Today, let's celebrate the spirit of the season with a dramatic reading by Illinois Gov. Dead Meat of a timeless holiday classic.
So think of this column as you would an old episode of "Masterpiece Theatre," in which I'm some cultured fellow with an English accent, introducing the governor, who recites the famous poem eagerly anticipated by young and olde:
" 'Twas the Night Before Fitzmas."
But first, down in Springfield on Wednesday, legislators were dancing for the TV cameras, like monkeys on strings, in the impeachment of the governor of Illinois.
Edward Genson, officially the lawyer for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and close friend of Blagojevich's shadow governor state Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-How You Doin?), made headlines. Genson demanded three legislators be yanked off the impeachment committee for making comments critical of the governor. Is Genson funny, like a clown?
He didn't demand that another impeachment panel member, state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Pastries) be removed, even though Fritchey has been an ostentatious reformer of late, busy in the news media expressing his righteousness.
But in real life, Fritchey is the son-in-law of powerful 36th Ward boss Sam "Pastries" Banks. Fritchey's brother-in-law, Jimmy Banks, Pastries' son, makes a fortune as a zoning lawyer, getting zoning changes through the city committee chaired by his uncle and Pastries' brother, Ald. William "Now seems like a good time to retire" Banks. DeLeo is part of that no-neck 36th Ward empire.
TV legal analysts breathlessly ran with the story, "Genson demands ouster of critical lawmakers!" and didn't once question why Fritchey was not singled out. This tells me that politicians aren't the only dancing monkeys in Illinois.
The TV guys were dancing too, eagerly gobbling Genson's treats as ravenous monkeys are wont to do. They haven't yet figured out what you readers already know from Tuesday's column, about the DeLeo-Genson connection.
Dance, monkeys, dance.
Or, as The Killers wonder: Are they human? Or are they dancers?
Either way, today we're saved from cynical theatrics by an anonymous reader who penned " 'Twas the Night Before Fitzmas."
Let me set the scene. Imagine me speaking to you not in my nasal Chicago twang, but in the modulated voice of the late Alistair Cooke on "Masterpiece Theatre," sitting in a leather wing chair, a martini at my side, books like "The Outfit" and "Clout" at my elbow, and a crackling fire behind me.
Our story opens at Cafe Bionda, a Chicago hangout for politicians and wise guys. There, Gov. Dead Meat sits alone at the back table, weeping, guzzling flagons of hot mulled wine. He stands, and begins to lament:
'Twas the night before Fitzmas and all through the house
The federals were listening for the sound of a mouse.
The wiretaps were hung by the chimneys with care
With sugarplum visions of the rats they would snare.
And I in my tracksuit with Patti in bed
With visions of "bleepin' gold" running through our heads,
When out on the lawn, there arose such a herald,
I knew in an instant it must be Fitzgerald.
For a second, I thought this must be in jest,
Then the telephone said, "You're under arrest."
I rushed to the window and what did appear?
A sled full of subpoenas pulled by eight tiny reindeer.
More rapid than Outfit bookies, the coursers they came
And Patrick did whistle, and call them by name.
"Now Rezko! Now Kelly! Now Amrish and Stu!
On Wyma! On Harris! On Rahm and Ata too!"
And with a winsome grand jury so lively and quick
Jimmy called Genson, 'cause I'm in the thick.
Then I drew in my head and was turning around
And there stood Fitzgerald, who made not a sound.
But with a wink of his eye and a twist of his head
He let me know that I had plenty to bleepin' dread.
He pointed his finger alongside his nose,
I told him, "Hang loose," but up the chimney he rose.
I started to spill because I am no tool,
But then Eddie and Jimmy said, "Shut up you fool!"
Then Patti awoke all sweetness and light,
"You're bleeping holding up that bleeping Cubs bleep,
Right?"
Fitz sprang to his sleigh and the reindeer did bristle
While off in the distance, sang the jailhouse whistle.
I heard him exclaim to all within sight,
"Merry Fitzmas to all, except those I indict."
Author! Author! *golf clap* :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/18/2008 15:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The irony is that the Trib published before the investigation was completed, thus blowing any chance of catching the act of bribery and leaving Fitzgerald with a markedly weaker case.
