Fascinating is not a word most would use to describe the now famous "AC Transit fight" and the subsequent discussion and analysis. But I would.
Especially the discussion and analysis. It's fascinating what people do not see when blinded by passion - even if it's right under their nose. Passion in this case being prejudice (racial and otherwise).
"The truth" is of course not a simple matter of one person being right, the other wrong "and here's the proof." It's much more interesting than that.
Both of the guys in this fight were wrong.
For those who have not seen it, here is a quick synopsis. A black and white man are arguing on a bus and their is a racial overtone to the argument. The white man walks away, sits down at the front of the bus. Words continue to be exchanged and the black man walks to the front to confront the white man, throws a punch, is counter attached and beaten up.
If that was all there was to it it would not be very interesting.
The white man is 67 (or so he says) and the black man is much younger.
Looks like a young black thug gets beaten up by an older white man who was just defending himself and it's an open and shut case, right?
Of course there is much more to it - and that's what makes it an interesting a story. The black man is hardly blameless but the story is just beginning.
If you haven't already watched it, please do so now. The url is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ&feature=PlayList&p=F5A1728DEE29C0EE&index=0&playnext=1
Notice that we don't see how the discussion started. The argument is already under way at the start of the clip. But if you look closely you pick up something pretty important that starts to change how you must look at the situation. The white man asks "what did you just say when you walked by me" and then a few seconds later the black man says "take your ass back up there and get the fuck out of my face right now", and then repeats it. The white man walks back to the front of the bus and sits down. Sits down where he was clearly sitting before.
That means the white man must have followed the black man to his seat after the black man walked past him after getting on the bus.
Otherwise their conversation makes no sense.
It had to have happened in roughly this way: the white man was already on the bus, sitting at the front when the black guy got on. Words were exchanged as the black guy walked past and then the white guy got up, followed the black man to his seat and sat down opposite him. Go back and watch the video again. Pay close attention to the words. Many analysts of this situation talk about how the white guy "walked away" and hence the black guy was the aggressor. Totally wrong. The white guy got up from his seat in the first place and followed the black guy to his and confronted him there. True, you didn't see that on the video but you can clearly tell. Unless you really want to see this story follow the "black criminal/white hero" narrative.
Now watch the beginning again and focus on how the black man pulls his bag close to him. Watch how he turns to the side and tries to face away from the white guy. Watch the white guy leaning over and talking much louder than the black guy. Notice how the white man stares down the black guy. His stare does not deviate and is very intense. The white guy is clearly trying to provoke the black guy. He is clearly picking a fight. He succeeds.
The next important point is a single word: "spit." Specifically, "how much you charge me for a spit shine." Not only is there a provocative racial element in that statement but a sexual overtone as well. "Give me a spit shine" is really equivalent to "lick my boots". Spit is a bodily fluid.
It seems likely that the initial dialog went down somewhat like this:
white guy: "hey how much would you charge to spit shine my shoes" (probably really loud so everyone on the bus could hear).
black guy: "what the fuck did you just say?"
white guy: "I'm going to a funeral and need to look real good, so how much would you charge to spit shine my shoes." (the white guy talks about a funeral later in the clip.)
black guy: "I'll spit shine your shoes when hell freezes over".
It's not plausible that a black man (or any man) would would offer to "spit shine" someones shoes out of the blue unless in the context of some sort of homosexual advance. Clearly that is not what was going on here.
The black mans "offer" was clearly along the lines of "I'll spit shine your shoes when hell freezes over".
The 67 year old white guy is the instigator here, not the victim. He is a predator.
67 years old or not, notice how quickly he disposes of the black man in the fight. Notice how big and strong he is. Notice the quick decisive left hand right off the bat - a direct hit. And subsequent sharp short punches that pretty much all find the mark. This is a man who knows how to fight. In contrast look at the so called "punch" thrown by the black man. That is not the punch of a man who wants to fight or even knows how to fight. It's a somewhat pathetic patty-cake thrown by a man who felt he had to "do something", felt backed in a corner and lost his composure. Notice how the white man easily blocks this initial "punch". He does it so effectively because he has been here before. He's been in a lot of fights and is clearly orchestrating the action. He has picked his victim out well in this case. The other man is much smaller than him and is intoxicated. I'm sure he could tell the other man was intoxicated. Also, the black man has a certain look to him. Corn cobs. Sunglasses. No one will side with him.
Smaller, weaker, black and intoxicated. A perfect victim.
But the feedback on the Internet and via call-ins to radio stations is heavily in favor of the white guy who has been deemed "Epic Beard Man" (EBM) and is generally against the black man who has been deemed "Tyrone". Much of the feedback supporting Epic Beard Man is overtly racist. See this for starters:
just see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egToL0RZJH0 for starters.
It's quite sad and disturbing to see how much racism and hate remains. Look at the other You-tube clips of "analysis" of this situation. Look at the comments. Notice how much delight there is in seeing a black man "put in his place." Most people who see the clip see the black man as the aggressor and I think they see it that way because they see black men in general as aggressors, in general as criminal. In general deserving whatever they get. "Tyrone" is proxy. But things about this situation that jump out at you if you have your eyes open are just utterly ignored when you have the "black men are criminals and violent" narrative going in your head. Many people are projecting their own racial animosity into this black man. Some of the white people siding with the white man are the types who would call Obama "racist" in the next breath. But remember, the start of this was the white man asking the black guy to "spit shine" his shoes.
EBM has even been elevated to hero status by some. People are making web sites glorifying him, they are making posters of him, t-shirts with his image on it. Radio stations are interviewing him. "Tyrone" is mocked and disbelieved. What "EBM" has said about it has pretty much been taken at face value.
