Update no.381

Update from the Heartland
No.381
30.3.09 – 5.4.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Minnesota State, three-judge panel appointed to review the election contest between Norman Bertram “Norm” Coleman Jr. [287, 369] – the incumbent senator – and Alan Stuart Franken has dealt a serious setback to the incumbent, but this case is not yet decided and Minnesota remains under represented in Congress.
-- Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas [376] – Obama’s replacement nominee for HHS Secretary – and her husband paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes plus $878 in interest, in the latest personal tax irregularity for a cabinet nominee.
-- The United States Department of Justice announced its petition to the judge presiding over the trial and conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska [295-6, 346, 359] seeking to vacate Stevens’ conviction based on a number of anomalies by the prosecution. I suspect a passel of government lawyers are going to face disciplinary action of some sort – sanction to disbarment. We can also add this sordid prosecutorial affair to an all-too long list of events that I chalk up to an arrogance of power by the Bush administration.

I note here the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in the case of Varnum v. Brien [SC IA no. 07–1499 (2009)] – a unanimous judgment of the seven justices – affirming the rights of all citizens to the benefits and privileges of marriage. I have not had the opportunity to read and digest the ruling, as yet, and I hope to complete my review for next week’s Update.

I have listened to more than a few folks in a variety of fora argue that the United States should destroy all of our nuclear weapons before we have any right to demand the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) abandon their nuclear weapons program. A similar argument is offered that if United States and Israel have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t the IRI have them as well. After all, fair is fair. Well, I have one, direct, simple answer: because the fundamentalist Islamic radicals leading the IRI have no compunction whatsoever about finding a small group of surrogates quite willing to use such devices; they seek death and martyrdom for jihad, for Allah. The United States has had ample reason to use nuclear weapons since the end of World War II, yet we resisted the employment of those devices. We built a stockpile of weapons and developed a triad of delivery vehicles to counter the perceived threat from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a policy known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Such deterrence worked with the Soviets and other nuclear nations. It will never work against radical, fundamentalist Islam and especially jihadistanis bent upon martyrdom for Allah. I want the IRI (or any other radical state) to know they will cease to exist if they use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on the United States or our allies. For that, we need nuclear weapons and the courage to use them when necessary.

The President has apparently decided that battlefield combatants are no longer battlefield combatants, and the USG will not refer to the “war on terrorism” as such anymore. Whether this means the President is convinced we are not at war is yet to be seen. Frankly, I do not care much what he decides to call this war or the enemy we fight. Perhaps, this nonsense is a faux concession to the uber-Left, to help them feel better about killing our enemies. Regardless, he can call it a picnic with Osama, for all I care. What matters is waging war successfully, and that is the bottom line of what I care about. We will be able to judge his “picnic with Osama” soon enough.

