Illegal Government Surveillance Was In The Offing BEFORE 9/11

Ken AshfordWiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

9/11 changed everything?  Hardly…

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio’s lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans’ phone records.

In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest’s refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.

Nacchio was convicted for selling shares of Qwest stock in early 2001, just before financial problems caused the company’s share price to tumble. He has claimed in court papers that he had been optimistic that Qwest would overcome weak sales because of the expected top-secret contract with the government. Nacchio said he was forbidden to mention the specifics during the trial because of secrecy restrictions, but the judge ruled that the issue was irrelevant to the charges against him.

Nacchio’s account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.

Fun Begins Tonight For Curseless Sox

Ken AshfordRed Sox & Other SportsLeave a Comment

The Red Sox nation is confident, maybe even cocky. 

And why not?  This ain’t 2004…

In 2004, she always felt that "something will happen." Now, she says, the Nation is eager to see if the team can take care of business. "That year they didn’t win their division. Now they have. Now they won’t be the underdog. They have to be the leader."

Beckett is still hot, with a lot of post season experience (half of Beckett’s six career postseason starts have been complete-game shutouts).

But  Sabathia (also a Cy Young candidate) is a member of the AL pitching elite and deservedly so.

Expect a low-scoring game tonight.  I think it will actually come down to the success or failure of the closers.  Should be fun and – yay! — with no rehearsal tonight, I get to see it.

Two Americas

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Health CareLeave a Comment

As some say, the rising tide is only lifting the yachts.

The Pew Research Center reported this week that the public is quickly becoming aware of the perverse economic polarization of society:

Over the past two decades, a growing share of the public has come to the view that American society is divided into two groups, the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Today, Americans are split evenly on the two-class question with as many saying the country is divided along economic lines as say this is not the case (48% each). In sharp contrast, in 1988, 71% rejected this notion, while just 26% saw a divided nation.

The reason most Americans perceive this is because  — well, because it’s true.  Greg Ip reports:

The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.

The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000. [. . .]

To think of this a bit more concretely, if you took a representative 100 Americans and split $5 of income between them, here’s how it would look: One guy would get $1.06, forcing the other 99 to split the remaining $3.94.  Of that $3.94, the bottom 50 would split 64 cents among themselves. The leftover $3.30 would be divvied up among the remaining 49 folks.

For an anecdotal look at the bottom 50% and how they are treated by Republicans, you can look around you (probably), or even better — read this.

UPDATE:  And E.J. Dionne, too:

The left is accused of all manner of sins related to covetousness and envy whenever it raises questions about who benefits from Bush’s tax cuts and mentions the yachts such folks might buy or the mansions they might own. But here is a family with modest possessions doing everything conservatives tell people they should do, and the right trashes them for getting help to buy health insurance for their children.

Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for . . . attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What’s the logic here?

Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn’t even think about applying for SCHIP.

Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories — most of them don’t check out — about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?

Oh, yes, and conservatives tell us how much they love homeownership, and then assail the Frosts for having the nerve to own a home. I suppose they should have to sell that, too.

The real issue here is whether uninsured families with earnings similar to the Frosts’ need government help to buy health coverage. With the average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually — the price is usually higher for families trying to buy it on their own — the answer is plainly yes. All the conservative attacks on a boy from Baltimore who dared to speak out will not make this issue go away.

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Ken AshfordEnvironment & Global Warming & EnergyLeave a Comment

Well, he shares it:

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work towards raising awareness about global warming.

The Nobel committee cited them "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

The IPCC and Gore will each receive a gold medal, a diploma and split about $1.5 million. The award ceremony will be held Dec. 10 in Oslo, Norway.

"Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in making the announcement.

"Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being "one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians."

He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," said Mjoes.

How many other people have won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize?  My guess?  Zero.

Only a matter of time before the Supreme Court gives Gore’s medal to Bush.

Yes, Even More On The Frosts

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Right Wing Punditry/Idiocy2 Comments

The attacks are still going strong from Michelle Malkin.

Here’s what she wrote today:

Mark Steyn, presumably taking his marching orders from Mitch McConnell (snort-snort), hits the nail on the head once again:

Mr Frost works “intermittently”. The unemployment rate in the Baltimore metropolitan area is four-percent. Perhaps he chooses to work “intermittently,” just as he chooses to send his children to private school, and chooses to live in a 3,000-square-foot home. That’s what free-born citizens in democratic societies do: choose. Sometimes those choices work out, and sometimes they don’t.

She adds:

The accident was horrible. The children deserve much sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences.

Now, for a Malkin flashback.  Here’s what Malkin wrote back in August 27, 2004 (and remember, Malkin lives in Maryland, same as the Frosts).

America’s broken health insurance system

I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage.

After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.

We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.

That was the assessment from Michelle Malkin, author and Fox News commentor, and (presumably) a person far more well-off than the Frosts, then and now.

Right Brain v Left Brain

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

Which way is this dancer spinning – clockwise or counter-clockwise?

NOTE: If the picture is choppy or grainy, click on it and look at it in a separate window…

0568782000

If clockwise, then you use more of the right side of the brain and vice versa.

Most of us would see the dancer turning counter-clockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe 		RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

From The Daily Telegraph

For what it’s worth, she went counter-clockwise for me.  Then I "made" her go clockwise, and now I can’t get it back to counter-clockwise.