So now we get weeks of self-congratulation and neener-neener from these so-called journalistic crusaders
#2
As I understand it (and I've been buried in other matters) a key Obama advisor who was angling for the senate seat was starting to be taped ... and is the daughter of a Chicago Trib journalist.
Pure coincidence that she very loudly announced one day that she wasn't interested in the appointment ... and shortly thereafter the Trib broke the story, ending the possibility of her incriminating herself on the Feds' recordings.
I *think* I got those details right but welcome correction if not. Like I said, I've mostly been buried in other things these last few weeks.
#3
Valerie Jarret is the daughter in law to Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. Her grandfather was also a big time Chicago pol. All coincidences, I am sure.
Posted by: ed ||
12/18/2008 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
Senator Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State designate of the incoming Obama administration has been given the most prestigious post in the Cabinet by her former presidential rival but also one of the toughest jobs in the U.S. government. The diplomatic challenges facing the United States are numerous, daunting and dangerous even as we are embroiled in a war against a global insurgency composed of radical Islamist terrorists and their local tribal, religious and governmental sympathizers. America’s diplomatic “brand” is sorely in need of rebuilding and our oldest security pillar, NATO, is failing in Afghanistan. There are herculean tasks awaiting Senator Clinton. However prepared or determined Hillary Clinton might be, the U.S. Department of State is not up to the job.
I say this not to bash foreign service officers. The average career diplomat is no more responsible for bad bureaucratic behavior in Foggy Bottom than a U.S. Army major in Iraq should be blamed for cost overruns for the Future Combat System. The problems of the State Department are systemic and thereÂ’s more than enough blame to go around. When State has reached the juncture where it is crippled in carrying out itÂ’s core mission of diplomacy because itÂ’s people lack language fluency, seldom leave massive fortress embassies and labor under a byzantine and dysfunctional personnel system marred by favortism and seniority, itÂ’s time to go back to the drawing board. The window of opportunity is now.
There many things wrong with the State Department as an institution and with the frankly insular and anachronistic cultural worldview that it tends to inculcate but starving State of operational funds and personnel - the historic reflex of the U.S. Congress - is not the road improvement. While money for “more of the same” is not an acceptable answer, demanding that diplomatic miracles be performed by the seat of the pants on a shoestring budget is a position worthy of a village idiot.
Now is the time for a strategic rebuilding of the State Department, as well as the Foreign Service, as the linchpin in a new national security system conceived in terms of interagency jointness, a Goldwater-Nichols Act on steroids. The old State Department structure was reformed by Charles Evans Hughes, who as Secretary of State in the early 1920Â’s found that his staff was too small and procedures too antiquated, to adequately cope with the modern world. So Huges rebuilt it, creating StateÂ’s specialization and mission structure that yielded a constellation of statesmen and grand strategists a generation later, including Dean Acheson and George Kennan, when America and the world needed their vision most. Great leaders either found new systems or they are the ultimate product of them. Secretary Hughes did a superb job but America can do better than our great-grandfatherÂ’s State Department.
I am no friend of Hillary Clinton, but by dragging the State Department into the 21st century, Hillary Clinton would be validating a President ObamaÂ’s choice in her as Secretary of State and rendering a great service to her country. As a candidate for president, she would have an unimpeachable gravitas that no other candidate could match.
The Department of State needs to be broken so that it may become stronger.
#2
At the close, conference convener Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law noted more than twenty strategies and specific actions..
This is the same Velvel who invested in the Madoff Ponzi scheme but won't say how much (hey, some things are confidential, unlike matters of national security, which must be exposed to the light of day ASAP.) Karma's a bitch.
Posted by: Matt ||
12/18/2008 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
Mary Schapiro, Barack Obama's choice to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), previously appointed one of Bernard Madoff's sons to a regulatory body that oversees American securities firms.
It has emerged that in 2001, Ms Schapiro, currently chief executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra), employed Mark Madoff to serve on the board of the National Adjudicatory Council — the division that reviews disciplinary decisions made by Finra.