A month ago [Monday, 2.March.2009], the Obama administration released nine documents (159 pages) from the Bush 43 White House. Reading and cross-researching those documents took me a few weeks to complete, and there is more collateral reading I want to accomplish. The predominant general impression from the process . . . why? What purpose was served in releasing those nine memoranda among the thousands of documents the previous administration generated in the West Wing alone? The bizarre aspect of this disclosure rests heavily on the last two memoranda (chronologically) in the set, both authored by Steven G. Bradbury – former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Department of Justice – the last of the two dated a mere five (5) day prior to the end of the Bush administration. Bradbury rejects the content / counsel of the other memoranda. The other seven memoranda span the time from 25.September.2001 to 27.June.2002; no need to recount the history of those nine months post-9/11. The implication in Bradbury’s memoranda is: we are not at war, therefore POTUS does not possess extraordinary warfighting authority, without offering rationale. Thus, the focus of his disclosure must be the first seven documents. The memoranda represent legal inquiries by the Bush administration during the early days of the War on Islamic Fascism, regarding warfighting, intelligence, and the detention of battlefield combatants. The OLC determined that the President had ample constitutional authority to detain battlefield combatants during the course of hostilities as well as transfer detainees as he deemed appropriate. More importantly, the OLC concluded that “neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban prisoners are legally entitled to POW status” – an important finding. Relevant to this debate, the OLC quoted from Johnson v. Eisentrager [339 U.S. 763 (1950)] [312]: “It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.” Many in our society may have forgotten or ignored that reality, but the political convenience does not alter the reality. The analysis of the law appears accurate, at least from the Executive perspective, and yet the argument conveniently ignores the checks & balances to Executive powers to prevent or reduce the likelihood of abuses, as well as the political aspects, i.e., public perception; which weakens the basis for the President’s warfighting authority. The President’s power is codified in the Constitution and statutory provisions, but his role as the leader of this Grand Republic depends upon the perception of We, the People. The OLC also argues that the need to wage war successfully, even domestically, exceeds individual rights. The most immediate question: how do we find balance? From my assessment of these memoranda, the greatest challenge to our freedom and the greatest tension between State power vested in the Executive and our constitutional rights came in the intelligence surveillance discussion. From Yoo’s first memo, “We believe that changing FISA's requirement that ‘the’ purpose of a FISA search be to collect foreign intelligence to ‘a’ purpose will not violate the Constitution.” He was considering the use of warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens. I find it disconcerting that our fundamental right to privacy could hinge upon one simple choice of article in the laws. This is precisely the direct worry of the Founders / Framers . . . the power of the executive to “decide” what is in the best interests of the Nation. While the OLC memoranda may accurately represent the President’s authority and power to wage war successfully, the documents fail to present a balanced view of the Executive’s power against the delicate checks & balances intended within the Constitution, and more importantly, the perception of We, the People. Yet, I boil everything down to one fundamental, basic fact. We can view all the political / judicial machinations regarding various aspects of the War on Islamic Fascism (I continue to use the proper title regardless of the President’s politically correct rejection) as parochial political pushin’ & shovin’, however I remain convinced all this superheated imbroglio stems from one simple mistake by President Bush – not seeking a full and proper declaration of war [220 et al]. The OLC saw the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-40] as equivalent to a declaration of war. Many others, apparently including the Obama administration, disagree. We dealt with a troubling national question at the core of the Vietnam War; we will deal with the core question in the War on Islamic Fascism. Are we at war?

In what appears to be a consequence of the release of the memoranda noted above, a Spanish prosecutor is investigating six Bush administration legal advisors for violation(s) of the various Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Torture Convention.
-- Alberto R. Gonzales [161 et al] – former Attorney General of the United States
-- John Choon Yoo – former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
-- Douglas J. Feith [344] – former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
-- William James “Jim” Haynes II – former General Counsel, Department of Defense
-- Jay Scott Bybee – Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Yoo’s boss at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; FYI, Bybee now sits on the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit); and
-- David S. Addington – chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney (Addington replaced ‘Scooter’ Libby [199]).
This legal initiative presents a number of interesting challenges to the Obama administration, and the reflections should give us significant insight into what we can expect from this administration.

The Obama administration has reversed a decision by the Bush administration to shun the United Nations' premier rights body to protest the influence of repressive states, according to U.N. diplomats and rights activists.

A federal judge ruled on Thursday that some prisoners at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan can petition U.S. civilian courts for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. This is bad law and terrible precedent.

Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Loompa chose to defy the civilized world and launched a long-range missile, over Japan into the Pacific Ocean, thus setting itself up for increased sanctions. The DPRK claimed the missile was intended to launch a communications satellite into space. The only problem with their claim . . . they forgot the rest of the world did not flunk high school physics. Let’s see how the World handles this challenge.

One more thing . . .
All this kerfuffle about Obama using the teleprompter to make sure he gets his words right is a bunch of hooey. I am glad he uses the device. I am thankful he cares enough about his words, and how his words are perceived by We, the People, as well as the wider World audience. It seems to me that the folks who harp on him about his use of the teleprompter simply want him to stumble . . . some for fodder to yammer on about, some because they just want him to fail, and some because they need something to complain about or seek partisan, parochial, political leverage for the next election. Whatever the reasons may be for such ludicrous criticism, I wish to publicly proclaim my admiration for President Obama’s respect for the language and the communications of public oratory.

