Crain's investigation: The high price of political payback at McCormick Place
By: James Ylisela Jr. November 14, 2011
ShareThis
inShare
Print | Email | 53 comments
Photo illustration by Sean McCabe.
Photo by: AP/Wide World
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan cost taxpayers nearly half-a-billion dollars by blocking repeated efforts to restructure McCormick Place bonds and finance a much-needed second hotel at the convention center, a Crain's investigation finds.
Between 2005 and 2010, Mr. Madigan stopped five refinancing bills, ignoring declining interest rates that would have saved hundreds of millions. At the time, he never explained why, but his reasons seem petty and political: McCormick Place CEO Juan Ochoa, an appointee of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, had fired a Madigan ally at the convention center, and lawmakers from both parties say the speaker wanted retribution.
"It was no secret that Madigan had a beef with Ochoa and wanted him gone," says state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, an Elmwood Park Republican who sponsored refinancing bills in 2005, 2007 and 2009. "As long as Ochoa was there, Madigan wasn't going to give McCormick Place anything."
But politics may not have been Mr. Madigan's only motivation. By holding up refinancing, the speaker also denied McCormick Place the money to build a new hotel. That bought time for clout-heavy developers Gerald Fogelson and Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises Inc. to push a controversial land swap and hotel deal with McCormick Place on property just north of the convention center. Both were then clients of Mr. Madigan's law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner, but the speaker denies any connection.
As the recession raged in early 2010, the collapse of the real estate market scuttled the deal. That May, after Mr. Ochoa resigned, the General Assembly finally passed legislation that lowered McCormick Place's debt payments, allocated funds to expand the existing Hyatt Regency McCormick Place and imposed wage restrictions and new work rules on union labor. The House sponsor was Speaker Michael Madigan.
The legislation reduced this year's debt service by $96 million, but the damage had already been done at the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, known as McPier, the agency that runs McCormick Place. Denied refinancing for six years, McPier paid out as much as $300 million more in bond interest than it should have and was forced to tap state sales tax revenue to meet its obligations.
Click above for a closer look at Speaker Madigan's costly feud with then-Gov. Blagojevich.
Mr. Madigan's inaction also set off a chain of events that put Chicago's $8-billion trade show industry — and the estimated 66,000 jobs it supports — at risk. Without revenues from the debt savings and a second hotel, McPier had to mark up its prices in the middle of the recession, driving away two trade shows. With McCormick Place in crisis in late 2009, other shows threatened to leave Chicago unless state lawmakers imposed restrictions on McPier unions.
To find out what went wrong, and what still needs to be fixed, Crain's obtained internal McPier memos and emails under the Freedom of Information Act, examined state and county records, and conducted dozens of interviews with McPier officials, legislators and others. With Illinois on the verge of insolvency, what emerges is an unflattering view of how the state works — or doesn't — when politics trumps the public interest.
'THIS STINKS'
The exchange didn't last long, and it failed to attract much attention, despite the gaggle of press covering the final night of the 2010 state legislative session in May. But state Rep. Jim Sacia, a Pecatonica Republican, was determined to ask Mr. Madigan why numerous prior efforts to refinance McCormick Place bonds had failed to come to a vote in the Illinois House.
A month earlier, in a hearing on the McCormick Place legislation, McPier Chairman John Gates testified that failure to refinance sooner had cost taxpayers hundreds of millions in higher interest payments. Reducing debt payments also would have given the agency a surplus of tax revenue that could have been applied to McPier's struggling operating budget, Mr. Gates testified.
Two of the previous refinancing bills had passed the state Senate only to die in the House. A shocked Mr. Sacia wanted to know why.
At the closing session on May 6, he got his chance to ask Mr. Madigan. "I would be deeply grateful, Speaker, if you could explain to the body how that could happen, if that in fact was the case — did I misunderstand something?" Mr. Sacia asked, according to state transcripts of their testy exchange. "Did a bill pass the Senate that could have saved the taxpayers of this state several hundred million dollars? Would you be kind enough to address that, if you could?"
A brief back-and-forth ended with this terse response from Mr. Madigan: "Mr. Sacia, I'm not sure I understand your question. . . . To repeat what I said, there have been bills that provided for yet another restructuring of the debt payments, but none of those bills dealt with the significant work-rule changes that are in this bill."
"This stinks to high heaven and you, the taxpayers, get half-a-billion dollars worth of rotten meat. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one."
Rep. Jim Sacia, R–Pecatonica
McPier was "engaged in a scheme, and the Speaker wasn't going to allow that to happen."
Spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan
"As long as (McPier CEO Juan) Ochoa was there, Madigan wasn't going to give McCormick Place anything."
Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, R–Elmwood Park
"We didn't have the political strength to get what we knew was in the best interests of McCormick Place."
Juan Ochoa, former CEO, McPier
Mr. Sacia got a bit more colorful in a letter after the exchange to his constituents: "This stinks to high heaven and you, the taxpayers, get half-a-billion dollars worth of rotten meat. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one."
He is still fuming today. "I was simply looking for a logical explanation," he says. "How can we have millions in the taxpayers' money just going away to higher interest when we had opportunities to bring that interest down?"
Many still wonder why McCormick Place took six years to refinance its debt, as plenty of government agencies, private companies and homeowners were doing at the time.
"A lot of people were expecting (refinancing) to come earlier," says John Kenward, a bond analyst in Chicago at Standard & Poor's. With interest rates dropping, "I don't know why the state wouldn't have taken advantage of that."
As for Mr. Madigan, he never spoke of his reasons for rejecting bill after bill. But in response to questions from Crain's, a spokesman for Mr. Madigan now says the speaker blocked refinancing to prevent the Blagojevich administration from cashing in on contracts for bond work, such as underwriting and legal services. He provided Crain's an unsigned memorandum of understanding, dated August 2007, in which McPier agreed to allow the state to review and approve all fees and "structuring decisions" related to bond refinancing.
Asked about the financial impact of delayed refinancing, the spokesman says the "consequences were outweighed by (opposition to) becoming part of the Blagojevich fundraising machine."
Mr. Ochoa says he received the memo but never signed it. A McPier spokeswoman confirms that the agreement never took effect. No matter, Mr. Madigan's spokesman says. McPier was "engaged in a scheme, and the speaker wasn't going to allow that to happen."
Mr. Madigan's power is so sweeping that few will state publicly what many acknowledge privately. Mr. Gates, who took on the McPier chairmanship in October 2009 after building one of the nation's largest real estate investment trusts, is now chairman of the Regional Transportation Authority. He says his testimony about the cost of refinancing delays speaks for itself.
State Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat whose district includes McCormick Place, sponsored two failed efforts to refinance McPier's debt. But he treads gingerly when asked what happened. "I never got a firm answer as to why the bills never advanced in the House," he says. "I imagine there was distrust for the (McPier) leadership at the time."
Mr. Saviano is one of the few to put it more directly. Mr. Ochoa, he says, committed a cardinal sin of patronage politics: He dumped one of Mr. Madigan's "guys."
The guy was Jack Johnson, who had worked as a legislative analyst on Mr. Madigan's staff in the mid-1980s before signing on as McPier's chief of external relations in 1989. In September 2007, Mr. Ochoa, just eight months on the job, fired him.
Mr. Johnson, now senior vice-president at the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau, declines to comment, and Mr. Madigan's spokesman rejects the story. Management at McPier was "a national disaster," he says, "looking for other people to blame for their mistakes."
For his part, Mr. Ochoa says he was well aware of the rumors but chose to ignore them. "The speaker never called me to say he was upset with me," he says. "I tried to meet with him several times but was never granted a meeting."
'NO-BRAINER'
Refinancing is a concept familiar to every homeowner. When interest rates go down, you can refinance your mortgage, reduce your monthly payment and maybe even use some of the savings to make a few improvements.
McCormick Place needed to do the same thing, only its mortgage was in the billions and the improvements would have added a new hotel to the convention center campus.
Mr. Ochoa says those were his two top priorities when he took the job as McPier CEO. Unlike the convention centers in Orlando and Las Vegas, McCormick Place receives no state subsidy for its operations and has to live off the revenue it generates.
"When I came to McPier, I looked at our operating budget. It was a no-brainer that another hotel would help us further subsidize our operations," he says. "We also knew that we would soon fall short in the taxes collected to make our debt payments. Rather than wait for that to happen, we tried to address both issues at once."
From 1992 to 2004, McPier sold bonds to finance an ambitious expansion that built the West and South buildings, giving McCormick Place 2.6 million square feet of exhibit space and solidifying its position as the largest convention center in the nation.
The expansion left McPier about $3 billion in debt. To pay back the bondholders, the General Assembly approved four taxes — on hotel rooms, car rentals, restaurants and taxi rides from Midway and O'Hare airports.
At the time, the taxes were thought to be adequate to cover the debt payments, but the business downturn that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed all of that. Tax receipts fell short by more than $26 million between 2002 and 2006, depleting the surplus fund set up when the bonds were issued. With interest rates declining, it seemed the perfect time to refinance.
By the mid- to late 2000s, many public entities, including the city of Chicago, the Chicago Board of Education and the Chicago Transit Authority, were replacing older municipal bonds with lower-interest debt.
Mr. Saviano, whose district includes the Rosemont Convention Center, sponsored the 2005 legislation in the Illinois House. He is unabashed about his motivations: "If we keep McCormick Place healthy, the trickle-down helps Rosemont," Mr. Saviano says. He introduced his bill in February 2005, when interest rates had dropped under 4.5% — well below the interest on the existing McPier expansion bonds, which carried rates as high as 7.1%.
But Mr. Saviano's bill died in the House Rules Committee, the legislative way station controlled by Mr. Madigan. Mr. Saviano's 2007 effort met a similar fate, even though interest rates had dropped to near 4%. On April 4, 2008, Mr. Raoul's bill passed the Senate 48 to 6, only to die in the House. In 2009, with rates still under 5%, the lawmakers tried again, but neither measure made it.
State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat who is chairman of the rules committee, can't say why none of the bills reached the House floor for a vote. "I don't have a good explanation," she tells Crain's. "It's just one of those items that didn't make it to the top of the agenda."
But Mr. Saviano says, "The bills didn't come out of the rules committee because the speaker didn't want them to. It's unfortunate we had an opportunity to show some fiscal responsibility — and we didn't."
The financial impact of doing nothing was significant. Since 2005, McPier could have saved up to $300 million in interest payments alone, based on a two-percentage-point savings in interest. Restructuring the debt to push larger principal repayments into the future would have provided millions more for McPier operations. A second hotel would have added another $15 million a year, McPier officials estimate.
In October 2010, after finally winning approval to refinance its debt five months earlier, McPier sold $1.12 billion in new bonds, at interest rates between 4.98% and 5.23%, to retire some of the older, higher-interest debt. "By restructuring, we don't have to draw from the state and can save it money," McPier Chief Financial Officer Richard Oldshue said at the time. "It relieves pressure from the state's sales tax revenues."
This year's debt payment, which would have been $177 million without the restructuring, fell to $81 million — a reduction of $96 million. The restructuring also provided $80 million for McPier's operating budget and raised $200 million for the hotel.
LAND SWAP
Just north of McCormick Place and east of the Metra train tracks sits an empty, boot-shaped tract of dirt and weeds that developers dreamed would be worth billions.
While McPier's efforts to restructure its debt and finance a hotel were going nowhere in the General Assembly, a group of well-connected real estate agents, developers and lawyers were pushing hard for a deal that would transform the vacant land into a thriving community called the Gateway Development.
Click above to see the Gateway Development plan's proposed land swap with McCormick Place.
Gateway was the brainchild of Gerald Fogelson and Forest City Enterprises, creators of nearby Central Station, an 80-acre spread of high-end townhouses and condominiums where former Mayor Richard M. Daley once lived. The $4-billion Gateway plan called for condominiums, apartments, senior housing, office space, retail, entertainment venues and, at the south end of the property, a twin-tower hotel for McCormick Place.
The plan was as beautiful as it was ambitious, offering Lake Michigan views and easy access to Soldier Field and the Museum Campus. But there was a catch: To make the deal work, Mr. Fogelson and Forest City wanted McCormick Place to give up five acres of prime vacant land along Lake Shore Drive in exchange for less than two acres they owned toward the back of the property, documents obtained by Crain's show.