Last week, Mark Madoff, with his brother, Andrew, were understood to have approached the authorities after their father apparently confessed to orchestrating a $50 billion securities fraud.
Mr Madoff is under house arrest in his $7 million Manhattan apartment and will be electronically tagged after he failed to secure further signatories to guarantee his $10 million bail.
#4
It starts the Roman cycle of prosecuting the predecessors. That sort of lead to the little Rubican incident with Caesar. That worked out well for the republic didn't it. Fools and the fools that travel with them, they be.
“One investor, Lawrence Velvel, 69, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, said he and a friend may have lost millions of dollars between them. “This is a major disaster for a lot of people… You work all your life, you finally manage to save up something, and somebody who’s entrusted with it, it turns out suddenly he’s a crook. Lots of people are getting fully or partially wiped out.”
How very convenient that MadoffÂ’s arrest also financially decapitates Velvel. Please draw your own conclusion and act accordingly.
#6
There is the assumption of a "pocket pardon" with regards to former presidents. In essence, the assumption is that they created a pardon for their high ranking cabinet officers and themselves, which they never make public, and retain after they leave office.
This avoids the ugly alternative, that once the Republicans got back into office, they would retroactively prosecute Obama, Clinton and Carter for wrongdoing.
#7
Carter should be prosecuted - and convicted - for hating America and general assholery, 'moose.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/18/2008 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Seems to be a U.S. thing:
If you haven't got a clue, sue
Posted by: European Conservative ||
12/18/2008 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
IIRC, Ms. Schapiro was a former FAA administrator that first brought the issue of unapproved aircraft parts (counterfeit) to light. But due to back stage pressure she was forced to resign and the program watered down to what is now called "suspect unapproved parts," where there is a bigger burden of proof required to get the bogus parts yanked and junked. Seems that there were some aircraft recyclers getting a bit fast and loose with reselling parts off crashed birds ( as in going to the scene of the crash and dragging struts, and other big major parts away while, in some cases, the victims had not yet been removed). there was also the problem of anybody with a lathe making parts and putting tags on them and selling them, and then the birds would fall outof the sky.
i think she is basically a good person.
why she is playing in this pool is beyond me.
Well, it's now out in the open: Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA -- is that any surprise?) is officially calling for a return of the "fairness doctrine." And not just the old one, that covered radio and television: she wants it to apply to cable and satellite programming, as well.
This could be a bit problematic. According to the original Fairness Doctrine, radio and TV broadcasters' use of public airwaves made them guardians of a public trust. As such, they were obligated to the government to promote what was deemed the common good. Cable and satellite companies are, by definition, not broadcasters, and therefore don't fall under the same presumed obligations.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to grant equal time to opposing points of view. For example, if a host spent an hour railing against kicking dogs, the station would be obligated to offer an hour to someone extolling the virtues of puppy-punting.
For all the high-minded rhetoric behind the return of the Fairness Doctrine, the underlying goal is the same: to rein in talk radio, where conservatism has found its greatest popular success. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller, are monumental success.
Conversely, liberals on the radio have been utter failures. Air America still limps along, but its market share has continually diminished and it has never made a single dime. Indeed, at some points it had to resort to shady (if not downright illegal) practices to stay solvent.
So, under a revived Fairness Doctrine, a station that aired Rush Limbaugh's entire three-hour show would be obligated to air three hours of counterpoint. Fair is fair, right?
Wrong.
The station that airs Limbaugh does so because it is profitable for them to do so. Its advertisers are willing to sponsor Limbaugh's show: that 's how it gets on the air.
Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? A lot fewer people. In fact, it's entirely possible that not enough sponsors will be found to cover the expenses of the anti-Rush show. So the station will have to decide whether or not they wish to continue to subsidize the anti-Rush show. But should they cut back (or cut out) the anti-Rush, then they have to cut back (or cut out) Limbaugh as well.
No, it's not the stated goal, but this will cripple talk radio. Given the potential headaches, most stations will simply get rid of political talk entirely.