News from the economic front:
-- Another perspective of the AIG bonus fiasco:
“Dear A.I.G., I Quit!”
by Jake DeSantis (executive vice president)
New York Times
Published: March 24, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?th&emc=th
-- The chief executive of AIG’s French unit and his deputy have resigned and may have begun an exodus of employees following the public outcry over bonuses.
-- ABCNews broadcast an exposé on Joseph J. ‘Joe’ Cassano (former president of AIG’s Financial Products unit) [358], who departed with US$300M and now lives in London, with no intentions of returning to the United States. Gee, I wonder why?
-- In an unusual move, the Obama administration demanded the resignation of General Motors CEO George Richard “Rick” Wagoner, Jr., as a condition for further financial aid to avoid bankruptcy. Presumably, the new CEO Frederick A. “Fritz” Henderson enjoys the government’s confidence, for now. In addition, the USG gave the company a final 60 days to present a more aggressive restructuring plan. The President laid blame for the auto industry’s difficulties on a failure of leadership in Washington, D.C., and in Detroit. Obama said, “The pain being felt in places that rely on our auto industry is not the fault of our workers . . . And it is not the fault of all the families and communities that supported manufacturing plants throughout the generations . . . Rather, it is a failure of leadership.” This is where I disagree with the President by his omission. The auto industry workers do, in fact, share the blame along with the union leadership, who sought short-term personal gain over the long-term health of the company. Let us call this what it is, rather than pretend it is an inconvenient portion of the whole. Nonetheless, the Obama administration’s tough-love approach to the auto industry did not sit well with the marketplace.
-- Apparently, according to the Wall Street Journal, Hewlett-Packard is considering replacing Microsoft's Windows operating system loaded on its netbook computers with software developed by Google. H-P programmers are testing Google's Android system –designed for cellphones – for applicability to the company’s new netbook computers.
-- The European Central Bank cut its benchmark rate by 0.25% to 1.25% -- a smaller cut than some economists apparently expected.
-- The U.S. unemployment jumped another 0.4% to 8.5%, the highest level since November 1983, as non-farm jobs declined by another 663,000 in March, pushing the total unemployed past five million, since the recession started 16 months ago.
-- Beleaguered, mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced their expectation to pay about US$210M in retention bonuses to 7,600 employees over 18 months. Ah, yes, the beat goes on.
-- President Obama attended and contributed to the G-20 Economic Summit this week in London. From all the gushy Press coverage, the Summit was a success. The President took advantage of his business jet transportation to visit other European countries as well as the Islamic, European-wannabe Turkey. Regardless of our political leanings, we must admire Barack and Michele for their ability to wow our allies.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- British prosecutorial investigators have claimed good progress in their pursuit of Bernie Madoff’s helpers in London. I hope British justice hammers them all. To my knowledge, British prisons are not so cushy as their American counterparts. Perhaps, we should request Bernie and all his accomplices suffer the rigors of British prisons.
-- Regulators in the State of Massachusetts have charged Fairfield Greenwich, a feeder fund to Bernard Madoff's investment operation, with fraud. In the complaint, regulators allege a “profound disparity” between the due diligence Fairfield represented to its investors and the due diligence it actually conducted with respect to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Presumably, charges against individuals who ran Fairfield are not far behind.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Former Illinois Governor Milorad R. ‘Rod’ Blagojevich has been indicted by a federal grand jury on numerous corruption charges. The 19 counts against Blago, his brother, two top aides, and two other businessmen should be sufficient to incarcerate them for a good period of time, which might enable them to contemplate the grievous transgressions of their arrogance of power.
[NOTE: With the news of the prosecutorial travesty surrounding former Senator Ted Stevens as well as my perception of grotesque abuses of power by the previous administration, I truly hope there is no similar malfeasance in the prosecution of Blago and his cronies.]