An October 2007 meeting on the project featured a who's who of Chicago real estate and political clout: Mr. Fogelson, Forest City's Albert and Ron Ratner, attorney Jack George of law firm Daley & George Ltd., David Haymes of architecture firm Pappageorge Haymes Ltd., and urban planner Stephen Friedman, a city consultant on tax-increment financing. The group also included then-McPier Chairman Ted Tetzlaff, a Chicago litigator, and board member Michael Scott, a real estate developer and president of the Chicago Board of Education.
A memo summarizing the meeting from Timothy Desmond, president of Central Station Development Corp., describes a busy and connected project team. Representing the developers, Mr. George, a law partner of Michael Daley's, the then-mayor's brother, confirmed that the city would approve a planned unit development designation for the land, while Mr. Friedman offered to seek TIF financing to pay for infrastructure improvements.
But Mr. Scott failed to tell the McPier board about his relationship with the developers, Mr. Ochoa says. Mr. Scott had an office and an email address with Fogelson Properties, the correspondence shows. Documents obtained by the Better Government Assn. last year revealed that Fogelson Properties provided the office rent-free and was paying Mr. Scott $10,000 a month as part of the developer's efforts to build the proposed Olympic Village. Mr. Scott was then serving on Mr. Daley's bid committee for the 2016 Olympic Games. The payments stopped in early November 2009, two weeks before Mr. Scott was found dead of what police called a self-inflicted gunshot wound; he reportedly was distraught over financial difficulties and an admissions scandal at Chicago Public Schools.
The developers also have ties to Mr. Madigan. Mr. Madigan's spokesman acknowledges that Forest City and Central Station were clients of the speaker's law firm. He says Mr. Madigan "operates at a code of conduct far beyond state ethics requirements," adding that the law firm had withdrawn its representation of the developers "when it became apparent there was a land swap" with McCormick Place that might create a possible conflict.
Yet Madigan & Getzendanner represented Central Station in cases before the Cook County Board of Review in 2007 and 2008, records show. And the firm represented both developers and Mr. Scott in the Eastgate Village condominium development, at 330 E. 26th St. The firm's appeal before the Cook County assessor successfully lowered the property's 2010 assessment to $468,000 from $1.4 million. The firm currently represents Forest City in a Bolingbrook property, Mr. Madigan's spokesman says.
The internal documents show McPier officials enthusiastically supporting the project, with the notable exception of Messrs. Ochoa and Gates.
"Gateway was a captivating project, but the land swap shortchanged the taxpayers," Mr. Ochoa says. And by agreeing to the land deal, Mr. Ochoa says he would have been largely committed to building the hotel on the Gateway Development. But if McPier's refinancing had come through, he would have had other options, including a proposed location near the West Building.
Mr. Ochoa had high hopes for Mr. Raoul's March 2009 legislation, the senator's second attempt at debt refinancing. The bill passed the Senate easily, but only after Mr. Raoul added a last-minute amendment that reduced the bonding authority by $203 million — the exact amount designated to finance the hotel, Mr. Ochoa says.
"We didn't have the political strength to get what we knew was in the best interests of McCormick Place," says Mr. Ochoa, now CEO of Chicago-based Miramar International Group Inc., which helps organizations connect with Latino customers in the U.S. and Mexico.
Mr. Raoul says he can't remember who asked for the change, and neither can Senate President John Cullerton, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Democrat tells Crain's in an email.
In May 2009, Central Station's Mr. Desmond sent McPier's then-general counsel, Renee Benjamin, a letter of intent from Fogelson Properties to pursue the land deal, and two months later delivered a memorandum of understanding that would serve as the agreement for the land exchange and development. Mr. Ochoa says he never saw the document and would not have signed it.
Mr. Desmond, speaking on behalf of Central Station and Forest City, tells Crain's in an email that he would not comment on the negotiations, saying only that the developers are not currently involved in a hotel project with McCormick Place.
In September 2009, Ms. Benjamin proposed that the deal be part of the agenda at McPier's October board meeting. But Mr. Gates, the incoming chairman, decided against it. "This could be a critical piece of property to (McPier) in the future," Mr. Gates wrote in an email. "I am opposed to limiting our options — even in a non-binding manner."
He confirms his skepticism about the deal. "The market had collapsed, and frankly I didn't think it was in McPier's interest to give up control of the 18th Street exit to Lake Shore Drive," he says.
Without the hotel money, Mr. Raoul's bill passed the Senate easily, but it hardly mattered. Mr. Madigan once again stopped the bill from reaching the House floor.
FATEFUL PRICE HIKES
By 2009, McCormick Place was desperate to refinance. The recession had hit the convention business hard, and McPier had already tapped $57 million in state sales tax revenue to make its debt payments. Without refinancing, it was on track to consume up to $800 million more in sales taxes by 2027. Running short of cash to pay its bills, McPier officials kept raising prices for food and electrical services at McCormick Place.
"We were limited in our sources of revenue," Mr. Ochoa recalls. "The only alternative, unfortunately, was to raise the cost of services to our customers."
Reaction was swift. In November 2009, two trade shows declared they were leaving the convention center, citing high electrical and food costs.
Critics: Law doesn't protect exhibitors from price-gouging
Since last year's McCormick Place legislation, the convention center has reduced its payroll, restructured its debt, lowered food costs and is finally adding more hotel rooms. But critics say the law did nothing to curb the worst trade show abuses: the inflated costs imposed on exhibitors by the general contractors and the trade associations themselves, for freight handling, floor space and hotel rooms, as reported by Crain's in June.
"The exhibitors are still getting (screwed)," one former McPier official says. "But at least now they're getting screwed the same way they're getting screwed everywhere else. We are no longer at a competitive disadvantage."
General contractors Freeman and Global Experience Specialists Inc., both of which control three out of four trade shows at McCormick Place and nationwide, have denied gouging exhibitors. But they also have been reluctant to open their books to prove it, citing proprietary and competitive reasons.
' The exhibitors are still getting (screwed). But at least now they're getting screwed the same way they're getting screwed everywhere else.'
— Former McPier official
An audit of the trade shows, required by law, was supposed to be completed last month but was delayed because the chosen auditors, Chicago-based Crowe Horwath LLP, were monitoring the selection of SMG as the private management company for McCormick Place. SMG, based in West Conshohocken, Pa., took over management of McCormick Place on July 1.
McPier officials say the audit, now expected by the end of the year, will analyze three shows to determine whether last year's labor changes resulted in real savings to exhibitors.
In an August letter to the head of the decorators union, McPier Trustee Jim Reilly promised the auditors would "go beyond the statutory requirements" to examine the true costs of freight handling — the No. 1 cost cited by exhibitors.
State Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, an Elmwood Park Republican who sponsored three McPier refinancing bills, isn't holding his breath. The issues at McCormick Place went way beyond labor, he says. "The issue was giving the contractors more control over every aspect of McCormick Place," he says. "With that kind of control all over the country, then they can start shopping the shows to the cities that will give them the biggest incentives. That's where we're heading."
James Ylisela Jr.
Chicago-based Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society announced its departure on Nov. 11. The show, which rotates among three cities, had come to Chicago only after Hurricane Katrina made it impossible to hold the event in New Orleans.
As late as Oct. 22, HIMSS officials said they were still considering Chicago for their 2012 show, but only if McCormick Place could guarantee lower electrical prices. "If this does not get fixed, everything else is irrelevant," HIMSS Vice-president Karen Malone wrote in an email to McPier.
But Ms. Malone tells Crain's the HIMSS show will return in 2015 and 2019.
"Based on changes at McCormick Place and feedback from industry peers, I believe most, if not all of our concerns about electrical services have been addressed," she says.
Internal memos also reveal that McPier made an unprecedented effort to keep the International Plastics Showcase. McPier offered financial incentives for the triennial plastics show to stay in 2012 and 2015, including discounts on space rental and price freezes for services and labor. (McPier redacted the exact numbers from the documents it provided Crain's.) Mr. Ochoa even laid off 100 electricians to demonstrate his commitment to making some changes.
But he now says that McPier probably didn't stand a chance. The plastics show was declining and it "needed to create a diversion," Mr. Ochoa says, and McCormick Place was the perfect foil. "The (higher costs) were certainly an excuse for them to leave the city, especially since we gave them the most aggressive package of incentives we had given to any show during my tenure."
SPI, the Washington, D.C.-based plastics trade association, reported a 28% drop in show attendance between its 2006 and 2009 events, and a 24% decline in membership revenue in the same period, forcing the group to lay off one-third of its staff.
A spokesman says the association is looking forward to its upcoming Orlando event and will not comment on what happened at McCormick Place or on the state of its finances. But a spokesman for the Chicago riggers union confirmed that up to 75 of its members will travel to Orlando to help secure the heavy machinery on the show floor, working at Chicago labor rates and with all expenses paid.
McPier's showcase events, led by the National Restaurant Assn., seized on the crisis to demand labor concessions, even though McPier's higher prices had gone to pay its bills, not to provide raises for its union workers.
McPier officials weren't about to waste the crisis, either. Both Mr. Gates and Mr. Ochoa acknowledge they used the trade show exodus to stoke public ire about the convention center and to reduce McPier's patronage-bloated payroll. They pushed for union work-rule changes to provide political cover for lawmakers reluctant to expand McPier's bonding authority during a recession.
Mr. Cullerton's spokeswoman says the timing of the McCormick Place legislation "wasn't tied to the rise and fall of interest rates" but rather to the issues driving trade shows out of Chicago. "That 'event' seemed to be the centralizing force that brought the leaders together to get something done."
STILL PAYING
Today, the financial picture at McCormick Place has changed dramatically. Restructured debt payments are now in line with tax revenue, but ballooning payments in the future will have to be refinanced yet again. The workforce, once topping 500, now stands at 25, though many former employees now work at SMG, the private management company that took over day-to-day operations on July 1. After a federal judge threw out the union wage and work-rule changes, trade shows once again threatened to leave, though an agreement brokered by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel last month appears to have brought labor peace, for now.
Dallas-based Freeman and Las Vegas-based Global Experience Specialists Inc., the nation's two giant trade show contractors, have taken over most of the electrical work on McCormick Place shows. Those services, which in 2009 brought a $22-million profit to McPier's operating budget, will bring the agency only about $4.3 million in fiscal 2012. Profits from food operations, at $9 million two years ago, will total about $1 million.
With all the cuts, McCormick Place officials say they will run a $134-million operating deficit between fiscal 2011 and 2014. Savings from the debt restructuring pumped $20 million into the fiscal 2011 operating budget and will add another $60 million over the next three years while McPier builds the hotel addition, which will add 450 rooms.
The six-year delay in building a new hotel continues to cost Chicago money. When President Barack Obama invited world leaders to come to Chicago next May for a NATO meeting and the G-8 economic summit, many applauded the event as a boost for the city's global reputation — and a windfall for the local economy.
But the news didn't sit as well with the Washington, D.C.-based National Restaurant Assn., whose annual trade show at McCormick Place, from May 19 to 22, would overlap the last four days of the summit. Show organizers complained that Chicago didn't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate both events and said they had no choice but to relocate to Las Vegas or Orlando.
After several reportedly tense meetings with Mr. Emanuel, the association's executive director, Mary Pat Heftman, announced the show would stay in Chicago but would move up to May 5 to 8, aided by a reported $2-million package of concessions and incentives from the city.
"There were enough hotel rooms, but everyone was going to want to stay in the same places," Ms. Heftman says. "I was looking forward to producing a show in another city to see if (Chicago) is the right place, especially if we were forced to move."
At the time, Mr. Emanuel said he was pleased to keep the show and the estimated $100 million it generates in revenue each year. But in the midst of his own budget crisis, it was $2 million the mayor certainly didn't want to spend.
The McCormick Place hotel addition won't be ready until late 2013.
© 2011 by Crain Communications Inc.
ShareThis
inShare
Print | Email | Comments
What do you think?