EBM clearly has mental problems. Big problems. That is not obvious in the "fight" clip but it is if you see other videos of him or read about him. He has difficulty controlling his emotions - specifically his anger. He gets into fights regularly. He is a very dysfunctional and violent person, having spent 14 years in prison.
This seems irrelevant to much his fan base many who do acknowledge that he "has problems" but nonetheless give him kudos for "what he did". He knows how to play on racial stereotypes, accusing "Tyrone" of all sorts of horrible crimes - that it turns out are invented. In EBC's rants you can clearly see insanity: paranoia, delusions, confused thoughts. Yet the blogeratti have not just sided with him but many are even putting him on a pedestal. The word "hero" has been bandied about by an Oakland radio station. They are seeing what they want to see facts be damned.
Amazingly, many young aggressive/confident black men have chimed in in favor of EBM and against "Tyrone" who is mocked, derided and deemed fully deserving of the beating.
"Tyrone" turns out to be "Michael" and he goes on the air on Wild 94.9 in Oakland and turns out to be well spoken. He issues an apology. Apologizes to AC transit, apologizes to everyone on the bus. He admits being intoxicated. It's clear that the interviewer is not sympathetic and you can tell that he supports EBM's version of the events, not Michael's. The interviewer cuts Michael off as Michael is describes being baited by EBM and gives the listeners EBM's version: that Michael himself just offered to "spit shine" EBM's shoes. Does the interviewer ask himself why Michael would be angry about the discussion if he had "offered" the service to begin with? Does the interviewer realize how absurd that idea is. EBM is also interviewed by the same guy and his violent hateful rambling is generally approved of. You can see the whole clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I1r3dhMUO4
As you can see, he issues no apology and just claims he was attacked. He projects anger and rage. The interviewer smiles and nods his approval. The interviewer does not press him about his violent record or 17 years in prison.
The blogosphere has utterly ignored this: the fact that the black man has apologized and conducted himself well in the days after the incident while the white man has continued with violent hateful rants and is looking for additional fights. The fact that the white man has clear mental problems and a violent streak is not really mentioned. The behavior of the two in the days after the fight just does not follow the narrative of the black criminal and the heroic white man standing up to it - and hence is ignored.
But what about all the young black men chiming in in support of the white guy. What about that. Race is on the face of it not the reason for their support. Are they stupid? Just fooled by the obviously absurd "official line?" I don't think so. There seems to be some delight, some visceral satisfaction coming from them as well. My theory is they are just predators (or wannabe predators) taking delight in the successful actions of a fellow predator.
Being a successful predator trumps race.
In America today in the minds of many the predator is what you want to be. For this group of people, if you succeed at it, it trumps all else - even mental illness. "Epic Beard Man" is just sane enough to be a successful predator - at least on this one bus this one time and for that he gets plenty of kudos and plenty of support for that.
This story is rich in irony needless to say (black predators siding with a white predator for starters), and to me there is no better illustration of just how depraved our society has become than the response to this video. Some blinded by racism refuse to see how the black guy was set up, others can see it and approve.
Look the acknowledgment and approval of EBM's behavior in this video coming from a "reasonable" sounding white guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UaVfeXfbN4
look how he even gives deference to EBM and even claims people "identify" with EBM because "they don't want to get pushed around and stuff". In 1932 many Germans identified with Hitler because "they didn't want to get pushed around and stuff."
There should be no deference given to dregs like him EBM. The woman in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UaVfeXfbN4 is absolutely correct. This man is a creep. An angry violent hateful creep who cannot control his emotions and thrives on hurting people. The black man is just a victim here. He was drunk -and during the day-, he also has anger issues that were exploitable. He didn't have the social skills or composure to deal with the situation effectively. But make no mistake about it - EBM was picking this fight. EBM started the commentary about "spit shining". EBM followed the black man to his seat, sat down opposite him and confronted him. You don't see that in the video, but you can tell.
Glorifying people like EBM is exactly what is wrong with this country.
This is the most disturbing thing I have seen for quite some time. Not the video itself but the response. The response indicates growing cultural acceptance (and glorification even) of predatory behavior as well as a lot of remaining racism.
I suppose his cultural trend has been going on for some time but this video and the response really bring it home in a visceral way.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Classic propoganda
The following story which appeared on Fox on Feb 17 really meets the definition of classic propaganda. Speculations or fabrications presented as fact including the completely outrageous "Ahmadinejad has told the world all about his ultimate intentions. He seeks the destruction of Israel and of the United States."
The article was written by
Bradley Blakeman of Freedom's Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom%27s_Watch)
I wonder how much of this kind of propaganda - which is all over the U.S. media at present, is coming from groups like "Freedom's Watch"
Anyway they posit that a nation with an economy less than 1/10 the size of the U.S. and a weak military (no blue water navy, ancient air force) is going to preemptively strike and destroy the United States - the greatest economic and military power in history. This will happen sometime time after the AA Schaumburg fliers sweep the yanks in 4 games to win the world series. It's so absurd it's laughable: it's propaganda. They even claim below that Iran is stating openly that they are going to do this. It's almost to ludicrous to reply to.
I have actually watched Ahmadinejad being interviewed twice. Funny but he never talked about his plan to destroy the U.S. Funny but he never boasted about possessing a nuclear bomb (like the article below states). He DID talk about "peaceful" nuclear technology and insisted that Iran does have a right to "peaceful"
nuclear technology. He also did not deny the holocaust (yet another canard thrown at the man). What he did say about it is why should a middle eastern group (Palestinians) be punished for the sins of Europeans. On the subject of Israel, his responses were a bit vague and creepy and I'm guessing he would probably like to knock Israel back a bit (pre 1967 borders maybe?). If he has any agenda that's it. The destruction of Israel much less the U.S. is absurd. Some folks would clearly like us to THINK that to justify a pre-emptive attack.