This Is Getting Good [UPDATE: Michelle Declines]

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

I promised myself I’d stop writing about the Frost thing, but I love this — an Ezra Klein challenge:

Let’s Debate

"It’s militant leftist bloggers," writes Malkin, "who wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip." Let’s have a good faith argument. I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum (save HotAir TV, which she controls), on the particulars of S-CHIP. We can set the debate at a think tank, on BloggingHeads, over IM. Hell, we can set up the podiums in the shrubbery outside my house, since that seems to be the sort of venue she naturally seeks out. And then if Malkin wants an argument, she can have one. We’ll talk S-CHIP and nothing but — nothing of the Frosts, or Congress, or her blog.

My sense has been that Malkin doesn’t want an argument. Rather, she wants to feed her readers the steady stream of outrage that keeps her traffic numbers up. But I realized tonight that I could be wrong, and I shouldn’t assume Malkin doesn’t want a real argument unless I actually ask her.

So c’mon Michelle: Let’s debate health care. Prove to the world that you really want "a good-faith argument." We can talk crowd-out, and cross-subsidization, and whether lower-middle class entrepreneurs are able to procure health care on the individual market. If this is a policy argument you care so deeply about as to travel to the Frost family’s house to see if they really deserved S-CHIP benefits, surely you’ll want to set up a web cam and talk through the issue.

Malkin will, of course, decline or find some reason to avoid a good-faith debate.  Especailly with Ezra, who knows this shit inside and out.

P.S.  The latest state of play in the blogowar here, from the Orange Devil himself.

NEXT MORNING UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin gets all French and predictably declines in a ranting, frothing, and incoherent screed in which she launches another full-scale attack on Ezra Klein and anyone he’s met, talked to, or sat next to in an airport departure lounge:

On behalf of all liberal bloggers of purported good faith, the Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein has chivalrously stepped up to the plate to challenge me to a debate about S-CHIP.

I’m. Trrrrembling.

With. Laughter.

A good-faith debate would require that Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein actually be a person of good faith. He is treated as such in some elite conservative circles, where his work is linked frequently and intellectual repartee among the Beltway boys’ club is warm and chummy. He is free to continue traveling in those cozy circles where highbrow right-wingers are not so mean and scary.

But I’d just as soon share a stage, physical or virtual, with Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein as I would with Chris Matthews, Geraldo Rivera, or an overflowing vat of liquid radioactive waste.

***

Good faith, eh? What would Ezra Klein know about it?

Now, run along and thump your chest over your “victory” at BloggingHeadsTV or something.

I have to get back to work. You know, “stalking.” “Assault.” “Savagings.” “Howling. “Braying.” “Hateful orgies.”

That stuff.

It really speaks for itself, and is worthy of a chuckle or two — although it can be summed up in this Pandagon translation:

Having redefined “good faith” arguments as harassing anyone who offers a different political opinion than me and “bad faith” arguments as substantive policy discussions I will lose because I couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with an instruction manual, I decline to debate you. You’ll want to talk about terrible things you should be ashamed of to bring up in public, like the effectiveness of a certain policy at reaching certain goals, instead of important issues for polite company, like what the Frosts did with their kitchen decor and who do they think they are?!

Yet Even More On The Right Wing Attacks On The Frosts

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

The Baltimore Sun covers it.

It has a nice picture of the Frosts in front of their home, which conservative bloggers (attacking them as rich fat cats) say is worth $400,000.

33121747_2

From the article:

Bonnie Frost was driving children Zeke, Graeme and Gemma in Baltimore County in December 2004 when the family SUV hit a patch of black ice and slammed into a tree. Graeme sustained a brain stem injury; Gemma suffered a cranial fracture.

The family relied on SCHIP during the more than five months that the children were hospitalized. Graeme had to learn again to walk and talk, his parents say; he remains weak on his left side and speaks with a lisp. Gemma is blind in her left eye; she has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and sees a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with her frustration.

"Her personality has changed," Bonnie Frost said yesterday. "She’s not the same girl."

Bonnie and Gemma Frost joined Pelosi at the Capitol Hill news conference before the SCHIP vote. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Graeme to record the radio address.

It was the news coverage of that broadcast that set off the blogo- sphere. A pseudonymous contributor to Free Republic cataloged the $20,000 cost of tuition at the Park School, the $160,000 Halsey Frost paid for his warehouse in 1999 and the $485,000 for which a neighbor sold his home in March. Links were provided to photos of the Park School’s 44,000-square- foot Wyman Arts Center and the Frosts’ 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times.

Soon strangers were posting accusatory messages describing Halsey Frost as a business owner who lived on a street of half-million-dollar homes, worked out of his own commercial property and paid to send his children to private school, yet still took advantage of government-funded health care.

The article includes a comment from the blog Red State, and it’s typical of the kinds of comments I’ve seen emanating from the right blogosphere:

"Hang ’em. Publically," the contributor wrote. "Let ’em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

And another:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. … I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I’d do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

And all because their kid Graeme made a radio address speaking out in favor of SCHIP, which allowed him to get health care his brain injury.

Golddigger Gets Pwned

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Heather Maggs sent me an email:

This is a direct post off Craigslist Women Seeking Men…

St3389golddiggerposters_2Okay guys, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 – 250. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won’t get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

– Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics – bars, restaurants, gyms.

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)?

– Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there?

– Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows – lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

– How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

* it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

Well, fine.  She gets a "10" for honesty; "1" for class.

This is the kind of thing that lights a fire under me.  Take for example: "Most beautiful women are superficial".  Geez, I hope not.  Because superficiality ain’t attractive.  In fact, if she wanted an answer to her questions about where to find the rich successful men, she might want to take a look at the superficiality factor.

Fortunately, some guy –a young executive at a California investments firm — responded better than I ever could.  If you’re a woman who identifies with the author of the above Craigslist personal, read closely the following response:

Sugardaddy4012PostingID: 432279810
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.

Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here’s how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of please, let me know.

UPDATE:  An urban legend?