David J. wrote:
How long will we allow Madigan to destroy the State of Illinois. His decades of union pandering and petty politics are criminal and the voters need to remove him from office. The recall drive in the midwest is misplaced in Wisconsin, it should be in Illinois. No real reform or recovery of Illinois national standing can begin while he and his cronies control the state.
11/16/2011 8:11 PM CST
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
Dan O. wrote:
Citizens of Chicago get what they allow, and what they vote for every election.....aided and abetted by a MSM unwilling or incapable of reporting the truth...it is no surprise the city, the county and the state are all insolvent.
11/16/2011 11:49 AM CST
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
Joe M. wrote:
So where is the our ex Un-touchable Mayor in all this
Commission OKs Olympic Village
Mayor wants project built, Games or not
Comments
January 1, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
With a South Side alderman's blessing, the Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday approved Mayor Daley's plan to build a $1.1 billion Olympic Village -- on air rights over a truck staging area for McCormick Place -- that will be converted into a new south lakefront community when the Games are done.
Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) signed off on the idea after a guarantee of what she called a "more inclusive and transparent process" from Olympic planners she accused last month of running roughshod over local elected officials.
Preckwinkle argued there is "considerable work to be done" to make certain the new "urban neighborhood is connected to the Bronzeville community to the west."
"We're including her and others -- and frankly we feel good about that. She's got some great ideas," said Chicago 2016 chairman Pat Ryan.
5,000 housing units
The Sun-Times reported last month that Daley had quietly introduced a "plan development" that would pave the way for an Olympic Village on 77 acres of land that architects have described as the lakefront's "missing tooth": an ugly truck staging area for McCormick Place.
Mayor Daley is so gung-ho about the idea of building 5,000 units of market-rate and affordable housing and hotels with up to 1,000 rooms that he's determined to build the project, whether or not Chicago hosts the 2016 Games.
Thursday, the Plan Commission OKd it, helping close what Ryan calls the "certainty gap" that Chicago can deliver on its promises to the United States Olympic Committee.
"We have to show the U.S. Olympic Committee that we can deliver -- that we can execute," Ryan said.
Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) voiced concern that Chicago could become a terrorist target.
If anything, Ryan said Chicago's self-contained village would be easier to secure. "One village as opposed to clusters is an advantage in security -- where you just secure one perimeter."
fspielman@suntimes.com
11/16/2011 9:53 AM CST
Recommend
Report Abuse
Permalink
Kirk H. wrote:
Kudos, kudos, kudos - so great to once again see real investigative journalism and real facts on a highly relevant topic.
As for booting out Madigan, this liberal will vote for ANY non tea-party candidate who challenges him. It's way past time to push out this petty tyrant who has done much to ruin Illinois, of course with lots of help from past Republican Governors and Blago.
11/15/2011 6:05 PM CST
Recommend (1)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Dan H. wrote:
Time for Madigan to resign....immediately....
And if not, he and his daughter need to be voted out....this will not be tolerated!!!!!!!!
Nice "Public Service".....
Crains and Tribune...please keep up the investigative reporting, as we are continually reminded how spineless our politicians are!!!
11/15/2011 11:56 AM CST
Recommend (2)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Rick B. wrote:
Good, in-depth reporting. Now, how do we get action? Crain's should send copies of the article and all these comments to our folks in Springfield. Ask them if they want to be like Jo Pa's coaching staff and be out of a job for ignoring such activity.
11/15/2011 10:37 AM CST
Recommend (2)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Kevin W. wrote:
What will it take to finally motivate Darth Vadigan's constituents (that would imply he actually serves them) to deny him another term of enrichment?! Is this gem and the overwhelming financial ruin he has presided over enough or do we need the same sort of garish Penn State scandal to surface?
For God's sake, Carpe Diem because if past is prologue, this all blows over and Crain's will be punished for their efforts. No good deed goes unpunished in this State.
11/15/2011 10:14 AM CST
Recommend (1)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Joe D. wrote:
Good for Crains for not being like every other lap dog reporting outlet to look the other way in regards to Madigan and his political machine. He makes Daley look like a saint. I'm sick and tired of hearing of all this crap. Somebody needs to put Madigan where he belongs, out of office and in Jail. I wish I lived in his district so I could personally vote for anyone who runs against him.
11/15/2011 10:06 AM CST
Recommend (2)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Jerry R. wrote:
Who are these nitwits that keep reelecting this obvious self serving crook. Give this to
Fitzgerald, not Madigan's daughter. Now is the time to clear out that Legislative sewer
in Spingfield!
11/15/2011 9:26 AM CST
Recommend (4)
Report Abuse
Permalink
Steven A. wrote:
crain is still blaming the unions for the mess
crain another name for tea party
i been preaching to follow the money for years
that is were all the answers are at the end of the money trail
11/14/2011 6:14 PM CST
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Must beat them damn college protesters - other parents may keep their kids out of our elite school
NOVEMBER 15, 2011
Birgenou's Rampage
U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Sends in Riot Police to Batter Students
by MICHAEL LEVIEN
Berkeley
The word ‘clash’ is often deployed in media coverage of protests that result in violence. Thus, the Thursday headline of U.C. Berkeley’s Daily Californian read: ‘Protesters, Police Violently Clash.’ The San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage at least specified the subject of the verb: “authorities twice clashed with protesters.” However, the word is still entirely inappropriate for describing the events that took place Wednesday on the U.C. Berkeley campus. It implies an ambiguity about the directionality of violence that was entirely lacking in the day’s events. The truth, which has been partially captured on video, is that with the authorization of U.C. Berkeley administrators, riot police brutally beat entirely non-violent student protesters.
To set the stage, hundreds of students had come out to Sproul Plaza—where the Free Speech Movement began—to protest proposed fee hikes of 81 per cent that would bring U.C. tuition from $13,000 to over $22,000. The argument of the students was simple: the banks caused the financial crisis, the financial crisis caused the budget crisis, and therefore the banks, not students, should pay for it. Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of students by raising tuition and making public education inaccessible to working and middle-class students, the state should tax the banks, corporations and the top 1 per cent of income-earners to refund public education.
At class discussions and ‘teachouts’ held all week, students shared stories of the hardships already caused to their families by the fee increases that have raised UC tuition almost 100 per cent since 2008, and their concerns that if this new round of fee hikes went through, they would no longer be able to attend Cal, or would be plunged more deeply into debt. Ironically, they would be forced to take more loans from the very banks that caused the financial and budget crises that led to the fee hikes.
This brought hundreds of students, many of whom had never been in a protest before, out to Sproul Plaza on Wednesday. The students drew inspiration from the Occupy Movement and set up their own small encampment on the lawn outside of Sproul Hall. But ironically, whereas almost every major American city—including many with notoriously brutal police departments—has allowed Occupy encampments to stand, the administrators of U.C. Berkeley perceived a few tents as a sufficiently grave threat to public order that it warranted a brutal police assault on its own students.
While the afternoon’s violence was partly recorded, let me describe what happened in the relative darkness around 9:30 pm. The students vowed to non-violently defend their encampment and at least 300-400 students locked arms around it. These were bright, idealistic young students from every kind of background imaginable who had worked hard to gain their spot at U.C. Berkeley. They bravely stood there as a phalanx of police in riot gear turned the corner of Sproul Hall and rapidly charged towards them, thrusting their batons with violent force into the crowd. Chanting ‘non-violent protest’ and ‘stop beating students,’ student after student took fierce baton thrusts to their chests and limbs.
Then the police started swinging, brutally beating people’s chests, arms, knees, and backs. They were swinging to hurt. With the crowd behind and the police in front there was no way for people to leave even if they wanted to. A few people tried to escape in the narrow gap between the students and police. They were savagely beaten. Several people fell to the ground from police blows; they were mercilessly and repeatedly hit with batons as they lay defenseless on the ground, putting up no resistance whatsoever. The police arbitrarily pulled people from the crowd, arresting 32. Throughout what can only be described as a terrifying physical attack that has left many with serious injuries, the students stayed entirely non-violent.
In an email to the campus on Thursday, Chancellor Birgenou defended the administration’s response by saying that it was necessary to remove the encampment for ‘practical’ considerations of ‘hygiene, safety, space and conflict issues’ that would arise from it. He further sought to delegitimize the protesters by claiming that their actions did not deserve the name of non-violent civil disobedience. He wrote, “It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience.”
It seems improbable that a Chancellor who takes pride in his participation in the Freedom Rides could have forgotten that linking arms and peacefully refusing to move is exactly what non-violent civil disobedience has always consisted of, whether in Selma or the lunch-counters of the American South, South Africa or India. Where would any of these movements (that we now so easily admire) have ever gotten if they had said, ‘Ok, we won’t stand on your bridge, sit in your restaurant or take our salt from the sea?’ What Birgeneau is really saying then is that we are free to protest to so long as we obey his orders. This is more aptly called non-violent civil obedience. In trying to strip the students of their non-violence, Birgeneau constructs a classic reversal: holding hands is violence, and brutally beating students is necessary for protecting their safety.
While administrators like Birgeneau voice sympathy for the causes of the Occupy movement, profess to take pride in the campus’ long history of activism, and espouse a liberal nostalgia for the causes of their generation—the civil rights, anti-war, and anti-apartheid movements—their actions show that they are willing to play the role of those who have always suppressed such movements for social justice: responding to non-violent courage with a police club.
What Wednesday’s events conclusively demonstrate is that Birgeneau and the UC Berkeley administration, not student protesters, are the greatest threat to campus safety. While many police offers displayed sadistic violence and should be fired and sued for police brutality, the responsibility lies at the top. In deciding to authorize U.C. and Alameda County police to inflict grievous bodily injury on its own students to enforce a minor clause of the campus code, UC administrators—including Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor George Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor for Student affairs Harry Le Grande—showed an astounding lack of judgment, intellect, courage, and human decency. They should be forced to resign immediately before they are able to hurt more students.
Birgenou's Rampage
U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Sends in Riot Police to Batter Students
by MICHAEL LEVIEN
Berkeley
The word ‘clash’ is often deployed in media coverage of protests that result in violence. Thus, the Thursday headline of U.C. Berkeley’s Daily Californian read: ‘Protesters, Police Violently Clash.’ The San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage at least specified the subject of the verb: “authorities twice clashed with protesters.” However, the word is still entirely inappropriate for describing the events that took place Wednesday on the U.C. Berkeley campus. It implies an ambiguity about the directionality of violence that was entirely lacking in the day’s events. The truth, which has been partially captured on video, is that with the authorization of U.C. Berkeley administrators, riot police brutally beat entirely non-violent student protesters.
To set the stage, hundreds of students had come out to Sproul Plaza—where the Free Speech Movement began—to protest proposed fee hikes of 81 per cent that would bring U.C. tuition from $13,000 to over $22,000. The argument of the students was simple: the banks caused the financial crisis, the financial crisis caused the budget crisis, and therefore the banks, not students, should pay for it. Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of students by raising tuition and making public education inaccessible to working and middle-class students, the state should tax the banks, corporations and the top 1 per cent of income-earners to refund public education.
At class discussions and ‘teachouts’ held all week, students shared stories of the hardships already caused to their families by the fee increases that have raised UC tuition almost 100 per cent since 2008, and their concerns that if this new round of fee hikes went through, they would no longer be able to attend Cal, or would be plunged more deeply into debt. Ironically, they would be forced to take more loans from the very banks that caused the financial and budget crises that led to the fee hikes.
This brought hundreds of students, many of whom had never been in a protest before, out to Sproul Plaza on Wednesday. The students drew inspiration from the Occupy Movement and set up their own small encampment on the lawn outside of Sproul Hall. But ironically, whereas almost every major American city—including many with notoriously brutal police departments—has allowed Occupy encampments to stand, the administrators of U.C. Berkeley perceived a few tents as a sufficiently grave threat to public order that it warranted a brutal police assault on its own students.
While the afternoon’s violence was partly recorded, let me describe what happened in the relative darkness around 9:30 pm. The students vowed to non-violently defend their encampment and at least 300-400 students locked arms around it. These were bright, idealistic young students from every kind of background imaginable who had worked hard to gain their spot at U.C. Berkeley. They bravely stood there as a phalanx of police in riot gear turned the corner of Sproul Hall and rapidly charged towards them, thrusting their batons with violent force into the crowd. Chanting ‘non-violent protest’ and ‘stop beating students,’ student after student took fierce baton thrusts to their chests and limbs.