Would Ahmadinejad like Iran like to rise up and knock Israel back a bit? Probably. I seemed to detect that kind of an agenda with him. But he will get nowhere. How long will he even last. If we were able to wait out the cold war, we can wait out Ahmadinejad. If a bomb is being constructed, hit it with a drone. My fear is that some elements in America (and maybe Israel) would like to rush to war before Iran even gets a chance to replace Ahmadinejad, therby putting American boots on the ground in the country with the worlds second largest reserve of oil and making another 'statement' that an American/Israel axis rules this planet, does what it wants and anyone who would dare cross it will be destroyed. Iraq was statement 1, Iran could be statement #2.
Pray that it does not go down that way. Hundreds of thousands of innocents would die for nothing (well maybe for Chevron and Exxon) and if you think the budget deficit and the U.S. reputation is bad now...
=================================================================================
Updated February 17, 2010
Iran Must Be Stopped
By Bradley Blakeman
The situation with Iran continues to become more dangerous by the day. How many will needlessly die before we act to prevent a repeat of what the world experienced during the time of Hitler?
President Obama came to power believing that he unilaterally could disarm Iran with his charm and conciliatory demeanor. He was wrong.
The president’s naiveté has given the Iranian government time to step up their nuclear weapons technology and crackdown on pro-democracy dissidents.
Last fall, President Obama held a press conference and announced that Iran was in fact well on their way to building a second uranium-enrichment plant. This was a significant announcement and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iran, in complete defiance of international law, is well on its way to building a nuclear weapon.
After his announcement did the president call for an emergency U.N. Security Council Meeting? Did he see to it that the most severe sanctions should be brought to bear on the Iranian government? No, he did not. He simply has called for more dialogue. Well, talk is cheap. The president squandered the perfect opportunity to lead the world in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Why did the president let the perfect forum to bring the Iranians to task before the world community slip away? Isn’t that what the Security Council is supposed to be for? Is nuclear proliferation by rogue regimes not important enough to convene the Council? The president most surely knew all the facts.
This should have been debated, and Iran should have been called before the Security Council to defend itself.
The president was intentionally derelict or grossly negligent in this missed opportunity. He had the president of Iran in New York. When the president made his announcement this past fall, most of the world leaders who make up the Security Council were at the Opening of the General Assembly in New York. All members of the Security Council should have had their feet put to the fire and either condoned this illegal activity or condemned it and sought serious measures to correct it. Sadly, Obama will turn out to be the Neville Chamberlain of our time.
Just this past week Iran’s president boasted defiantly that his country was a nuclear power. I take him at his word.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, like Adolf Hitler, is warning the world about his country’s ultimate intentions and his own. Hitler penned "Mein Kampf" in a jail cell. He explained his intentions for the world should he come to power.
At the time he wrote "Mein Kampf," Hitler was a prisoner and was not able to make good on his wishful intent. The world chose to ignore his warnings, let him come to power and then let him implement most of his stated goals. The president of Iran is doing the very same thing.
Ahmadinejad has told the world all about his ultimate intentions. He seeks the destruction of Israel and of the United States. His country is building the instrumentalities by which he could achieve his goals, while the world sits back and watches. Sixty million people perished during World War II, with weapons far more primitive than can be even be produced today. If lone homicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves for religious fanaticism, why then is it beyond the realm of possibility, that a leader is willing to sacrifice millions for the same beliefs?
We have seen it before. It has been said that, “If we do not learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Hitler wrote the following words in "Mein Kampf" that have been parroted almost verbatim today by the president of Iran: “I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” How many will needlessly die before we act to stop a repeat of what the world experienced during the time of Hitler?
Iran must be stopped, and stopped now. Either other responsible nations will join us or we must do the job alone. We have no choice. We must take these rogues at their word and pay attention to their deeds.
Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
The article was written by
Bradley Blakeman of Freedom's Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom%27s_Watch)
I wonder how much of this kind of propaganda - which is all over the U.S. media at present, is coming from groups like "Freedom's Watch"
Anyway they posit that a nation with an economy less than 1/10 the size of the U.S. and a weak military (no blue water navy, ancient air force) is going to preemptively strike and destroy the United States - the greatest economic and military power in history. This will happen sometime time after the AA Schaumburg fliers sweep the yanks in 4 games to win the world series. It's so absurd it's laughable: it's propaganda. They even claim below that Iran is stating openly that they are going to do this. It's almost to ludicrous to reply to.
I have actually watched Ahmadinejad being interviewed twice. Funny but he never talked about his plan to destroy the U.S. Funny but he never boasted about possessing a nuclear bomb (like the article below states). He DID talk about "peaceful" nuclear technology and insisted that Iran does have a right to "peaceful"
nuclear technology. He also did not deny the holocaust (yet another canard thrown at the man). What he did say about it is why should a middle eastern group (Palestinians) be punished for the sins of Europeans. On the subject of Israel, his responses were a bit vague and creepy and I'm guessing he would probably like to knock Israel back a bit (pre 1967 borders maybe?). If he has any agenda that's it. The destruction of Israel much less the U.S. is absurd. Some folks would clearly like us to THINK that to justify a pre-emptive attack.