As the saying goes, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
If this seems a bit familiar, it should: it's another example of the principle of "equality" not being applied to opportunity, but to results. As seductive and idealistic as that may sound, it never works, because it ends up punishing success and rewarding failure. If the same result arises no matter how hard you try (or don't try at all), why try hard?
Liberal talk radio has just as much of a chance to succeed as conservative talk radio. That it has failed is not the fault of conservative talk radio, and conservative broadcasters should not be punished for simply being more popular.
The call for "fairness" will severely cripple -- if not destroy -- the conservative talk radio market. And that is one of the more profitable markets in radio today, especially on the otherwise-dying AM band.
In the name of "fairness," one of the strongest forces for conservatism will be crippled, and broadcasters across the country will be devastated.
Just keep telling yourself: that's not a bug, it's a feature.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who will buy ads on the anti-Rush show? A lot fewer people. In fact, it's entirely possible that not enough sponsors will be found to cover the expenses of the anti-Rush show. So the station will have to decide whether or not they wish to continue to subsidize the anti-Rush show. But should they cut back (or cut out) the anti-Rush, then they have to cut back (or cut out) Limbaugh as well.
This government policy is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment against government takings without due process. The "fairness doctrine" permits Congress to abdicate its role as a protector of free speech and to make itself into a role it is much more comfortable with: a thief of private wealth.
#2
That it is even politically feasible to support such outrageous censorship (finally, an accurate use of the term, even minus "Congress passing any law" explicitly limiting freedom of the press) is - in a year when the word has lost its meaning - "unbelievable".
This sort of thing takes tinfoil-hat paranoia and validates it.
But we're supposed to be upset by the Patriot Act, or warrantless NSA surveillance - wherein there wasn't the slightest erosion of Constitutional protections or processes.
#5
I didn't realize Dennis Miller was a conservative talk show host. Has anyone informed him of this?
Cause I think he and most of his listeners think they are middle of the road. I guess if you're not a flaming liberal jagoff you must be a conservative nazi.
#9
I think Rush would enjoy being on half hour of every hour on NPR and PBS to ensure Fair play all around. When the Liberals learn they are destroying their own bastions of liberal thought they will start to rethink this silly plan.
#15
NPR gets about 2% of its money from the federal government; some more from states. They were bequeathed $225 million by Joan Kroc a while ago, bumped up salaries a lot at the time IIRC. Don't have the % for PBS but it was cut a fair amount in 2005.
On Friday, Hamas is expected to announce its final position regarding the cease-fire with Israel that expires on the same day.
During the past week, Hamas officials issued contradictory statements as to whether they would agree to the extension of the truce, which they refer to as a tahadiyeh (period of calm), sparking speculation about sharp differences among the movement's top brass.
The reports about a split in Hamas coincided with the movement's celebration of its 21st anniversary - an event that saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians attend Hamas's main rally in Gaza City earlier this week.
Continued on Page 49
Imagine using this at Gitmo
JAPANESE researchers have reproduced images of things people were looking at by analysing brain scans, opening the way for people to communicate directly from their mind. They hope their study, published in the U.S. journal Neuron, will lead to helping people with speech problems or doctors studying mental disorders, although there are privacy issues if it gets to the stage where someone can read a sleeping person's dreams.
"When we want to convey a message, we need to move our body, for example by speaking or by tapping a keyboard," said Yukiyasu Kamitani, the project's head researcher from the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International, a private institute based in Kyoto, Japan. "But if we can get information directly from the brain, it will be possible to communicate directly by imagining what we want to say, without having to move."
Such technology might one day open the way to communication for people who cannot speak or help visualise hallucinations to assist doctors diagnosing mental disorders.
When we see, light is converted into electric signals by the retina, at the back of the eye, then processed by the brain's visual cortex.
Researchers from the five institutions involved in the research used a medical brain scanner to look at activity patterns in the visual cortex. Mr Kamitani's team calibrated a computer program by scanning two volunteers staring at over 400 different still images in black, white and grey. Then, the volunteers were shown different black-and-white geometric figures and letters of the alphabet.
Their computer program was able to reproduce the figures and letters that the volunteers had seen, although more blurry than the originals.