Then the police started swinging, brutally beating people’s chests, arms, knees, and backs. They were swinging to hurt. With the crowd behind and the police in front there was no way for people to leave even if they wanted to. A few people tried to escape in the narrow gap between the students and police. They were savagely beaten. Several people fell to the ground from police blows; they were mercilessly and repeatedly hit with batons as they lay defenseless on the ground, putting up no resistance whatsoever. The police arbitrarily pulled people from the crowd, arresting 32. Throughout what can only be described as a terrifying physical attack that has left many with serious injuries, the students stayed entirely non-violent.
In an email to the campus on Thursday, Chancellor Birgenou defended the administration’s response by saying that it was necessary to remove the encampment for ‘practical’ considerations of ‘hygiene, safety, space and conflict issues’ that would arise from it. He further sought to delegitimize the protesters by claiming that their actions did not deserve the name of non-violent civil disobedience. He wrote, “It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience.”
It seems improbable that a Chancellor who takes pride in his participation in the Freedom Rides could have forgotten that linking arms and peacefully refusing to move is exactly what non-violent civil disobedience has always consisted of, whether in Selma or the lunch-counters of the American South, South Africa or India. Where would any of these movements (that we now so easily admire) have ever gotten if they had said, ‘Ok, we won’t stand on your bridge, sit in your restaurant or take our salt from the sea?’ What Birgeneau is really saying then is that we are free to protest to so long as we obey his orders. This is more aptly called non-violent civil obedience. In trying to strip the students of their non-violence, Birgeneau constructs a classic reversal: holding hands is violence, and brutally beating students is necessary for protecting their safety.
While administrators like Birgeneau voice sympathy for the causes of the Occupy movement, profess to take pride in the campus’ long history of activism, and espouse a liberal nostalgia for the causes of their generation—the civil rights, anti-war, and anti-apartheid movements—their actions show that they are willing to play the role of those who have always suppressed such movements for social justice: responding to non-violent courage with a police club.
What Wednesday’s events conclusively demonstrate is that Birgeneau and the UC Berkeley administration, not student protesters, are the greatest threat to campus safety. While many police offers displayed sadistic violence and should be fired and sued for police brutality, the responsibility lies at the top. In deciding to authorize U.C. and Alameda County police to inflict grievous bodily injury on its own students to enforce a minor clause of the campus code, UC administrators—including Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor George Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor for Student affairs Harry Le Grande—showed an astounding lack of judgment, intellect, courage, and human decency. They should be forced to resign immediately before they are able to hurt more students.
MICHAEL LEVIEN is a graduate student in Sociology at U.C. Berkeley.
Let us support our troops - when they get back here, especially!
Gazette opinion: More work to do on getting jobs for U.S. veterans
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/gazette-opinion-more-work-to-do-on-getting-jobs-for/article_48e4eac2-4616-57e2-a9bf-2d186a04e5cd.html#ixzz1drjT0c4v
Last week, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a bill that, among other things, will expand incentives for hiring U.S. veterans.
All three members of Montana’s congressional delegation expressed support for the bill. Sen. Jon Tester sponsored the amendment to HR674 that added veteran hiring incentives to a bill repealing a law that would have required withholding 3 percent of large federal contracts until the contractor had paid its taxes.
Tester and Sen. Max Baucus had previously proposed incentives for hiring veterans. In October, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg supported a House bill that would increase veteran hiring incentives.
If the amended HR674 passes the House, it would become the first piece of President Obama’s jobs plan to be enacted. However, government policymakers are limited in what they can do to spur hiring. Most of the hiring will be done by private employers.
Getting information to these employers is crucial, said Dan Bernhardt, who manages the veterans employment program for the Montana Department of Labor and Industry.
Existing law already offers some employer incentives, Bernhardt noted. For example:
In addition to services available to all job seekers, the Montana Department of Labor has 10 veterans service representatives statewide. The department is hiring six additional veteran representatives for a federally funded pilot project that will focus on connecting Native American veterans to jobs. Those new hires, who are likely to be veterans themselves, will be placed in Job Service offices in Billings, Miles City, Wolf Point, Havre, Cut Bank and Polson.
In the quarter ended June 30, information compiled by the Montana Department of Labor indicated that 61 percent of veterans seeking jobs got hired, that 80 percent of those hired were retained and that 79 percent of the disabled veterans hired were retained in their jobs.
Montana has one of the highest state rates of unemployment for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, even though the state’s overall employment rate is below the national average. With a reported jobless rate of 20 percent for recent military veterans, Montana has a serious need for connecting veterans with jobs.
There are several reasons for a high unemployment rate for new veterans, Bernhardt said. Jobs may not be available in rural communities, veterans who enroll in college could be counted as jobless, veterans’ skills don’t always translate into the civilian experience they need to qualify for some jobs. The Senate-amended HR647 aims to address that credential problem.
Bernhardt said the proposed increases in veteran hiring incentives should help Montanans “as long as we do a good job on our end to make sure businesses know about them.”
Some Montana employers have taken advantage of the veterans hiring incentives. All businesses need to get the word.
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/gazette-opinion-more-work-to-do-on-getting-jobs-for/article_48e4eac2-4616-57e2-a9bf-2d186a04e5cd.html#ixzz1drjfEHLe
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/gazette-opinion-more-work-to-do-on-getting-jobs-for/article_48e4eac2-4616-57e2-a9bf-2d186a04e5cd.html#ixzz1drjT0c4v
Last week, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a bill that, among other things, will expand incentives for hiring U.S. veterans.
All three members of Montana’s congressional delegation expressed support for the bill. Sen. Jon Tester sponsored the amendment to HR674 that added veteran hiring incentives to a bill repealing a law that would have required withholding 3 percent of large federal contracts until the contractor had paid its taxes.
Tester and Sen. Max Baucus had previously proposed incentives for hiring veterans. In October, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg supported a House bill that would increase veteran hiring incentives.
If the amended HR674 passes the House, it would become the first piece of President Obama’s jobs plan to be enacted. However, government policymakers are limited in what they can do to spur hiring. Most of the hiring will be done by private employers.
Getting information to these employers is crucial, said Dan Bernhardt, who manages the veterans employment program for the Montana Department of Labor and Industry.
Existing law already offers some employer incentives, Bernhardt noted. For example:
A work opportunity tax credit of $2,400 for hiring a veteran.
A credit of $4,800 for hiring a veteran with a service connected disability.
A program that will pay 50 percent of the salary for up to six months for veterans in VA vocational rehabilitation.
In addition to services available to all job seekers, the Montana Department of Labor has 10 veterans service representatives statewide. The department is hiring six additional veteran representatives for a federally funded pilot project that will focus on connecting Native American veterans to jobs. Those new hires, who are likely to be veterans themselves, will be placed in Job Service offices in Billings, Miles City, Wolf Point, Havre, Cut Bank and Polson.
In the quarter ended June 30, information compiled by the Montana Department of Labor indicated that 61 percent of veterans seeking jobs got hired, that 80 percent of those hired were retained and that 79 percent of the disabled veterans hired were retained in their jobs.
Montana has one of the highest state rates of unemployment for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, even though the state’s overall employment rate is below the national average. With a reported jobless rate of 20 percent for recent military veterans, Montana has a serious need for connecting veterans with jobs.
There are several reasons for a high unemployment rate for new veterans, Bernhardt said. Jobs may not be available in rural communities, veterans who enroll in college could be counted as jobless, veterans’ skills don’t always translate into the civilian experience they need to qualify for some jobs. The Senate-amended HR647 aims to address that credential problem.
Bernhardt said the proposed increases in veteran hiring incentives should help Montanans “as long as we do a good job on our end to make sure businesses know about them.”
Some Montana employers have taken advantage of the veterans hiring incentives. All businesses need to get the word.
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/gazette-opinion-more-work-to-do-on-getting-jobs-for/article_48e4eac2-4616-57e2-a9bf-2d186a04e5cd.html#ixzz1drjfEHLe
Who caused the housing crisis? Why do people not believe all the studies? -- by Fabius Maximus
Fabius Maximus is another one of those must read analysts who facts and whose logical arguments are unassailable.
15 NOVEMBER 2011
Summary: Among our most serious problems is the success of well-funded engines of propaganda at manipulating public opinion, making effective public policy reforms almost impossible. Here we examine one example, convincing Americans that the government caused the housing bubble. This is a follow-up to Facts are an obstacle to the reform of America.
People become easily led once they are trained to believe appealing lies. Not just the occasional myths in the belief structure of every political movement, such as the Left’s doomster exaggerations about global warming, and their faith in the phantasm of the Social Security Trust Fund. Sometimes a movement’s leaders find that their followers have abandoned their skepticism, lost confidence in society’s experts, and become credulous about stories that confirm their biases.
It’s a national tragedy that this has happened to America’s conservatives. Their leaders investment large sums wisely and patiently, building a structure of plausible-sounding institutions to propagate well-constructed propaganda. After years of indoctrination, gradually they’ve spun increasingly wilder falsehoods. From misrepresentations about the adequacy of western europe’s healthcare to outright lies about Obama’s religion and citizenship.
So most discussions about public policy, especially economics, devolve into a debate about interlocking layers of falsehoods, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. Worse, conservative positions have become solidified — immune to facts. Obama’s citizenship is the extreme example. Here we look at another: the government’s role in the housing bubble and collapse.
Below are links to reports that examine the role of the and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Government-sponsored enterprises (GSE). I am aware of no analytical works coming to other conclusions. There are many books and articles blaming the government, mostly anecdotal in nature — and not remotely similar in depth of data and analysis to these studies. Yet to no effect, as faith-based conservatives hold to comforting stories told them by well-funded engines of disinformation.
Introduction to the subject
(1) An excellent introduction to the subject: “Did Fannie Cause the Disaster?” Frank Partnoy (Professor of Law and Finance at the U of San Diego) and Jeff Madrick, New York Review of Books, 27 October 2011
(2) One of the two most extensive studies done today: Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bi-partisan inquiry, January 2011 — Excerpt:
In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was enacted in 1977 to combat “redlining” by banks — the practice of denying credit to individuals and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness. The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank safety and soundness.
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans — a proxy for subprime loans — had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.
(3) The other definitive analysis to date about the effect of the CRA on the housing bust: “CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown“, Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 2008. It based on this Fed Working Paper: Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown. Excerpt:
… {We} believe that this research should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low- and moderate-income areas.
First, the data show that overall, lending to low- and moderate-income communities comprised only a small share of total lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of subprime lending in California. Second, we find loans originated by lenders regulated under the CRA in general were significantly less likely to be in foreclosure than those originated by IMCs. This held true even after controlling for a wide variety of borrower and loan characteristics, including credit score,income, and whether or not the loan was higher priced.
More important, we find that whether or not a loan was originated by a CRA lender within its assessment area is an even more important predictor of foreclosure. In general, loans made by CRA lenders within their assessment areas were half as likely to go into foreclosure as those made by IMCs (Table 2). While certainly not conclusive, this suggests that the CRA, and particularly its emphasis on loans made within a lender’s assessment area, helped to ensure responsible lending, even during a period of overall declines in underwriting standards.
(4) Some conservatives argued before the crash that the CRA was ineffective, and blocking access to credit by low-income households: “Should CRA Stand for ‘Community Redundancy Act?’”, Jeffery W. Gunther, Regulation, Cato Institute, 2000.
(5) Update: The global nature of the housing bubble shows little role for US-specific factors, such as the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises
See this from “A Global View of the Housing Bubble“, McKinsey Quarterly, October 2009:
Although the current crisis started with the bursting of the US housing bubble, other economies around the world are feeling the effects of their own real-estate booms and busts. From 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred (see exhibit). But that trend has reversed abruptly. In 2008, the value of US residential real estate fell 10 percent; the global average fared only somewhat better, declining by almost 4%. We estimate that falling home prices erased more than $3.4 trillion of household wealth in 2008. And because home prices are slow to correct, the current slide may persist for some time, which could depress global consumption.