Would Ahmadinejad like Iran like to rise up and knock Israel back a bit? Probably. I seemed to detect that kind of an agenda with him. But he will get nowhere. How long will he even last. If we were able to wait out the cold war, we can wait out Ahmadinejad. If a bomb is being constructed, hit it with a drone. My fear is that some elements in America (and maybe Israel) would like to rush to war before Iran even gets a chance to replace Ahmadinejad, therby putting American boots on the ground in the country with the worlds second largest reserve of oil and making another 'statement' that an American/Israel axis rules this planet, does what it wants and anyone who would dare cross it will be destroyed. Iraq was statement 1, Iran could be statement #2.
Pray that it does not go down that way. Hundreds of thousands of innocents would die for nothing (well maybe for Chevron and Exxon) and if you think the budget deficit and the U.S. reputation is bad now...
=================================================================================
Updated February 17, 2010
Iran Must Be Stopped
By Bradley Blakeman
The situation with Iran continues to become more dangerous by the day. How many will needlessly die before we act to prevent a repeat of what the world experienced during the time of Hitler?
President Obama came to power believing that he unilaterally could disarm Iran with his charm and conciliatory demeanor. He was wrong.
The president’s naiveté has given the Iranian government time to step up their nuclear weapons technology and crackdown on pro-democracy dissidents.
Last fall, President Obama held a press conference and announced that Iran was in fact well on their way to building a second uranium-enrichment plant. This was a significant announcement and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iran, in complete defiance of international law, is well on its way to building a nuclear weapon.
After his announcement did the president call for an emergency U.N. Security Council Meeting? Did he see to it that the most severe sanctions should be brought to bear on the Iranian government? No, he did not. He simply has called for more dialogue. Well, talk is cheap. The president squandered the perfect opportunity to lead the world in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Why did the president let the perfect forum to bring the Iranians to task before the world community slip away? Isn’t that what the Security Council is supposed to be for? Is nuclear proliferation by rogue regimes not important enough to convene the Council? The president most surely knew all the facts.
This should have been debated, and Iran should have been called before the Security Council to defend itself.
The president was intentionally derelict or grossly negligent in this missed opportunity. He had the president of Iran in New York. When the president made his announcement this past fall, most of the world leaders who make up the Security Council were at the Opening of the General Assembly in New York. All members of the Security Council should have had their feet put to the fire and either condoned this illegal activity or condemned it and sought serious measures to correct it. Sadly, Obama will turn out to be the Neville Chamberlain of our time.
Just this past week Iran’s president boasted defiantly that his country was a nuclear power. I take him at his word.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, like Adolf Hitler, is warning the world about his country’s ultimate intentions and his own. Hitler penned "Mein Kampf" in a jail cell. He explained his intentions for the world should he come to power.
At the time he wrote "Mein Kampf," Hitler was a prisoner and was not able to make good on his wishful intent. The world chose to ignore his warnings, let him come to power and then let him implement most of his stated goals. The president of Iran is doing the very same thing.
Ahmadinejad has told the world all about his ultimate intentions. He seeks the destruction of Israel and of the United States. His country is building the instrumentalities by which he could achieve his goals, while the world sits back and watches. Sixty million people perished during World War II, with weapons far more primitive than can be even be produced today. If lone homicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves for religious fanaticism, why then is it beyond the realm of possibility, that a leader is willing to sacrifice millions for the same beliefs?
We have seen it before. It has been said that, “If we do not learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Hitler wrote the following words in "Mein Kampf" that have been parroted almost verbatim today by the president of Iran: “I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” How many will needlessly die before we act to stop a repeat of what the world experienced during the time of Hitler?
Iran must be stopped, and stopped now. Either other responsible nations will join us or we must do the job alone. We have no choice. We must take these rogues at their word and pay attention to their deeds.
Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
How hedge funds make so much money
This only one of many ways they use to get inside information or peddle influence.
Massive windfall for them...at our expense:
Hedge Funds Hire Lobbyists for Inside Tips on U.S. Legislation
By Kristin Jensen, Mike Forsythe and J.D. Salant
March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Senator John Breaux, who retired in January, is still walking the halls of Congress. Instead of brokering deals with lawmakers, he's serving as a pipeline for a New York hedge fund.
Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, is one of a growing cadre of lobbyists being hired by U.S. hedge funds to provide instant tips on the progress of potentially market-moving legislation, from the settlement of asbestos lawsuits to allowing oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge. It's a legal way of letting investors benefit from information gleaned from private conversations with lawmakers and aides. And it's a new twist in Washington lobbying because it has nothing to do with influencing laws or policy.
``Anything that affects a company's profitability from a legislative standpoint is information that's important,'' says Breaux, 61, who works for both the Clinton Group Inc. hedge fund in Manhattan and Patton Boggs LLP, Washington's top lobbying firm by revenue.
Hedge funds, which often pursue high-risk, high-yield investments for wealthy clients, are taking on lobbyists such as Breaux to provide political intelligence that allows the funds to buy and sell company stock on information before it's widely known.
The practice is taking place under the radar, because federal disclosure rules only require a person to register as a lobbyist and disclose clients when active efforts are made to affect legislation. And hedge funds aren't interested in talking about it: Companies among the 25 biggest funds, including the Clinton Group, which has no connection to former President Bill Clinton, declined to comment for this story.
`Everything Is for Sale'
``It's a burgeoning area of work,'' says Tony Podesta, 61, a Democratic strategist, lobbyist and the brother of John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton. Tony's firm, PodestaMattoon, has a hedge-fund client he won't name. ``They would have a different view of this if we had to register,'' he says.
Federal rules prohibit Breaux from lobbying former colleagues for at least a year. There's nothing stopping him from a lunch, cocktail, workout or phone call to Capitol Hill that might yield a tradable tip for a hedge fund.