"In this experiment, we reconstructed images of what people actually saw, but the brain's visual cortex is said to be active even when just imagining something," Mr Kamitani said.
The next step for the team is to study how to visualise images inside people's minds, he said. "We want to know how our subjective experiences and dreams are expressed inside our brains," Mr Kamitani said.
The study might lead to producing images of dreams. If the team does manage that there were potential privacy issues and strong safeguards would be needed, he said. "As accuracy rises, it is possible that information that people want to keep private could also be visualised while they are sleeping."
Posted by: European Conservative ||
12/18/2008 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Of course people used the smaller denominations for heating. In the last weeks before the system was changed people carried their daily (!) wages home in cartloads, but before you could buy some bread with it the whole load had become worthless.
No urban legend btw.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
12/18/2008 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
12/18/2008 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In other news:
In response to Obama's complaint that FOX News doesn't show enough Black and Hispanic people on their network, FOX has announced that they will
now air 'America's Most Wanted' TWICE a week!
#3
I do wonder what will happen to single mother type situations if the economy turns worse. Will women become a bit more protective to avoid pregnancies that will lead to raising the kid alone or will they take an any ship in a storm approach.
Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud is giving politicians and investors who failed to diversify another excuse to blame too little enforcement in U.S. financial markets. Talk about compounding a case of misplaced trust. The real lesson is that financial enforcement nearly always fails to protect investors, and this Ponzi scheme is merely typical.
Since 2000 and especially after the fall of Enron, the SEC's annual budget has ballooned to more than $900 million from $377 million. Its full-time examination and enforcement staff has increased by more than a third, or nearly 500 people. The percentage of full-time staff devoted to enforcement -- 33.5% -- appears to be a modern record, and it is certainly the SEC's highest tooth-to-tail ratio since the 1980s. The press corps and Congress both were making stars of enforcers like Eliot Spitzer, so the SEC's watchdogs had every incentive to ferret out fraud.
Yet they still failed to nail Bernard Madoff. Since at least 1992, when the SEC sued two accountants peddling Madoff investments while promising sky-high returns, the commission missed opportunities to dig deeper into his operations. In 1999, trader Harry Markopolos wrote that "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme," in a letter to the SEC. More recently, multiple SEC inquiries and exams in 2005 and 2007 found only minor infractions.
Continued on Page 49
Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy - a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.
The secretary's job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.
"He would be phenomenal," said retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, pointing to Mr. White's extensive background as a fundraiser for veterans' and military causes.
Fundraising is a qualification to be a Secretary of the Navy? Perhaps for the Bambi administration ...
#2
Wow, a Secretary of the Navy would couldn't even visit a ship or a naval base without an armed guard.
Bill Clinton was in effect barred from lots of military bases because his safety could not be assured. When he visited an aircraft carrier, sailors were offered the chance to stay below decks under armed guard, and many took up the offer.
#5
"sailors were offered the chance to stay below decks under armed guard, and many took up the offer."
female sailors?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
12/18/2008 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"He would be simply fabulous, no more soap on a rope." said retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001.
#7
Still stuck with the [Congress'] law. Members of the Executive don't have the Constitutional authority to override it. SCOTUS could overturn it, but has already established precedent that 'gay' is not a protected class. You don't want to stick the military in a ethical bind of choosing between their oath to uphold the Constitution and a illegal dictate cause in the end you throw out the leash that keeps them from ultimately being in charge. "Oh, we don't have to obey the law or be loyal to the Constitution?". Yep, that's a good plan.
#8
That's a whole a lot of ink to tell the readers William White is gay. But not a paragraph on why he is qualified to be secretary of the Navy, such as service experience.
Posted by: ed ||
12/18/2008 22:44 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Flawed analysis...the Japanese experience was because the firms involved would lose face if they defaulted, and the government couldn't allow that, because the government had encouraged them to follow the bad practices in the first place. Cultural...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud is giving politicians and investors who failed to diversify another excuse to blame too little enforcement in U.S. financial markets. Talk about compounding a case of misplaced trust. The real lesson is that financial enforcement nearly always fails to protect investors, and this Ponzi scheme is merely typical.