Other studies
(6) Here is a pre-crash paper. Note that it does not even mention the CRA (blaming the CRA was a post-crash exercise): “The Evolution of the Subprime Mortgage Market“, Souphala Chomsisengphet and Anthony Pennington-Cross, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, January/February 2006 — Abstract:
This paper describes subprime lending in the mortgage market and how it has evolved through time. Subprime lending has introduced a substantial amount of risk-based pricing into the mortgage market by creating a myriad of prices and product choices largely determined by borrower credit history (mortgage and rental payments, foreclosures and bankruptcies, and overall credit scores) and down payment requirements. Although subprime lending still differs from prime lending in many ways, much of the growth (at least in the securitized portion of the market) has come in the least-risky (A–) segment of the market. In addition, lenders have imposed prepayment penalties to extend the duration of loans and required larger down payments to lower their credit risk exposure from high-risk loans.
(7) “The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis“, Traiger & Hinckley (attorneys), 7 January 2008 — “Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas” (PDF, 21 pages).
(8) “No, Larry, CRA Didn’t Cause the Sub-Prime Mess“, Ellen Seidman, New American Foundation, 15 April 2008. Seidman headed the Office of Thrift Supervision from 1997 – 2001, and has long experience in this area (bio), and this article has links to additional evidence.
(9) Another early look at the problem. It does not even mention the CRA, and gives little blame to the GSEs. “Understanding the Securitization of Subprime Mortgage Credit“, Adam B. Ashcraft and Til Schuermann, Staff Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, March 2008 — Abstract:
In this paper, we provide an overview of the subprime mortgage securitization process and the seven key informational frictions that arise. We discuss the ways that market participants work to minimize these frictions and speculate on how this process broke down. We continue with a complete picture of the subprime borrower and the subprime loan, discussing both predatory borrowing and predatory lending. We present the key structural features of a typical subprime securitization, document how rating agencies assign credit ratings to mortgage-backed securities, and outline how these agencies monitor the performance of mortgage pools over time. Throughout the paper, we draw upon the example of a mortgage pool securitized by New Century Financial during 2006.
(10) Remarks by Governor Randall S. Kroszner (Governor of the Federal Reserve System) At the Confronting Concentrated Poverty Policy Forum, 3 December 2008 — Excerpt:
Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices. In the remainder of my remarks, I will discuss some of our experiences with the CRA. I will also discuss the findings of a recent analysis of mortgage-related data by Federal Reserve staff that runs counter to the charge that the CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way, to the current subprime crisis . . .
“This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.
(11) “Housing Policy, Subprime Markets and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: What We Know, What We Think We Know and What We Don’t Know“, Jason Thomas and Robert Van Order (Prof Finance, George Washington U), Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, November 2010 — Abstract
We explore the role of housing policy in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the role of Fannie and Freddie in subprime markets and the sources of their default losses. We do not find evidence that their crash was due much to government housing policy or that they had an essential role in the development of the subprime mortgage-backed securities market, which occurred outside of the normal mortgage origination channels and which was funded by non agency or “private label” securities (PLS).
They did build a large portfolio of AAA-rated PLS, probably in response to affordable housing goals, but such investments were unlikely to have had much of an impact on subprime mortgage origination volume because the AAA pieces f PLS deals were not the important part of the deals. Rather than brewing for a long time, their downfall was quick and had to do with purchases of risky-but-not-subprime mortgages and insufficient capital to cover the decline in property values.
Other posts about the housing bubble
Diagnosing the eagle, chapter I — the housing bust, 6 December 2007
“Idiots Fiddle While Rome Burns” – comforting and facile rhetoric, 24 July 2008
A must-read for every American citizen: “The Fannie Mae Gang”, 25 July 2008
A vital but widely misunderstood aspect of our financial crisis, 18 September 2008 — Too many homes.
Knocking down houses in order to save the village, 20 October 2008
Destroying houses in order to boost home prices, 16 December 2008
The housing crisis allows America to look in the mirror. What do we see?, 9 March 2009
Another step to solving the housing crisis: downsize cities by destroying neighborhoods, 2 April 2009
Sparks of justice still live in America – cherish them and perhaps they’ll spread,
11 September 2009 — About foreclosures.
Who should we blame for the mortgage crisis?, 16 January 2010
Cutting through the fog to clearly understand the housing crisis, 8 July 2010
Housing Update – dynamite to blast us out of our lethargy?, 27 July 2010
Here’s an opportunity for the Tea Party: fighting foreclosure fraud by banks!, 22 September 2010
A briefing about the foreclosure fraud crisis: its origin and impacts, 14 October 2010
US partisan politics - Kabuki Theater! THERE is only ONE political party - the Republicrats
The good news: America’s politics are neither polarized nor dysfunctional. That’s also the bad news.
16 NOVEMBER 2011
tags: democratic party, polarization, politics, republican party
by Fabius Maximus
Summary: How sad that we so underestimate our leaders, confusing their skillful political engineering with folly. Of course their successful manipulation of us allows them to laugh at our scorn. This is the next in a series; at the end are links to previous chapters.
Many Americans rage at the dysfunctional polarization of our politics. How can our representatives agree upon necessary policy reforms when the two parties have such different positions and refuse to compromise. Our imbalance between government revenue and expenditures will bankrupt us if not closed. Our health care policy will bankrupt us if not changed. This is the consensus viewpoint, and totally wrong.
In 2007 and 2008 we saw a similar polarization in foreign and homeland security policies. Widespread domestic surveillance, torture, rendition, illegal foreign wars, kangaroo courts for foreigners imprisoned on flimsy evidence. These were necessary to protect the homeland — or the acts of a second Hitler. This led to the fiercely contested presidential election. The Democratic Party’s anti-Nazi platform won, but once in office their candidate continued and expanded Bush Jr’s policies (eg, see this Glenn Greenwald article about conservatives and liberals applauding Obama’s foreign and national security policies).
The apparent polarization was a farce, played by our ruling elites on a gullible American public. We accept it, conditioned to fear by years of scary propaganda and FBI-manufactured terrorist conspiracies — expert information operations directed at us.
Now the same dynamics repeat. Scary stories (mostly fake) about the nearly bankrupt Federal government incite panic and prepare us for what is to come. No matter who wins in the 2012 elections, in 2013 our representatives will raise taxes, cut expenditures (including Social Security and Medicare), start rebuilding our infrastructure, and begin the long process of reforming health care. It will be another Morning in America.
There is no crippling polarization, just distracting music masking a bipartisan consensus on key points of economic and foreign policy. It serves the valuable secondary purpose of distracting the proles. It gives them mock battles to fight and tribal loyalties to adopt (dirty hippy commies vs. puritanical ignorant fascists). Preventing the discovery of common causes, mutual allegiances, and the need for fundamental reform.
America is well-governed. But not in our interests.
How to choose a political party
Today we get to choose a political party like cattle at the Chicago stockyards get to choose a chute. The cattle (being smarter than us) don’t bother with party identification. They don’t cheer the “left-side” pen, or admire the virtue of its prisoners, the beauty of its fence, the wisdom of their keepers, or the free food. Those in the “right-side” pen don’t wear logos or trumpet their superior intelligence over those in the other pen.
It need not be like this. Both parties belong to us. Both must and can be retaken. America needs a choice, not an echo (to borrow Phyllis Schlafy’s memorable phrase).
For more information
For more about this see the FM Reference Page America – how can we reform it? Especially sections 8 and 10.
Other posts in this series:
Programs to reshape the American mind, run by the left and right, 2 August 2010
Which political party will best protect our liberties?, 10 September 2010
Our leaders have made a discovery of the sort that changes the destiny of nations, 1 September 2010
Polarization and hot rhetoric conceal two similar political parties. Will we ever notice?, 29 October 2010
We have the leaders we deserve. Visit McDonald’s to learn why., 30 October 2010
The winners and losers from this election, hidden amidst the noise, 3 November 2010
In America, both Left and Right love the long war, 30 March 2011
A look at the future of America, unlike the expectations of conservatives and liberals, 10 August 2011
Our fears are unwarranted. America is in fact well-governed, 18 August 2011
John Kass: Failing to order jury background checks is cruel and unusual punishment for taxpayers
www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-1116-20111116,0,3759608.column
chicagotribune.com
John Kass
November 16, 2011
I have an idea for how federal judges who neglect to order background checks of criminal juries can do public penance:
They can wear orange "community service" vests and use sharpened sticks to spear cigarette butts from the sidewalk out in front of the earthy hangouts where judges are known to have lunch.
But first, let me tell you what my friend Deuce and I did the other day. We went looking for that Cellini juror.
The one who apparently lied about her multiple felony convictions — a DUI and possession of crack cocaine — and by doing so may have screwed up Illinois' most important political corruption case in years: The successful prosecution of a political untouchable, Illinois Republican boss William Cellini, the multimillionaire who spent decades in the shadows, undetected at the center of the Combine's web.
Out in that juror's neighborhood, it was getting dark but still bright enough so the man in her apartment could see us and buzz us in. A little boy stood out on the landing, waiting, and then the older gentleman wearing a Chicago Blackhawks jersey came out.
"She's not here," said the man in Hawks colors. His cellphone started to ring, and Deuce asked for his number.
"No," he said. "I don't roll like that."
It was dinnertime. I figured she was behind that door. Just then the boy stepped back out. He said something about the Cellini juror who is believed to have hidden her felony convictions.
"She's afraid," he said.
She has nothing to be afraid of, I lied. Don't worry, I told him. Then we left.
Actually, she has reason to be afraid. Perjury is a federal offense, punishable by prison. And she's made some important people look awfully foolish.
She may have cost prosecutors and taxpayers an important conviction, and the expense of an extra trial.
I was in the courtroom the day the juror was questioned by U.S. District Judge James Zagel. She said something about a male relative who had been arrested, but she told Zagel that she felt she could come to an impartial verdict.
Now Cellini's attorney, Dan Webb, is demanding the guilty verdict be overturned. Webb will use the issue to appeal in the hopes of keeping Cellini out of prison for the next several years.
Cellini is the whole ballgame. He's bigger than convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, more important, with greater reach. Now the Cellini case has been compromised because of one juror. But not without help from Judge Zagel.
I like and respect Zagel. He did a remarkable job with the Family Secrets case of murder and conspiracy in the Chicago Outfit. And he's got a fine, sarcastic sense of humor. But here, he screwed up. Arrogance cost him.
How?
In an earlier high-profile case, he promised to check the backgrounds of jurors. But in the Cellini trial — a "heater" trial if there ever was one — it looks as if that didn't happen.
He should have known better. During the corruption trial of former Gov. George Ryan in 2006, the Tribune checked the jurors' backgrounds and found that two had concealed criminal convictions. They were dismissed. One was a holdout for Ryan.
But in Blagojevich's first trial, Zagel turned down requests of news organizations, including the Tribune, for the names of jurors. The public wasn't invited to know. Zagel said he understood the problems raised by the Tribune in the Ryan case but told everyone not to worry.
"The information-gathering process used by the Tribune (is) now automatically applied to jurors in high-profile cases," he said.
Yet it appears that background checks weren't done in the Cellini case, as Zagel had indicated they would be. After the trial, it didn't take a Tribune reporter long to find the Cellini juror's felony convictions.
And in an unrelated case a few days ago, the issue of background checks came up in the trial of a former Chicago cop allegedly involved in the drug business. After the U.S. Marshals Service declined to help with background checks, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall decided not to ask other officials to vet the jurors.
"There's a limit to what we can do," said Judge Gottschall, unfortunately ensuring her immortality.
There's a limit to what we can do, Judge Gottschall? A limit?
Judge, it doesn't take much to order federal bureaucrats to run criminal histories of potential jurors. All they have to do is push a few buttons on a computer. The Tribune could show you.
It's obvious that Gottschall and Zagel have some issues with background checks for jurors. It appears they're both in need of a stern corrective.
So if I had the power, I'd order them to wear orange vests, carry those sharp sticks and stand outside Manny's, spearing candy wrappers and other trash on the sidewalk for a week or two. Why Manny's?
Because judges of all kinds can often be seen at the historic deli, enjoying the scrumptious pastrami, and latke and such.
And standing there stabbing gum wrappers with a stick before their peers might be just the thing for judges who don't care about background checks for juries.