``In Washington, everything is for sale,'' says Gary Ruskin, 40, director of the Portland, Oregon-based Congress Accountability Project, a group founded by consumer and political activist Ralph Nader that monitors congressional ethics. ``That includes investment advice.''
Taking Risks
Banks and mutual funds have hired lobbyists and employed Washington staff for years. What sets hedge funds apart is their ability to act instantly on news and to employ trading options that allow them to make money whether stocks rise or fall. Hedge funds can take risks that mutual funds, entrusted with retirement savings, typically don't. These methods include short sales, which allow them to borrow securities in anticipation of paying for them when the price drops.
Lobbyists such as Breaux and Podesta use the connections they made while working in the government to get information or insight that's not readily available to most investors, such as whether a bill is going to reach the Senate floor or whether lawmakers are far from a compromise.
Podesta, a former counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, raises money for Democrats. So does his wife, Heather, a Washington lobbyist with Blank Rome Government Relations LLC. That gives them an avenue to power brokers.
Podesta says he talks to his hedge-fund client about every other week, providing tips or responding to requests on what a bill or new government regulation means. Recently, one investor group asked him about legislation that would ban U.S. companies such as Tyson Foods Inc. and Swift & Co. from resuming imports of Canadian cattle because of concern about the spread of ``mad cow'' disease.
Boosting Egos
``My answer was it probably will pass -- and it probably won't ever end up in law,'' he says. He was on track: The Senate passed the bill March 3 even as the White House issued a statement that President George W. Bush would veto it.
Jonathan Slade, 46, a Washington lobbyist whose clients include New York-based investment firm and hedge fund GoldenTree Asset Management LP, takes advantage of Wall Street's prestige on Capitol Hill. Slade says he likes to set up conference calls and meetings between congressional staffers and the hedge fund executives. It helps boost Washington egos, he says.
``They think it's cool talking to someone on Wall Street, especially if it is a big player,'' says Slade, who spent four years as a congressional aide before becoming a lobbyist in 1986 and is now a principal with the Washington-based Cormac Group. ``They ask them, `What's Wall Street saying?' They love that.''
`Nuance'
Lawmakers and congressional aides are free to share details on legislation with people they know, except on such matters as intelligence and homeland security. Stricter rules exist at agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which releases U.S. unemployment figures and bars employees from divulging numbers before they become public.
Lobbyists sometimes act as translators for hedge fund managers, guiding them through the ``nuance'' of Washington politics, says Alex Vogel, former chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and co-founder of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc., a Washington lobbying firm.
``Hedge fund managers are very good at understanding the way Wall Street reacts to things,'' Vogel says. ``They are not as adept at understanding how Washington reacts.''
One focus for hedge funds is a $140 billion asbestos proposal by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The bill would compensate U.S. victims of disease caused by asbestos exposure and halt as many as 300,000 pending lawsuits that have bankrupted 70 companies, including W.R. Grace & Co., a Columbia, Maryland-based maker of chemicals and building materials.
`Truth Squad'
Slade says he acts as GoldenTree's ``truth squad'' on asbestos, counteracting overly optimistic assessments about the chances of a settlement from companies that are trying to win over investors.
Last June, Slade, using a network of relationships he's built among lawmakers, staff and other lobbyists, told GoldenTree the settlement wouldn't pass Congress in 2004. That was three months before Frist publicly declared the legislation dead.
Specter says he plans to reintroduce the legislation in the current session.
``Wall Street constantly overreacts or under reacts to information,'' Slade says. ``Legislation is a nine-inning game. The bill being introduced is like the second or third inning. Until you see X, Y, and Z, you can't take any of this seriously.''
Gambling on Bonds
GoldenTree, which manages about $6.5 billion, won't comment. ``Sorry, can't help,'' Chairman Leon Wagner said in an e-mail.
Right now, investing in the bonds of one of the bankrupt asbestos-products makers such as Toledo, Ohio-based Owens Corning, the largest U.S. insulation producer, is risky because there's no guarantee the bonds will pay out. A hedge fund might take the gamble, for example, of buying an Owens Corning note, due in 2009, that Friday was selling for 63 cents on the dollar on a bet that a settlement will allow companies to recover and pay their debts.
The hedge funds that have contacted lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, 44, who helped run Senator John Kerry's campaign for president, have told him they don't care which way the settlement goes, as long as they are prepared.
``They want to know whether to buy or sell,'' says Elmendorf, who has a hedge-fund client he won't disclose. He works for Bryan Cave Strategies LLC, a unit of Bryan Cave LLP, a St. Louis-based law firm.
`In the Loop'
Hedge funds using lobbyists for information should be aware that some firms may have ``a dog in the fight'' -- other clients pushing for a particular legislative outcome, says Robert Johnston, managing director for equity research at New York-based Medley Global Advisors, which advises Wall Street clients including hedge funds.
``There's no question that lobbying firms are very much in the loop on the key issues -- they're actually shaping the legislation,'' Johnston says. ``It's probably wise to try to get lobbyists on all sides of the issue.''
Some hedge funds are looking for more than information on the direction of a bill. Among the largest funds, at least 10 have hired firms to lobby to try to influence the outcome of a policy or bill, according to registrations compiled by Washington's PoliticalMoneyLine, an independent group that tracks campaign finance and lobbying.
Chicago-based Navigant Consulting Inc. says it's lobbying for the asbestos settlement for Dallas-based HBK Investments LP and three New York-based firms, D.E. Shaw & Co., Elliott Associates LP and Och-Ziff Capital Management Group.
