with accusations much of the night. You'll get a flavor for this well-deserved barrage if you watch the first 5 minutes--I was discussed beginning at the 3-minute mark. One other Assistant Attorney General also took a bold stand. After it became clear to him that the office was corrupt, Tom Glassberg resigned, immediately driving to Jefferson City to file ethics charges against Webster. Tom wrote a letter defending my reputation and his letter was published by the Post-Dispatch. It was letter I will never forget. A few sentences were read at the Governor's Debate. Those were intense times for me, of course. You can't solve problems like this in a day. It requires immense patience and diplomacy, and bucking the system is risky. When you start resisting, you quickly see who has both a conscience and a backbone. When I see the constant stream of money for political favors stories, I'm disheartened but resolute. Corrupt money and power are formidable, but they can't prevail where good people organize. I'm sure that my time as an AAG was formative, and it continues to drive me forward. One last thought is a sad one for me, however. During the Webster scandal, the St. Louis Post Dispatch was an aggressive newspaper that did real investigative journalism thanks to excellent reporting by several reporters, including Terry Ganey. The Post-Dispatch no longer does significant investigative journalism, as is the case with most newspapers. Reporters across the country are being laid off by the hundreds, and this has led to a huge news vacuum. These days, we simply don't know what is going on in most corners of our government. Many stories don't see the light of day, and the mass media offer no local alternatives (local TV "news" tends to be a joke). Hence my non-stop interest in media reform through organization such as Free Press. Media Reform and Election Reform need to be fixed before we can meaningfully address any other issues. That has so sadly become apparent.

Continue ReadingSome Context for my Concern with Government Corruption

Elizabeth Warren discusses the real purpose of TARP

At Daily Kos, "HoundDog" reviews Elizabeth Warren's new book, A fighting Chance. Here's an excerpt:

[Warren] says when she asked Geithner about helping the homeowners struggling to save their homesh he admitted "[d]espite the way it was sold, TARP was about saving banks, pure and simple." ..He admitted that really was not the goal, she writes. [caption id="attachment_26775" align="alignright" width="300"]Elizabeth Warren (Photo by Erich Vieth) Elizabeth Warren (Photo by Erich Vieth)[/caption] "The banks could manage only so many foreclosures at a time, and Treasury wanted to slow down the pace so banks wouldn't be overwhelmed," Warren writes, recounting Geithner's explanation. "And this was where the new foreclosure program came in: it was just big enough to 'foam the runway' for them." "There it was," Warren writes. "The Treasury foreclosure program was intended to foam the runway to protect against a crash landing by the banks. Millions of people were getting tossed out on the street, but the secretary of the Treasury believed the government's most important job was to provide a soft landing for the tender fannies of the banks. ... "Oh Lord." She praises President Obama for supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but always says he has to take responsibility for choosing the team he did.
For more on Elizabeth Warren, see this post I wrote regarding her November, 2013 presentation to the National Association of Consumer Advocates.  The above quote by Warren confirms a similar statement by Neil Barofsky, who presented at an NCLC conference the previous year. Inside the White House, the TARP program was only about attending to the needs and wants of Wall Street banks.   I attended both of these, and the huge rooms filled with consumer advocates much appreciated hearing straight talk from these two exceptional people. [caption id="attachment_26774" align="alignright" width="150"]Neil Barofsky at NCLC Neil Barofsky at NCLC (Photo by Erich Vieth)[/caption]  

Continue ReadingElizabeth Warren discusses the real purpose of TARP

A simple Easter Challenge for Christians

Freedom From Religion Foundation has made a straightforward Challenge for those who consider themselves Christians:

My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born. Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15) The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
The trick is that the Bible is riddled with contradictions on this alleged story. Many of those contradictions are outlined in the article. Here are a few: Who were the women? Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1) Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1) Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10) John: Mary Magdalene (20:1) What was their purpose? Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1) Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1) Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1) John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40) Was the tomb open when they arrived? Matthew: No (28:2) Mark: Yes (16:4) Luke: Yes (24:2) John: Yes (20:1) Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Matthew: One angel (28:2-7) Mark: One young man (16:5) Luke: Two men (24:4) John: Two angels (20:12) - See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/20393-leave-no-stone-unturned-an-easter-challenge-for-christians#sthash.sy6ke72V.dpuf

Continue ReadingA simple Easter Challenge for Christians

It’s official: The United States is an Oligarchy

We have no hope of fixing any problem in this county until we fix THIS problem, described by Zachary Davies Boren of the U.K. Guardian:

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded. The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system. After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite. The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. . . . "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.""

Continue ReadingIt’s official: The United States is an Oligarchy