Illinois is sick with corruption, tired and numbed by it. We might be chumbolones, but we shouldn't be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of watching political untouchables dance away smiling because a juror lied, or because a judge didn't demand that simple checks be made.
jskass@tribune.com
Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune
chicagotribune.com
John Kass
November 16, 2011
I have an idea for how federal judges who neglect to order background checks of criminal juries can do public penance:
They can wear orange "community service" vests and use sharpened sticks to spear cigarette butts from the sidewalk out in front of the earthy hangouts where judges are known to have lunch.
But first, let me tell you what my friend Deuce and I did the other day. We went looking for that Cellini juror.
The one who apparently lied about her multiple felony convictions — a DUI and possession of crack cocaine — and by doing so may have screwed up Illinois' most important political corruption case in years: The successful prosecution of a political untouchable, Illinois Republican boss William Cellini, the multimillionaire who spent decades in the shadows, undetected at the center of the Combine's web.
Out in that juror's neighborhood, it was getting dark but still bright enough so the man in her apartment could see us and buzz us in. A little boy stood out on the landing, waiting, and then the older gentleman wearing a Chicago Blackhawks jersey came out.
"She's not here," said the man in Hawks colors. His cellphone started to ring, and Deuce asked for his number.
"No," he said. "I don't roll like that."
It was dinnertime. I figured she was behind that door. Just then the boy stepped back out. He said something about the Cellini juror who is believed to have hidden her felony convictions.
"She's afraid," he said.
She has nothing to be afraid of, I lied. Don't worry, I told him. Then we left.
Actually, she has reason to be afraid. Perjury is a federal offense, punishable by prison. And she's made some important people look awfully foolish.
She may have cost prosecutors and taxpayers an important conviction, and the expense of an extra trial.
I was in the courtroom the day the juror was questioned by U.S. District Judge James Zagel. She said something about a male relative who had been arrested, but she told Zagel that she felt she could come to an impartial verdict.
Now Cellini's attorney, Dan Webb, is demanding the guilty verdict be overturned. Webb will use the issue to appeal in the hopes of keeping Cellini out of prison for the next several years.
Cellini is the whole ballgame. He's bigger than convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, more important, with greater reach. Now the Cellini case has been compromised because of one juror. But not without help from Judge Zagel.
I like and respect Zagel. He did a remarkable job with the Family Secrets case of murder and conspiracy in the Chicago Outfit. And he's got a fine, sarcastic sense of humor. But here, he screwed up. Arrogance cost him.
How?
In an earlier high-profile case, he promised to check the backgrounds of jurors. But in the Cellini trial — a "heater" trial if there ever was one — it looks as if that didn't happen.
He should have known better. During the corruption trial of former Gov. George Ryan in 2006, the Tribune checked the jurors' backgrounds and found that two had concealed criminal convictions. They were dismissed. One was a holdout for Ryan.
But in Blagojevich's first trial, Zagel turned down requests of news organizations, including the Tribune, for the names of jurors. The public wasn't invited to know. Zagel said he understood the problems raised by the Tribune in the Ryan case but told everyone not to worry.
"The information-gathering process used by the Tribune (is) now automatically applied to jurors in high-profile cases," he said.
Yet it appears that background checks weren't done in the Cellini case, as Zagel had indicated they would be. After the trial, it didn't take a Tribune reporter long to find the Cellini juror's felony convictions.
And in an unrelated case a few days ago, the issue of background checks came up in the trial of a former Chicago cop allegedly involved in the drug business. After the U.S. Marshals Service declined to help with background checks, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall decided not to ask other officials to vet the jurors.
"There's a limit to what we can do," said Judge Gottschall, unfortunately ensuring her immortality.
There's a limit to what we can do, Judge Gottschall? A limit?
Judge, it doesn't take much to order federal bureaucrats to run criminal histories of potential jurors. All they have to do is push a few buttons on a computer. The Tribune could show you.
It's obvious that Gottschall and Zagel have some issues with background checks for jurors. It appears they're both in need of a stern corrective.
So if I had the power, I'd order them to wear orange vests, carry those sharp sticks and stand outside Manny's, spearing candy wrappers and other trash on the sidewalk for a week or two. Why Manny's?
Because judges of all kinds can often be seen at the historic deli, enjoying the scrumptious pastrami, and latke and such.
And standing there stabbing gum wrappers with a stick before their peers might be just the thing for judges who don't care about background checks for juries.
Illinois is sick with corruption, tired and numbed by it. We might be chumbolones, but we shouldn't be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of watching political untouchables dance away smiling because a juror lied, or because a judge didn't demand that simple checks be made.
The last jury I sat on (and in fact, EVERY jury I've ever sat on, I PROUDLY proclaim my felonious background. In point of fact, you actually DO want criminals judging criminals, because it tends to be a bit more difficult to bamboozle us with attorney's misdirections (at least, speaking for myself). Guilty is as guilty does, as Forest Gump would say. She voted guilty, which seems to be pretty much the concensus. IF this gets the case tossed, then maybe a bigger fix was in, and just MAYBE, they DID order a back ground check and let the juror pass in the hopes of getting an "untouchable" off - a second bite at the appls, as some might say.
jskass@tribune.com
Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune
We must always cherish the children in our lives who radiated love, even when we deserved it not
Can it really be 25 years since I first intruded into your family's life, on my birthday, called your dad on the phone because another actuary that we had both worked with said, "You remind me of this other actuary, Bill ######."
I seldom read my e-mails at this addy any more, and so just found this tonight, after an interesting five days in a mental hospital (checked my own self in - anything to get away from my father, at the time, who was being quite the jerk, what with my mom having died and all, he really ought to have offered me parting words other than these: "Who's going to take care of me?" {as I left to wend my way on my own to a mental health clinic, ending up not at the one I sought - transportation still being something of an issue with me - but another one, which got me rested up, my blood pressure down from 195 / 140 to about 140 / 85 and my blood sugars from about 325 to 125 ... my oh my oh my oh my - some bad sugar habits had evolved, my sweet one})
Ah, yes, them; fathers. So often entirely clueless about how to treat their daughters and all too often cavalier by too much with their quips when they should have kept their mouths shut, their tongues tied, and their ears opened and been prepared NEVER to judge .... but, by and large, it is not in their nature.
So, I blog (probably the world's most prolific bloggers, not merely because I run about 19 of the things, but because I post 100's of postings - ugh, horrid syntax - per week, when I'm all a'fire)
MarkGanzersBlog.Blogspot.Com was my first blog.
I tried to kill it, by not posting, and three months later, I was getting over 200 hits a day. I now post international issues there.
MarkGanzersInsanityBlog.Blogspot.Com -- US politics, cultural commentary, media criticism
MarkGanzersWritings.Blogspot.com -- my creative writing
MarkGanzersPhotos.Blogspot.com -- stuff from my extended families
You might be interested.
Or not.
From everything I ever knew about you, you were a bona-fide Genesis I child - perfectly formed in God's own image, and you were good. None of this could have possibly changed. You are now the you you always were going to be, joyous, loving, and yet .... honest, righteous, courageous. And these traits, while all are admirable, and we are taught all are traits we should attempt to attain and hone, these are traits that are virtually never appreciated by, hmm, how shall I say this next word ... assholes?
Too harsh perhaps. Too crude. Not appreciated by those whom ostensibly have power over you - parents, teachers, preachers, cops, bosses, etc, etc.
It terrifies them to be told the truth - most people are ill-suited for what they do - they just fall into it. They are lazy, incompetent, sometimes willfully so, sometimes just mismatched with where their true love of doing is and what they are doing instead is - doing in order to worship at the altar of consumption, at the altar of appearances, at the alter of never criticizing the institution which pays for their daily bread, and their useless toys, and poisonous food, and unhealthy attacks on their intellect and integrity.
But, I speak in generalizations; I speak mythically.
But, because I once knew you, and quite well, because you were always the BEST ANGELA you could be (and you gave this matter more than a little thought - you were kind, caring, sharing, giving, forgiving, nonjudgmental, but oh so brutally honest - as in "the emperor has no clothes" that honesty which the child's eye always sees, and which the child's heart and mind cannot keep silent on -- because the weak are exploited, and this is wrong, and the child always knows right from wrong.
I want you to remember this always:
And thus the poet / mystic / wrote: To thine own self be true.
And these words, to me, will always define you.
I am here, as you can see, or
xxxxxxxxxx@yyyyyyyyyy.com (only my most cherished and beloved of friends know of this e-mail)
and still at (847) @@@ - zzzz
With Love to you, and ALL You LOVE,
Mark Raymond Ganzer
(VARK)
Yes, oh ray of light, shining so bright,
Dancing so gracefully all day
Dancing so gracefully all night
I seldom read my e-mails at this addy any more, and so just found this tonight, after an interesting five days in a mental hospital (checked my own self in - anything to get away from my father, at the time, who was being quite the jerk, what with my mom having died and all, he really ought to have offered me parting words other than these: "Who's going to take care of me?" {as I left to wend my way on my own to a mental health clinic, ending up not at the one I sought - transportation still being something of an issue with me - but another one, which got me rested up, my blood pressure down from 195 / 140 to about 140 / 85 and my blood sugars from about 325 to 125 ... my oh my oh my oh my - some bad sugar habits had evolved, my sweet one})
Ah, yes, them; fathers. So often entirely clueless about how to treat their daughters and all too often cavalier by too much with their quips when they should have kept their mouths shut, their tongues tied, and their ears opened and been prepared NEVER to judge .... but, by and large, it is not in their nature.
So, I blog (probably the world's most prolific bloggers, not merely because I run about 19 of the things, but because I post 100's of postings - ugh, horrid syntax - per week, when I'm all a'fire)
MarkGanzersBlog.Blogspot.Com was my first blog.
I tried to kill it, by not posting, and three months later, I was getting over 200 hits a day. I now post international issues there.
MarkGanzersInsanityBlog.Blogspot.Com -- US politics, cultural commentary, media criticism
MarkGanzersWritings.Blogspot.com -- my creative writing
MarkGanzersPhotos.Blogspot.com -- stuff from my extended families
You might be interested.
Or not.
From everything I ever knew about you, you were a bona-fide Genesis I child - perfectly formed in God's own image, and you were good. None of this could have possibly changed. You are now the you you always were going to be, joyous, loving, and yet .... honest, righteous, courageous. And these traits, while all are admirable, and we are taught all are traits we should attempt to attain and hone, these are traits that are virtually never appreciated by, hmm, how shall I say this next word ... assholes?
Too harsh perhaps. Too crude. Not appreciated by those whom ostensibly have power over you - parents, teachers, preachers, cops, bosses, etc, etc.
It terrifies them to be told the truth - most people are ill-suited for what they do - they just fall into it. They are lazy, incompetent, sometimes willfully so, sometimes just mismatched with where their true love of doing is and what they are doing instead is - doing in order to worship at the altar of consumption, at the altar of appearances, at the alter of never criticizing the institution which pays for their daily bread, and their useless toys, and poisonous food, and unhealthy attacks on their intellect and integrity.
But, I speak in generalizations; I speak mythically.
But, because I once knew you, and quite well, because you were always the BEST ANGELA you could be (and you gave this matter more than a little thought - you were kind, caring, sharing, giving, forgiving, nonjudgmental, but oh so brutally honest - as in "the emperor has no clothes" that honesty which the child's eye always sees, and which the child's heart and mind cannot keep silent on -- because the weak are exploited, and this is wrong, and the child always knows right from wrong.
I want you to remember this always:
you made a broken, middle-aged man feel loved
you were a model of what a free spirit this fat, balding,
middle-aged man might become
if only he were to free himself from
the unrewarding job of always trying to please everyone
and in the end pleasing no one,
least of all, his own self
And thus the poet / mystic / wrote: To thine own self be true.
And these words, to me, will always define you.