Navigant reported $400,000 in fees within 12 months working for the funds and six other clients, lobby registration documents filed with the Senate show.
Soros Fund
``We felt we could play a useful role on the legislative front for companies that supported asbestos-reform legislation,'' Navigant lobbyist Rick Farrell says. ``We believe there will be a successful outcome on the legislation this year.'' HBK, Shaw, Elliott and Och-Ziff declined to comment.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, a Washington- and Boston-based law firm with more than 1,000 attorneys worldwide, filed to represent Chicago-based Citadel Investment Group LLC and billionaire George Soros's Soros Fund Management LLC on hedge- fund regulation.
Greenwich, Connecticut-based Tudor Investment Corp. and New York-based Moore Capital Management LLC have their own Washington offices.
For Breaux, Slade and other lobbyists, working with hedge funds is a welcome break. They don't have to push people to move or kill a bill.
``You are not paying me to lobby,'' Slade says. ``You are paying me for information.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington kjensen@Bloomberg.net Mike Forsythe in Washington mforsythe@bloomberg.net Jonathan Salant in Washington jsalant@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 16, 2005 00:01 EST
Massive windfall for them...at our expense:
Hedge Funds Hire Lobbyists for Inside Tips on U.S. Legislation
By Kristin Jensen, Mike Forsythe and J.D. Salant
March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Senator John Breaux, who retired in January, is still walking the halls of Congress. Instead of brokering deals with lawmakers, he's serving as a pipeline for a New York hedge fund.
Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, is one of a growing cadre of lobbyists being hired by U.S. hedge funds to provide instant tips on the progress of potentially market-moving legislation, from the settlement of asbestos lawsuits to allowing oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge. It's a legal way of letting investors benefit from information gleaned from private conversations with lawmakers and aides. And it's a new twist in Washington lobbying because it has nothing to do with influencing laws or policy.
``Anything that affects a company's profitability from a legislative standpoint is information that's important,'' says Breaux, 61, who works for both the Clinton Group Inc. hedge fund in Manhattan and Patton Boggs LLP, Washington's top lobbying firm by revenue.
Hedge funds, which often pursue high-risk, high-yield investments for wealthy clients, are taking on lobbyists such as Breaux to provide political intelligence that allows the funds to buy and sell company stock on information before it's widely known.
The practice is taking place under the radar, because federal disclosure rules only require a person to register as a lobbyist and disclose clients when active efforts are made to affect legislation. And hedge funds aren't interested in talking about it: Companies among the 25 biggest funds, including the Clinton Group, which has no connection to former President Bill Clinton, declined to comment for this story.
`Everything Is for Sale'
``It's a burgeoning area of work,'' says Tony Podesta, 61, a Democratic strategist, lobbyist and the brother of John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton. Tony's firm, PodestaMattoon, has a hedge-fund client he won't name. ``They would have a different view of this if we had to register,'' he says.
Federal rules prohibit Breaux from lobbying former colleagues for at least a year. There's nothing stopping him from a lunch, cocktail, workout or phone call to Capitol Hill that might yield a tradable tip for a hedge fund.
``In Washington, everything is for sale,'' says Gary Ruskin, 40, director of the Portland, Oregon-based Congress Accountability Project, a group founded by consumer and political activist Ralph Nader that monitors congressional ethics. ``That includes investment advice.''
Taking Risks
Banks and mutual funds have hired lobbyists and employed Washington staff for years. What sets hedge funds apart is their ability to act instantly on news and to employ trading options that allow them to make money whether stocks rise or fall. Hedge funds can take risks that mutual funds, entrusted with retirement savings, typically don't. These methods include short sales, which allow them to borrow securities in anticipation of paying for them when the price drops.
Lobbyists such as Breaux and Podesta use the connections they made while working in the government to get information or insight that's not readily available to most investors, such as whether a bill is going to reach the Senate floor or whether lawmakers are far from a compromise.
Podesta, a former counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, raises money for Democrats. So does his wife, Heather, a Washington lobbyist with Blank Rome Government Relations LLC. That gives them an avenue to power brokers.
Podesta says he talks to his hedge-fund client about every other week, providing tips or responding to requests on what a bill or new government regulation means. Recently, one investor group asked him about legislation that would ban U.S. companies such as Tyson Foods Inc. and Swift & Co. from resuming imports of Canadian cattle because of concern about the spread of ``mad cow'' disease.
Boosting Egos
``My answer was it probably will pass -- and it probably won't ever end up in law,'' he says. He was on track: The Senate passed the bill March 3 even as the White House issued a statement that President George W. Bush would veto it.
Jonathan Slade, 46, a Washington lobbyist whose clients include New York-based investment firm and hedge fund GoldenTree Asset Management LP, takes advantage of Wall Street's prestige on Capitol Hill. Slade says he likes to set up conference calls and meetings between congressional staffers and the hedge fund executives. It helps boost Washington egos, he says.
``They think it's cool talking to someone on Wall Street, especially if it is a big player,'' says Slade, who spent four years as a congressional aide before becoming a lobbyist in 1986 and is now a principal with the Washington-based Cormac Group. ``They ask them, `What's Wall Street saying?' They love that.''
`Nuance'
Lawmakers and congressional aides are free to share details on legislation with people they know, except on such matters as intelligence and homeland security. Stricter rules exist at agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which releases U.S. unemployment figures and bars employees from divulging numbers before they become public.
Lobbyists sometimes act as translators for hedge fund managers, guiding them through the ``nuance'' of Washington politics, says Alex Vogel, former chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and co-founder of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc., a Washington lobbying firm.