One last personal note on economic front:
Amid the swirl of bold-face greed, accusations, and the search for answers, let us not forget that this crisis would not have become what it is, if so many of our fellow citizens had not believed they could get something for nothing and had not signed up for those “too good to be true” sub-prime mortgages. This calamity began in all those escrow offices when our fellow citizens signed up for home loans they could not afford, or could not sustain or maintain. If we want to blame someone, the true blame rests with We, the People.

Comments and contributions from Update no.380:
“I will agree with Mr. Spitzer on the AIG bailout. Insuring speculative high-risk investments tends to lead to losses. So? As disgusting as the bonuses were, the actions upon which they were based have cost is a far larger amount in the bailout. AIG took suicidal risks. Those losses should be spread around to all of those speculators, not just that batch who work for that company.
My reply:
Indeed! The guy who thought insuring high-risk derivative financial instruments was a good deal – easy money – is the one who should suffer the consequences, as Bernie Madoff is now experiencing. Unfortunately, that guy is living the cushy life in London on his US$300M, take away, slush fund. Even more regrettably, millions are now unemployed, surviving on meager State assistance, because of this man’s really stupid, greedy decisions and the knock-on effects of those decisions. In principle, those who thought up credit default swaps and all the other faux-value devices should suffer the full consequences, but the reality is, those greedy men will, for the most part, NOT suffer the consequences; it will be all the rest of us who had nothing to do with those risky decisions who will bear the weight of bad money.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . round two:
“Your point is well taken with respect to the current villains. Whoever said ‘crime doesn't pay’ either lied or didn't know about these people. I'll note here that much of what they did was technically legal. They were able to get what regulators still existed to go along with nearly anything, under the silly premises of ‘voluntary compliance’ and ‘self-regulation.’ Despite that, the smarter ones have homes in places from which deportation would be difficult, and they have reserved part of their ill-gotten gains for excellent attorneys.
“We can, however, stop or punish the next generation of those corrupt bastards. In order to do that, two things must happen.
“(A) We must admit, as a society, that government's role in society includes setting limits to corporations; the sole purpose of corporations is to make money. That they often do that in a short-sighted and merciless way reflects the nature of the people who are drawn to work with large amounts of money. The individuals we are discussing knowingly made destructive decisions which ought to land them in prison, but a deeper issue remains here. It is government's job, not corporate America's, to keep a long-term, society-wide perspective that will keep us out of future misadventures.
“(B) We must then provide actual, appropriate paychecks for enough people who have the ability and background to set those limits. That involves stopping the endless, politically motivated tax cuts. If the regulators have been laid off or their paychecks are far lower than in the industries they attempt to regulate, good intentions and laws based on them will not prevent future disasters.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Good points all.