I am here, as you can see, or
xxxxxxxxxx@yyyyyyyyyy.com (only my most cherished and beloved of friends know of this e-mail)
and still at (847) @@@ - zzzz
And I love to ride the rails on the weekend unlimited rail pass
And thus do I pass through Chicago frequently,
And have come to find many comforting places
And friends who welcome me back again and again
And if you would like me to be your friend (still)
Then I shall be (and I always will)
With Love to you, and ALL You LOVE,
Mark Raymond Ganzer
(VARK)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Basu: We need concern for victims, not just coaches
We so deperately need voices like those of Rehka Basu's, whose eye unerringly spots what should be and whose keyboard relentlessly types the misdirectedness of what is -- Good God in Heaven Above, we must protect the children among us, ALL the children of the earth from those who would prey upon them; we must further put away forever those who would sexually abuse our children, for they are evil, and beyond words -- on par with the worst of all the war criminals of the world. Grant us this courage, Heavenly Father, to call evil by its name and to NEVER excuse those empowered to STOP the predators, but who choose to look the other way, in order to "protect" the alleged sanctity of their image and the self-images of the institutions who permit crimes against children to go not merely unremarked, but to continue. God we know that you condemn those (sick indeed they may be, but evil, most assuredly they are). Grant us the courage, Lord, to do the right thing. It is SO simple to do so at the earliest detection, and so much more difficult the longer the crimes are permitted to continue. Give us just this much humanity, dear Lord, if nothing more, we ask, if it be Thy will. AMEN.
On Wednesday, students at Penn State rioted over the firing of their head football coach, who had failed to call police after a graduate assistant reported seeing a former coach, Jerry Sandusky, rape a child in the football locker room.
They ought to have threatened him for doing as little as he did, which was NOTHING to stop the rape of a young boy by an older, bigger, facsimile of a human creature.
Mike McQueary, the one who reported that assault, has received numerous death threats. On Friday, he was placed on indefinite administrative leave by the school.
If I’m misinterpreting, someone please explain, because it looks like these angry mobs aren’t protesting the abuse of children but rather, which man took the fall for it. It looks like they want to vilify the whistleblower who told Joe Paterno and the grand jury what he saw.
Whistle blowers are invariably and inevitably vilified. It is stunning that there are any, but such people are made of inherently strong moral stuffings.
Please let me be wrong in thinking the rioters would rather sacrifice children than tamper with a coach who led a team to victories. Tell me that rioting was misreported, that it was actually driven by outrage over a pedophile former coach who preyed on children, some as young as 7, over 15 years, and a conspiracy of silence.
Have those rioters read the grand jury indictment of Sandusky? They should. It makes you sick to your stomach. It paints a picture of a man who had set up a charity just to lure underprivileged boys into his lair to abuse them.
If true, Sandusky pursued eight boys with gifts, attention and special game access; he had them sleep over at his house and crawled into bed with them at night; he groped them in showers and cars, a sauna and hotel room; and he raped them.
But university higher-ups refused to call it that, sanitizing what happened in their accounts to other officials, the report says. Calling McQueary very credible, the indictment says after he allegedly saw a 10-year being penetrated from the rear by Sandusky in a locker room shower in 2002, he told Paterno.
But by the time the account had made it from Paterno to the athletic director, a vice president, president and the director of the Second Mile charity where the boys came from, the story was reduced to some vague account of something inappropriate — even though Vice President Gary Schultz knew child welfare officials had investigated Sandusky in 1998 for taking showers with boys.
Had Schultz or Paterno, or any official gone to police or child protection officers in 2002, at least one more victim could have been spared. Instead, they apparently helped cover up for Sandusky. Instead of going to jail, he was told not to bring young boys onto campus.
True, McQueary could have gone to police himself, but he was a student and Paterno was the head coach.
An 8-year-old Iowa girl apparently has a more developed sense of moral responsibility than the brass at Penn State.
Last week, it was reported that a child of that age visiting a relative at a Pomeroy nursing home witnessed an elderly woman being assaulted sexually by a male resident and told nursing home administrators and criminal investigators about it.
That man, incidentally, is on the sex offender registry for four convictions, yet an Iowa judge had inexplicably ordered him to live in the nursing home.
But Penn State had all the evidence it needed.
Officials at Iowa’s public universities have, in the past, failed to respond adequately to sexual assault reports. Some protocols have been changed.
But when are we going to change the culture from the top so that standing up for victims is always considered more important than protecting good ole boys’ reputations or the reputation of a school?
At a news conference, Paterno’s replacement got teary discussing how much Paterno has meant to him. I just wished he had shed a single tear for the children.
It's not right when you have to pay, but giant, profitable companies don't 8:28 PM, Nov. 11, 2011
A s Warren Buffet has famously pointed out, there is something wrong when his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. What isn’t being talked about, and what is wrong, too: That secretary is paying more in federal income taxes than many huge corporations.
Some of this country’s most profitable companies pay nothing in federal income tax — at a time when the government is broke. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy explains the painful truth of what is going on.
The nonprofit advocacy group reviewed 280 of America’s largest companies from 2008 through 2010. All were profitable — to the tune of $1.4 trillion combined. Yet 78 of the companies paid zero or less
This makes a mockery of federal tax law requiring corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes. It should offend all Americans who hear political leaders talk about cutting programs because the government does not have enough money to pay for them when some profitable corporations are let off without paying a dime.
Lawmakers on a “super committee” are trying to find ways to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion. That will mean cuts. On Monday Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Iowans his plan for reducing the deficit. Deciding whether to fund a program would be based on whether it is “worth borrowing money from China to pay for it,” he said.
But the $222.7 billion in tax subsidies that went to 280 corporations is money the government would not have to borrow. Instead of allowing those 280 corporations to avoid paying their share, the government ought to be collecting taxes from them — just like it does from countless others.
Forget about gauging the worth of a government program by whether we should get a loan from China to pay for it. No one should be considering cuts to food stamps, health care, transportation funding or safety net programs when companies like DuPont, General Electric and Duke Energy have paid no income taxes on their profits for three years.
As if all this isn’t astounding enough, some politicians are advocating more of the same kind of tax relief. We need to be “business friendly,” they argue. We don’t disagree, to an extent. But it doesn’t get much friendlier than making it legal to not pay any taxes on your profits. You couldn’t get a better friend than a government that sends you a “rebate” check even though you paid no taxes on your profits.
What lawmakers should be talking about is making corporations pay their fair share to support the basic services in this country — services that benefit these corporations. That’s the same government that built the transportation network and educated the workforce and provided the military that helped the companies become so profitable.
The 67-page report on corporate taxes should be required reading for all members of Congress and all political candidates. It dispels the myth that companies pay more taxes in the United States than other countries. It shows the impact of relentless corporate lobbying in Washington. It underscores the unfairness of some companies paying their share while their competitors don’t.
The report also serves as a reminder to Republicans that their own Ronald Reagan understood the absurdity of such tax dodges. “I just didn’t realize that things had gotten that far out of line,” he told his Treasury secretary. Then he eliminated many corporate tax loopholes when he signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Yet in the years that followed, lawmakers and presidents undid that progress. They continue to do so. Now we face this enormous financial mess.
While taxes paid by corporations funded one-fourth of the federal government’s expenses in the 1950s, they now cover 6 percent. Our leaders talk about doing them more financial favors while slashing programs millions of Americans rely on.
What a country.
Some of this country’s most profitable companies pay nothing in federal income tax — at a time when the government is broke. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy explains the painful truth of what is going on.
The nonprofit advocacy group reviewed 280 of America’s largest companies from 2008 through 2010. All were profitable — to the tune of $1.4 trillion combined. Yet 78 of the companies paid zero or less
sacre blueu! Q'est que c'est "less?"in federal income taxes in at least one of the years. In addition, the government gave some of the companies billions of your tax dollars in “tax rebate checks,” according to the report.
This makes a mockery of federal tax law requiring corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes. It should offend all Americans who hear political leaders talk about cutting programs because the government does not have enough money to pay for them when some profitable corporations are let off without paying a dime.
Lawmakers on a “super committee” are trying to find ways to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion. That will mean cuts. On Monday Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Iowans his plan for reducing the deficit. Deciding whether to fund a program would be based on whether it is “worth borrowing money from China to pay for it,” he said.
But the $222.7 billion in tax subsidies that went to 280 corporations is money the government would not have to borrow. Instead of allowing those 280 corporations to avoid paying their share, the government ought to be collecting taxes from them — just like it does from countless others.
Forget about gauging the worth of a government program by whether we should get a loan from China to pay for it. No one should be considering cuts to food stamps, health care, transportation funding or safety net programs when companies like DuPont, General Electric and Duke Energy have paid no income taxes on their profits for three years.
As if all this isn’t astounding enough, some politicians are advocating more of the same kind of tax relief. We need to be “business friendly,” they argue. We don’t disagree, to an extent. But it doesn’t get much friendlier than making it legal to not pay any taxes on your profits. You couldn’t get a better friend than a government that sends you a “rebate” check even though you paid no taxes on your profits.
What lawmakers should be talking about is making corporations pay their fair share to support the basic services in this country — services that benefit these corporations. That’s the same government that built the transportation network and educated the workforce and provided the military that helped the companies become so profitable.
The 67-page report on corporate taxes should be required reading for all members of Congress and all political candidates. It dispels the myth that companies pay more taxes in the United States than other countries. It shows the impact of relentless corporate lobbying in Washington. It underscores the unfairness of some companies paying their share while their competitors don’t.
The report also serves as a reminder to Republicans that their own Ronald Reagan understood the absurdity of such tax dodges. “I just didn’t realize that things had gotten that far out of line,” he told his Treasury secretary. Then he eliminated many corporate tax loopholes when he signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Yet in the years that followed, lawmakers and presidents undid that progress. They continue to do so. Now we face this enormous financial mess.
While taxes paid by corporations funded one-fourth of the federal government’s expenses in the 1950s, they now cover 6 percent. Our leaders talk about doing them more financial favors while slashing programs millions of Americans rely on.
What a country.
I have one HUGE beef with this editorial: NAME THE FRIGGIN SLACKARD COMPANIES - but, to do so, might risk a back lash of pulled advertising!
Letting Israel Lead Us Around by the Potty Wand by Jeff Huber
The best political joke of the election season so far has been Mitt Romney’s assertion that we should let Israel dictate our Middle East Policy. Jesus at the temple, Mitt; catch up. Israel has had undue influence on our policies in that part of the world since its inception in 1948. Since the neocon/Likudnik cabal came into power with the pseudo-election of young Mr. Bush in 2002, Israel has been leading our Middle East policy around the potty wand.
The latest evidence of our abject obedience to Israel's interests was the latest two-prong offensive against Iran, the most recent operation in a long propaganda campaign aimed at turning the Persian state into a post-modern incarnation of the Evil Soviet Empire.
Phase one of Operation Persian Poppycock was a Keystone Kop caper cooked up by the DEA and the FBI that took a drug dealer looking to ditch hard jail time and an alcoholic wife-abusing dead beat and framed them as key conspirators in a Iranian Quds Force scheme to blow a big shot Saudi and an Israeli Embassy to smithereens. Even though the warmonger friendly New York Times and Washington Post did their very best to peddle the pathetic plot to the proletariat, the story was quickly dismissed by the cognizant majority as bunker mentality bunkum.
The IAEA Report on Iraq
Less probal to thinking was the grand scale deception the Pentarchy's bull feather merchant marines conducted regarding accusations about Iran’s nuclear intentions centered on the release of the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This canard too was supported by the warmongery’s select echo chamberlains, most notably the deplorable David E. Sanger of the New York Times and the irredeemable Job Warwick of the Washington Post, both of whom tumbled tokeses over teakettles to cite the most irresponsible and incendiary sources available on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program, including fake nuclear weapons shaman and prominent AIPAC prostitute David Albright.
Israeli Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu, who French President Nicholas Sarkozy recently had the moral spine to call a liar in front of U.S. President Barack Obama, took advantage of the mainstream bullhorn to criticize the IAEA report because “only things that could be proven were written” in it, but, “in reality there are many other things that we see." In reality one needs a microscope and a fertile imagination to see anything provable whatsoever in the IAEA report.