``Hedge fund managers are very good at understanding the way Wall Street reacts to things,'' Vogel says. ``They are not as adept at understanding how Washington reacts.''
One focus for hedge funds is a $140 billion asbestos proposal by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The bill would compensate U.S. victims of disease caused by asbestos exposure and halt as many as 300,000 pending lawsuits that have bankrupted 70 companies, including W.R. Grace & Co., a Columbia, Maryland-based maker of chemicals and building materials.
`Truth Squad'
Slade says he acts as GoldenTree's ``truth squad'' on asbestos, counteracting overly optimistic assessments about the chances of a settlement from companies that are trying to win over investors.
Last June, Slade, using a network of relationships he's built among lawmakers, staff and other lobbyists, told GoldenTree the settlement wouldn't pass Congress in 2004. That was three months before Frist publicly declared the legislation dead.
Specter says he plans to reintroduce the legislation in the current session.
``Wall Street constantly overreacts or under reacts to information,'' Slade says. ``Legislation is a nine-inning game. The bill being introduced is like the second or third inning. Until you see X, Y, and Z, you can't take any of this seriously.''
Gambling on Bonds
GoldenTree, which manages about $6.5 billion, won't comment. ``Sorry, can't help,'' Chairman Leon Wagner said in an e-mail.
Right now, investing in the bonds of one of the bankrupt asbestos-products makers such as Toledo, Ohio-based Owens Corning, the largest U.S. insulation producer, is risky because there's no guarantee the bonds will pay out. A hedge fund might take the gamble, for example, of buying an Owens Corning note, due in 2009, that Friday was selling for 63 cents on the dollar on a bet that a settlement will allow companies to recover and pay their debts.
The hedge funds that have contacted lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, 44, who helped run Senator John Kerry's campaign for president, have told him they don't care which way the settlement goes, as long as they are prepared.
``They want to know whether to buy or sell,'' says Elmendorf, who has a hedge-fund client he won't disclose. He works for Bryan Cave Strategies LLC, a unit of Bryan Cave LLP, a St. Louis-based law firm.
`In the Loop'
Hedge funds using lobbyists for information should be aware that some firms may have ``a dog in the fight'' -- other clients pushing for a particular legislative outcome, says Robert Johnston, managing director for equity research at New York-based Medley Global Advisors, which advises Wall Street clients including hedge funds.
``There's no question that lobbying firms are very much in the loop on the key issues -- they're actually shaping the legislation,'' Johnston says. ``It's probably wise to try to get lobbyists on all sides of the issue.''
Some hedge funds are looking for more than information on the direction of a bill. Among the largest funds, at least 10 have hired firms to lobby to try to influence the outcome of a policy or bill, according to registrations compiled by Washington's PoliticalMoneyLine, an independent group that tracks campaign finance and lobbying.
Chicago-based Navigant Consulting Inc. says it's lobbying for the asbestos settlement for Dallas-based HBK Investments LP and three New York-based firms, D.E. Shaw & Co., Elliott Associates LP and Och-Ziff Capital Management Group.
Navigant reported $400,000 in fees within 12 months working for the funds and six other clients, lobby registration documents filed with the Senate show.
Soros Fund
``We felt we could play a useful role on the legislative front for companies that supported asbestos-reform legislation,'' Navigant lobbyist Rick Farrell says. ``We believe there will be a successful outcome on the legislation this year.'' HBK, Shaw, Elliott and Och-Ziff declined to comment.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, a Washington- and Boston-based law firm with more than 1,000 attorneys worldwide, filed to represent Chicago-based Citadel Investment Group LLC and billionaire George Soros's Soros Fund Management LLC on hedge- fund regulation.
Greenwich, Connecticut-based Tudor Investment Corp. and New York-based Moore Capital Management LLC have their own Washington offices.
For Breaux, Slade and other lobbyists, working with hedge funds is a welcome break. They don't have to push people to move or kill a bill.
``You are not paying me to lobby,'' Slade says. ``You are paying me for information.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington kjensen@Bloomberg.net Mike Forsythe in Washington mforsythe@bloomberg.net Jonathan Salant in Washington jsalant@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 16, 2005 00:01 EST
How to dramatically increase energy effeciency of cities
- Avego
- Telecommuting
- Bike delivery services like Kozmo.com
- Human powered jitneys
- Delivery services like Peapod (one truck vs. 17 separate cars going to the store, companies like Peapod can plan for efficient routes).
- Encouragement of using bikes in general.
- Mass transit
- Telecommuting
- Bike delivery services like Kozmo.com
- Human powered jitneys
- Delivery services like Peapod (one truck vs. 17 separate cars going to the store, companies like Peapod can plan for efficient routes).
- Encouragement of using bikes in general.
- Mass transit
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Class warfare Goldman Sachs style
As Woodie Guthrie noted: when the poor steal the police can be counted on to arrest them but when the rich steal the police can be counted on to back them up.
Here's a recent theft Goldman Sachs style.
Goldman (and some others) takes a public company (Dollar General) private with borrowed money. Now Goldman and partners own it and promptly pay themselves a $239 million dividend (this is the theft right here). They also charge various "fees" during the process. More theft.
Then they sell off the company and make it public again. Same company but now saddled with a big debt load (debt incurred to take it private in the first place, debt incurred to pay the "dividend", debt incurred to pay various fees. Debt incurred to "re-organize" the company.) "Re-organizing" the company is the cover often used to justify these kinds of thefts.
A look at what happens at different places in the food chain makes clear what is really driving the process.