I advocate for regulation of the financial markets just as I support laws for public conduct. Crime, greed, and such are, in simple terms, disrespect for other citizens. We need laws to prosecute the bad men like Madoff, Stanford, Cassano, et al. We clearly have gone too far with deregulation of the mortgage, financial services, and banking businesses. Yet, conversely, I have little interest for intruding upon the internal affairs of business, except where there is the potential for injury, or it affects the public domain. If a Board is foolish enough to authorize exorbitant bonuses that ultimately bankrupt the company, so be it. Where corporate governance crosses the line occurs when they approach the public treasury for assistance; then, we have every right, nay expectation, to demand appropriate concessions, including the resignation of the Board and executives. I do not want to government regulating compensation including bonuses. The government does not belong in the Board room or executive / labor management. Nonetheless, these are extraordinary times.
. . . round three:
“I share your approach, although I suspect that my definition of ‘the potential for injury, or it affects the public domain’ will be considerably broader than yours, largely because I would not cost the customer money if he or she followed the ‘professional’ advice of the greedy people, who are required to be licensed to give this advice in many cases.
“Whether the managers of AIG, etc., run their companies into bankruptcy does not concern me beyond the above exceptions--but those exceptions matter a great deal. Given that AIG, Fannie May, Freddy Mac and many of the other companies involved in our current catastrophe have millions of customers each, many of whom are essentially innocent, I think each of those companies affects the public domain. To come back to a person I mentioned in a personal message, she had no way to know that using two mortgage loans was a risky way to buy a house. She attempted to buy her first property with no background in real estate or banking. She relied upon the advice of someone unscrupulous. She understands now, in the light of subsequent learning, that her deal falling through saved her great trouble later. If we multiply her by millions of others, most of whom completed those mortgages, do not the empty houses, high volume of bankruptcies, dropping property values of entire neighborhoods where foreclosure rates are high, and associated stressors add up to a public domain issue? Right now, the case for re-regulation seems overwhelming to me. Are the ‘internal affairs’ of these corporations really ‘internal’ if they result in this kind of mess for the entire world?”
. . . my reply to round three:
As you note, perhaps our definitions are different. I am a firm believer in risks and rewards, like mountains and valleys, or sunny and rainy days, or pain and pleasure. We need that contrast to inspire, to encourage ambition, innovation, and advancement. Risk is a necessary part of life.
The objective of regulation, in my mind, is illumination of risk, not allowing risk to be masked or hidden. I have no objection to gambling. If someone wants to gamble on futures, derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, with their money, more power to ‘em. Some folks enjoy slot machines and the crap tables; good for them; but, they play with their money, not mine. That is where deregulation failed us all.
The notion of creating fictitious financial instruments . . . credit default swaps, my word, what were they thinking? Not only that, taking out an insurance policy against loss on an already highly risky, actually deeply hidden risk, was insanity; due diligence was just too much work. There were layers of masking mechanisms, hiding the risk. The whole building was built with soft brick and mild steel. The weakness began with the individual mortgage contract – the single brick. Those were packaged together in larger & larger bundles, and then, took out insurance against loss. As I said, what were they thinking? And, there was no independent inspector to call a spade a spade – a soft brick.
Caveat emptor . . . it’s been true & valid for millennia. Let us return to rational investment and shine a bright light on greedy men claiming to consistently return 2-3 times the prevailing rate of return.