The crux of the report’s allegations that Iran may yet be working toward building a nuclear weapon rest on its claim that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon. But as my colleague Gareth Porter quickly pointed out, the scientist, identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist at all. Danilenko, as research of open source documents revealed, has specialized for his entire career in the production of detonation nanodiamonds, which are diamond particles used for industrial and medical purposes including the treatment of cancer. Iran, coincidentally, has been endeavoring to establish a nanodiamond industry. Maybe that's the next plank in our Iran policy: they can have a nanodiamond industry as long as they buy their nanodiamonds from us.
The IAEA could easily have researched the materials that Porter researched and arrived at the same conclusions that he reached. Considering the report’s predictably profound impact on international relations, one might think that the IAEA would have to taken as much trouble as Porter took to get its facts straight. But one would be sadly mistaken, and one should be furious to find that the IAEA chose instead to use unchallenged information fed to it by an undisclosed “member nation,” much in the same manner that the New York Times and Washington Post repeat pro-war propaganda channeled though it by unnamed “senior officials.” I can’t say for sure what that member nation’s identity might be, but I’d bet a dollar of my own money that its first initial stands for “Israel.” You never know, though. The member nation’s first initial might also stand for “United.”
Not shockingly, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post nor any of the rest of the mainstream news foppery has bothered to take the trouble to break the news that their breaking news about the IAEA report was pure unadulterated bull roar.
This monkey business of accusing Iran of everything from killing our soldiers in Iraq to building nukes to getting dairy goats pregnant without providing a scrap of credible evidence to back the accusations up has been going on since at least 2007 when Mr. Bush’s bunch was looking for excuses to extend the War on Evil in Iraq indefinitely with a “surge” escalation. If a tenth of shenanigans the Pentarchy has charged Iran with being up to were true, there would be no excuse on earth for not having bombed the entire Persian race into the carrier pigeon mode by now.
Yet Minister of Peace Leon Panetta wasted little time in calling a news conference and cautioning, oh, no, no, we don’t want to bomb Iran, that might bring on “unintended consequences,” yepper, yup, yup, yo! It must be that Uncle Leo has reached the age where he's worried about the destination of his immortal soul.
Iran is not a military threat to anyone—except possibly to itself if it ever were to acquire nuclear weapons. Nukes in the hands of Iran would be the third-world equivalent of a doomsday machine, and as Doctor Strangelove admonished the Soviet Ambassador in the eponymous film by Stanley Kubrick, a doomsday machine doesn’t serve its purpose unless you tell everyone that you have it. Once Iran were to announce its possession of a nuclear arsenal, Fork-Tongued Bebe would have his flying circus turn Iran into a parking lot for our permanent occupation forces in Iraq and the Bananastans.
Despite plain evidence that our Iran policy is the epitome of rogue hegemony, we continue to demonize Iran in accordance with the dictates of the Israelis, who could populate the world’s museums with the galleries' worth of U.S. politicians it has purchased over the years. I have suggested that if we really want to vouchsafe Israel’s security we should make it the 51st state. But Israel isn’t likely to go along with that. As I mentioned a moment ago, they don’t need formal legislative representation here because they already own our Congress, and if they become a state they’ll have to pay our taxes and obey our laws.
Um, Commander, would they really have to pay our taxes and obey our laws? I'm sure there is some loophole somewhere that could be put on the books that would make it a crime to tax citizens of such a (at this point in time hypothetically constructed) state and this would let the neocons of dual citizenship and questionable first loyalties avoid taxes the old-fashioned way - by changing the laws to let them stop paying them ... your basic win-win for the yom kippers!
Israel has a much better deal the way things are now.
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) is author of the critically lauded novel Bathtub Admirals, a lampoon on America’s rise to global dominance.
LET US TAX THE PO' SOME MO' - Study: Michigan among states raising poor's taxes
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan is among just a handful of states raising taxes on low-income working families while cutting taxes for other groups, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said in a report released Tuesday.
The Washington-based group notes that Michigan, New Jersey and Wisconsin all have scaled back tax credits for low-income workers in recent years while cutting business taxes. In Michigan's case, low-income families will see their tax breaks shrink starting next year by about $260 million annually while businesses will get a $1.1 billion tax break starting in January and a $1.7 billion tax break the year after.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder originally wanted to eliminate the state Earned Income Tax Credit, but agreed to reduce it from 20 percent of the federal credit to 6 percent for tax year 2012. He said earlier this year that the state needed to make cuts to balance the budget and noted no cuts were being made in Medicaid programs providing health care to low-income working families. He also has said the business tax cuts will create employment opportunities.
"More and better jobs are at the heart of the governor's plan to improve and strengthen our economy so ALL can prosper and benefit," Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for the first-year Republican governor, said in an emailed response to the report.
Wurfel said Snyder finds it unacceptable that Michigan's families "are among the poorest in the nation."
"His overall plan aims to help address and reverse that trend. He's also worked hard to ensure essential and solid safety net services that lower income individuals rely on, like protecting Medicaid access and services," she said.
The Michigan League for Human Services, which opposed shrinking the tax credit, said the change is bad policy.
Five years ago, Michigan was one of just five states that taxed a working family of four making below $14,000, about 71 percent of the federal poverty level, one of the harshest levels of taxation on the poor in the country.
That changed when lawmakers passed the state tax credit, which took effect in 2008. Last year, Michigan taxed a family of four only when its income reached 136 percent of the poverty level — about $30,300, according to the center's report.
"Michigan had made a lot of progress from the days when we used to literally tax working families into poverty," the league's policy director, Karen Holcomb-Merrill, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, we're moving once again moving in the wrong direction on this issue."
Families qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit have been getting about $430 annually from the credit. That amount will drop to $130 to $140 in the next tax year. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Michigan businesses next year will be exempt from paying corporate income taxes under the new business tax breaks.
"EITC cuts helped offset ... the revenue loss from those tax cuts," the center said in its report. "Instead of undermining efforts to reduce the tax liabilities of poor families, states should preserve the progress they have made and build upon it when their budget outlook improves."
Wurfel said the tax changes were part of an effort to make the system "simple, fair and efficient."
"It was also about ending exorbitant business tax credits that were jeopardizing our future and ensuring a level playing field for all industries and sectors," she said. "It was about creating a structurally balanced budget that could be a building block for the future."
___
The Washington-based group notes that Michigan, New Jersey and Wisconsin all have scaled back tax credits for low-income workers in recent years while cutting business taxes. In Michigan's case, low-income families will see their tax breaks shrink starting next year by about $260 million annually while businesses will get a $1.1 billion tax break starting in January and a $1.7 billion tax break the year after.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder originally wanted to eliminate the state Earned Income Tax Credit, but agreed to reduce it from 20 percent of the federal credit to 6 percent for tax year 2012. He said earlier this year that the state needed to make cuts to balance the budget and noted no cuts were being made in Medicaid programs providing health care to low-income working families. He also has said the business tax cuts will create employment opportunities.
"More and better jobs are at the heart of the governor's plan to improve and strengthen our economy so ALL can prosper and benefit," Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for the first-year Republican governor, said in an emailed response to the report.
Wurfel said Snyder finds it unacceptable that Michigan's families "are among the poorest in the nation."
"His overall plan aims to help address and reverse that trend. He's also worked hard to ensure essential and solid safety net services that lower income individuals rely on, like protecting Medicaid access and services," she said.
The Michigan League for Human Services, which opposed shrinking the tax credit, said the change is bad policy.
Five years ago, Michigan was one of just five states that taxed a working family of four making below $14,000, about 71 percent of the federal poverty level, one of the harshest levels of taxation on the poor in the country.
That changed when lawmakers passed the state tax credit, which took effect in 2008. Last year, Michigan taxed a family of four only when its income reached 136 percent of the poverty level — about $30,300, according to the center's report.
"Michigan had made a lot of progress from the days when we used to literally tax working families into poverty," the league's policy director, Karen Holcomb-Merrill, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, we're moving once again moving in the wrong direction on this issue."
Families qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit have been getting about $430 annually from the credit. That amount will drop to $130 to $140 in the next tax year. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Michigan businesses next year will be exempt from paying corporate income taxes under the new business tax breaks.
"EITC cuts helped offset ... the revenue loss from those tax cuts," the center said in its report. "Instead of undermining efforts to reduce the tax liabilities of poor families, states should preserve the progress they have made and build upon it when their budget outlook improves."
Wurfel said the tax changes were part of an effort to make the system "simple, fair and efficient."
"It was also about ending exorbitant business tax credits that were jeopardizing our future and ensuring a level playing field for all industries and sectors," she said. "It was about creating a structurally balanced budget that could be a building block for the future."
___
The reason (sad, sorry excuse) I've not posted for a while
Sorry for my absence - got so, hmm, how shall I say this? FRUSTRATED with dad last Thursday (11-10-11) that I ended up calling 9-1-1 to be taken to an ER (dad wouldn't drive me to Elgin Mental Health Center) went to St Alexius, from there to the most remarkable facility - remarkable in that they were so overt on the spiritual aspects of being human, that, for SOME of the psychiatric bent, it would have been borderline grounds for commitment of the institution - for believing in something bigger than our selves, fate, a God Who watches over us ..
But, by and large, it was just a place to house people with problems that the legal system does not (yet) want to deal with as criminals ... and basically the staff spent most of its days eyes buried on the computer screen, or hanging out at the nurses station and talking - which explains why they let this one guy out of their sight and he ended up walking into my room, and opening the bathroom door, that I was inside the bathroom (gargling only) ... frickin creep - and I called them on it.
I was also the one that told them that my roomie, Alonzo, who had three voices that he would talk in, got very cold at night, shivered like crazy, which kept him awake, until I got him an extra blanket and an extra sheet, after which he fell asleep in about 5 minutes, snored for 15, then slept the rest of the night through, without waking, like a little loved-by-God baby ...
Met some very nice, wonderful people, who kept me grounded (this always happens) and also met the most manipulative person ever in my life (hospital staff characterized her as "an incredibly high-functioning psychotic" and ended up getting released, just tonight, without even asking to be released (they had a huge population influx, which explains THAT) ...
Hopefully dad (whose last words to me were, "Who's going to take care of me?" ... jeezuz h krist on a krost, RALPH - must EVERY"THING be about you? you are not quite getting "it" that I would RATHER BE IN A NUT HOUSE than living here with you (as the present relationship has unfolded) .. but, I think he's starting to get it ... he has lost another 6 pounds in my absence, he's shrunk at least 4" since mom died, his primary physician REALLY thinks he needs the colonoscopy and MEANWHILE - he avoids grief counseling as if it were a rattle snake or syphlittic slut ... me thinks ... he is not long for this world (I guess he'll be dead within a year of mom's death - just like his own mother went after his dad died; within one year)
At that point in time, my life becomes my own, for the first time ever.
But, by and large, it was just a place to house people with problems that the legal system does not (yet) want to deal with as criminals ... and basically the staff spent most of its days eyes buried on the computer screen, or hanging out at the nurses station and talking - which explains why they let this one guy out of their sight and he ended up walking into my room, and opening the bathroom door, that I was inside the bathroom (gargling only) ... frickin creep - and I called them on it.
I was also the one that told them that my roomie, Alonzo, who had three voices that he would talk in, got very cold at night, shivered like crazy, which kept him awake, until I got him an extra blanket and an extra sheet, after which he fell asleep in about 5 minutes, snored for 15, then slept the rest of the night through, without waking, like a little loved-by-God baby ...
Met some very nice, wonderful people, who kept me grounded (this always happens) and also met the most manipulative person ever in my life (hospital staff characterized her as "an incredibly high-functioning psychotic" and ended up getting released, just tonight, without even asking to be released (they had a huge population influx, which explains THAT) ...
Hopefully dad (whose last words to me were, "Who's going to take care of me?" ... jeezuz h krist on a krost, RALPH - must EVERY"THING be about you? you are not quite getting "it" that I would RATHER BE IN A NUT HOUSE than living here with you (as the present relationship has unfolded) .. but, I think he's starting to get it ... he has lost another 6 pounds in my absence, he's shrunk at least 4" since mom died, his primary physician REALLY thinks he needs the colonoscopy and MEANWHILE - he avoids grief counseling as if it were a rattle snake or syphlittic slut ... me thinks ... he is not long for this world (I guess he'll be dead within a year of mom's death - just like his own mother went after his dad died; within one year)
At that point in time, my life becomes my own, for the first time ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)