Lets start at the top. Goldman and other members of the group who engineered this whole thing come away with the $239 million dividend, plus the fees they charge, plus whatever profit they made on the sale of the company. Big big winners. Next are the banks who lent the money to make this happen. They probably win as well. There is a risk that some of the money they lent will not be repaid, but chances are that a default -if it happens- would happen somewhere down the line. After they have made *some* profit. It the loans are paid in full they are big winners also. Their position is not as good as Goldman (who has the "dividend" up front, free and clear) but it's good enough. Next is the upper management of Dollar General. They are in good shape also. They get either a nice golden parachute or a nice retention bonus. Then come retail investors who bought stock in Dollar General (or sold their stock to Goldman when it was taken private). Their position is not so good. They are probable losers. Not big losers, but probable losers. They have stock in a company that now has a huge dept load. But no one had a gun to their head forcing them to buy or sell stock in Dollar General so you can't feel really sorry for them.
Left over at the bottom are the losers. The 72,500 employees of Dollar General. They are hammered. They are screwed. Bigtime. THEY are the ones who will feel the austerity that will be necessary to make the debt payments (used to give Goldman their "dividend"). They are the ones who will have to take pay cuts or forgo pay increases. They are the ones who will suffer layoffs so money will be available to pay the debt. They are the ones who will have to work harder with fewer employees doing more things. They are the ones who will have their lunch hour cut down. They are the ones who will have their health insurance cut or be forced to contribute more to health insurance premiums.
THIS is late 20'th (and early 21'st) century class warfare. This unremitting class warfare has been waged by the elite since the early 80's and is THE reason for the increased gap between rich and poor and the disintegrating position of the middle class. Lets go back to Dollar General for a second. It's not just the checkout people and the janitors who are going to get hammered. It's also the department managers and store managers.
Jessee James robbed banks because "that's where the money is". For Goldman, the money is in looting thousands of vulnerable employees.
Notice that we haven't talked about unions yet. The only plausible mechanism for defense against this kind of thing would be a union. It's no coincidence that the American power structure has waged a 30 year war on unions.
Another facilitator of this kind of thing is misuse of authority - which will make for another full post sometime. In a nutshell, Goldman and it's ilk will present themselves as authority figures on the subjects of economics and finance and lecture the rest of us that these kinds of deals are "good for the economy", "good for shareholders" and so forth. They will say something like "it looks pretty bad only if you don't understand how this is good/necessary for the economy."
They are lying. It's only good for them.
http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2010/01/29/avoid-these-cash-machines.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001&lidx=9
Here's a recent theft Goldman Sachs style.
Goldman (and some others) takes a public company (Dollar General) private with borrowed money. Now Goldman and partners own it and promptly pay themselves a $239 million dividend (this is the theft right here). They also charge various "fees" during the process. More theft.
Then they sell off the company and make it public again. Same company but now saddled with a big debt load (debt incurred to take it private in the first place, debt incurred to pay the "dividend", debt incurred to pay various fees. Debt incurred to "re-organize" the company.) "Re-organizing" the company is the cover often used to justify these kinds of thefts.
A look at what happens at different places in the food chain makes clear what is really driving the process.
Lets start at the top. Goldman and other members of the group who engineered this whole thing come away with the $239 million dividend, plus the fees they charge, plus whatever profit they made on the sale of the company. Big big winners. Next are the banks who lent the money to make this happen. They probably win as well. There is a risk that some of the money they lent will not be repaid, but chances are that a default -if it happens- would happen somewhere down the line. After they have made *some* profit. It the loans are paid in full they are big winners also. Their position is not as good as Goldman (who has the "dividend" up front, free and clear) but it's good enough. Next is the upper management of Dollar General. They are in good shape also. They get either a nice golden parachute or a nice retention bonus. Then come retail investors who bought stock in Dollar General (or sold their stock to Goldman when it was taken private). Their position is not so good. They are probable losers. Not big losers, but probable losers. They have stock in a company that now has a huge dept load. But no one had a gun to their head forcing them to buy or sell stock in Dollar General so you can't feel really sorry for them.
Left over at the bottom are the losers. The 72,500 employees of Dollar General. They are hammered. They are screwed. Bigtime. THEY are the ones who will feel the austerity that will be necessary to make the debt payments (used to give Goldman their "dividend"). They are the ones who will have to take pay cuts or forgo pay increases. They are the ones who will suffer layoffs so money will be available to pay the debt. They are the ones who will have to work harder with fewer employees doing more things. They are the ones who will have their lunch hour cut down. They are the ones who will have their health insurance cut or be forced to contribute more to health insurance premiums.
THIS is late 20'th (and early 21'st) century class warfare. This unremitting class warfare has been waged by the elite since the early 80's and is THE reason for the increased gap between rich and poor and the disintegrating position of the middle class. Lets go back to Dollar General for a second. It's not just the checkout people and the janitors who are going to get hammered. It's also the department managers and store managers.
Jessee James robbed banks because "that's where the money is". For Goldman, the money is in looting thousands of vulnerable employees.
Notice that we haven't talked about unions yet. The only plausible mechanism for defense against this kind of thing would be a union. It's no coincidence that the American power structure has waged a 30 year war on unions.
Another facilitator of this kind of thing is misuse of authority - which will make for another full post sometime. In a nutshell, Goldman and it's ilk will present themselves as authority figures on the subjects of economics and finance and lecture the rest of us that these kinds of deals are "good for the economy", "good for shareholders" and so forth. They will say something like "it looks pretty bad only if you don't understand how this is good/necessary for the economy."
They are lying. It's only good for them.
http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2010/01/29/avoid-these-cash-machines.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001&lidx=9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)