Another contribution:
“This will be brief because my time for lengthy lectures in front of captive audiences is long past, but you raised a question about the constitutionality of the House bill to implement a 90% tax on bonuses distributed to AIG employees. Now that the pitchforks and torches mentality has subsided, it's probably a moot point. However, this is a clear violation of the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder, and, most likely, ex post facto laws. The bonuses were permitted under the initial terms of TARP in the previous administration and reaffirmed during the conference committee resolution of the stimulus package (apparently at the behest of the Obama Treasury Department) in February because of concerns about existing contract law (in Connecticut). One could argue whether it is a wise use of Federal tax money to clean the knickers of financiers who shat all over the American people and the world in their pursuit of fantasy financial football scores; still, there can be no argument that it is unconstitutional to impose retroactive penalties on individuals who broke no existing law. Moreover, it is chilling to contemplate a government that would use the tax code to punish those with whom the majority of Americans disagree.
“It is time to look forward rather than backward, using our fingers to point to solutions rather than to identify blame. I am not a Pollyanna. I tend always to agree with Publius (Federalist Papers) about the less than angelic nature of mankind. But I also believe in the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of the American people and the resilience and strength of our Constitution. This, too, shall pass.”
My response:
Thank you for your opinion regarding the constitutionality of the bonus tax bill [H.R.1586]. My query sought the contributor’s opinion regarding the constitutionality of H.R.1586. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 uses plain language: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” We could argue whether H.R.1586 is either, but the issue is moot, since the bill appears destined to die a fortuitous death in Senate committee – ill-advised from the get-go. I see it for what it was – political grandstanding to distract inquiry into the culpability of Members of Congress. I trust, rather I hope, senators actually read the Constitution before such a bill ever comes to the floor for debate.
There are many lessons to be learned from the last three decades of deregulation – the removal of law from the marketplace. Not least of which, the rule of law is vital in any society, on Main Street, and in the marketplace, to regulate public conduct. We removed the law from the marketplace. Flawed human beings proved themselves unworthy of trust – greed overcame morality.
We will undoubtedly debate the wisdom of Federal intervention in the current banking and economic crisis. As I have written, I am not a fan of government in private affairs, yet bankers literally gambling with other people’s money stretches the public-private boundary, and an insurance company protecting against losses of what is essentially a crap-shoot pales the question of reasonableness. My motivation is minimization of the collateral damage to predominately innocent citizens and prosecution of as many of perpetrators as the law will allow. Many in the Update forum, and elsewhere, condemn the government’s efforts as socialism. Regardless, iacta alea est.
Your closing point is actually my biggest worry – reactionary over-regulation in the aftermath. to compensate for the “less than angelic nature of mankind.” The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511] left us ill-prepared for the War on Islamic Fascism. I fear the regulatory reform in the wake of the mortgage crisis may leave us unable to compete in the World marketplace. We shall see.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Ah, the dreaded specter of socialism. This is the bogeyman that proponents of laissez faire capitalism always drag out whenever any discussion of government regulation of the private sector takes place. What most do not realize is that the United States has had a mixed economy, to a greater or lesser degree, ever since the Progressive Era with its great champions, Theodore Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette. Private greed unfettered by oversight has never been an efficient or ultimately productive basis for a national economy. Even the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, based on self interest, was not completely unregulated. What we have ultimately lost sight of is the notion of ‘enlightened self interest,’ or ‘self interest rightly understood.’ It is not rational to indulge our every whim, to borrow and spend without regard to the future, to exhaust and waste our resources and despoil our planet, and to ignore the very real threat of putting our country in hock to other nations whose own self interest is at odds with ours.
“Although there are certainly aspects of the Obama administration's recovery plan that are troublesome, by and large, I think it is on the right track. The alternatives offered by opponents border on whacko, offering more of the same that got us into this mess only worse. What will be most crucial to the success of the Obama blueprint will be a change in the mindset of most Americans. Or to be more accurate, a return to the mindset of my parent's generation when it was understood you didn't buy things you couldn't afford; that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is (I am thinking of those wonderful derivatives invented by our world-class financiers); and that sacrifice is not a dirty word.
“My thoughts for what they are worth.”
. . . and my follow-up comment:
As a past contributor observed, “there is a little bit of communist in all of us.” Yes, the rhetoric does get a bit strained when we bandy about such catalytic monikers. Pure, ideological communism, to European-grade socialism, to laissez-faire, free market, capitalism, all have mortal flaws and limitations usually reflected in the weaknesses of mankind. Some balanced system, as we have tried to seek in fits & jerks, most likely will serve us better. We bear witness to the consequences of unchecked capitalism. The long and the short of it . . . human beings cannot be trusted. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [Thank you, Lord Acton] As always . . .excellent commentary of the human condition and the foibles of our present situation.
When I feel a twinge of humor, I do chuckle at the politicos from the last administration / congress, who now cast aspersions upon the new administration for doing more of the same. There are aspects of the Obama administration’s economic recovery program that bother me deeply, not least of which being their unwillingness to challenge Congress on earmark spending and the paucity of accountability in the financial sector. Reservations aside, I am impressed by and supportive of the administrations’ efforts to do something. Doing nothing is simply untenable. Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” . . . indeed!
I absolutely agree with your “mindset” change. We can only hope our generation and our children’s generation (as they are well into their spending years) learn the lessons of this debacle.
As we see in the snippets from the periphery of the G-20 Summit, the World blames the United States for the pain of this recession, and sadly, we must humbly bear that blame. What began in the disastrous sub-prime mortgage business, became dramatically amplified by the foolish façade of Wall Street investment banking -- collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, and insurance policies on all that foolishness; those boys thought they were just so freakin’ smart. “This is a fine mess you got us into, Ollie.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)