The [Washington] Post bizarrely describes a scenario in which Greenspan "puzzled over one piece of data a Fed employee showed him in his final weeks. A trade publication reported that the subprime mortgages had ballooned to 20 percent of all loans, triple the level of a few years earlier."

If this is true, then it implies an incredible level of incompetence on Greenspan's part. The rise in subprime lending was not some obscure fact known only to a privileged few. It was a widely noted development in the housing market over the years 2003-2005. If Greenspan was just made aware of this growth as in the last month of his tenure in January of 2006, then he was incredibly negligent in performing his job.

The growth in housing prices had been the central fuel of the U.S. economy in the recovery following the 2001 recession. Greenspan had been an eager proponent of housing dismissing the concerns of those who warned of a housing bubble. If he did not even know of the surge in subprime lending, then it is difficult to imagine any possible basis on which he could have ruled out the existence of a bubble in the housing market. (The article says that Greenspan "did not recall" whether he mentioned the growth in subprime lending to Bernanke. If Bernanke, did not already know about the growth in subprime, then he is not competent to be chairman of the Fed.)

In short, this article does more to conceal than reveal the developments that led to the current housing crash. There were no deep mysteries that had to be uncovered. House prices had gotten badly out of line with fundamentals by 2002. This was possible for any competent analyst to recognize just as it was possible to recognize the stock bubble by 1998. Unfortunately, the Post and the rest of the media relied almost exclusively on analysts who somehow failed to recognize the housing (and stock) bubbles or worse, had a direct interest in perpetuating these bubbles. Even after the fact, the Post is still choosing to rely almost exclusively on those who failed to see the bubble, rather than the experts who foresaw and warned of the problems ahead.

Dean Baker: The Post Misses the Housing Bubble Yet Again

• your sons and daughters serving in Iraq;


• the standing of the United States as a bastion of freedom, justice and prosperity;


• the Iraqis; and


• the less affuent of the world who are starving because the price of food staples has gone through the ceiling.

I can’t make this up:

In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world’s top oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red line around Iraq and signed their names to it.

The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war. It explains this week’s rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.

It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.

Barack Obama knows this. Or, just as important, those crafting his policies seem to know this. Same for Hillary Clinton’s team. There could be no more vital difference between the Republican and Democratic candidacies. And you won’t learn a thing about it on the news from the Fox-holes.

Diaz: One of the main reasons that I feel that I as an individual was targeted rather than my conduct was targeted was because there were actually other judges that I served with who also had campaigns loans guaranteed by Paul Minor and these judges were not prosecuted. Specifically, the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Edwin Pittman, also had a campaign loan guaranteed by Paul Minor.

The main difference between me and Pittman was that Pittman voted in all of Minor’s cases and even authored opinions that were favorable to Minor and his clients while I did not participate. Now, I am not saying that Pittman did anything wrong. However, I could never understand, and it has never been explained to me, how his conduct and active participation and favorable rulings were ignored and I was indicted and prosecuted for bribery and I had never been involved in Minor’s cases.

The only reasonable explanation seems to be that prosecutors were more interested in specific individuals and not the conduct of an individual. James Thomas (who has since died) was another judge I served with who had a campaign loan guaranteed by Minor. Judge Thomas also participated in Minor’s cases and was not prosecuted. I do not believe, and do not want to be seen as implying, that Thomas did anything inappropriate, just that under similar circumstances I was prosecuted and others were not. Federal prosecutors were fully aware of these other loans but chose not to prosecute them, even though these judges ruled in Minor’s favor in cases before them. Again, I did not participate in any of Minor’s cases and was indicted and tried for bribery [and eventually exonerated]. The only reasonable explanation is that prosecutors were more interested in prosecuting particular individuals.

The effect of mentally ill homeless persons on the quality of life on nation’s sidewalks and in parks and public libraries are known by all who live in cities. According to one observer: “A simple visit to the local elementary school, post office or grocery store . . . can be a Dantean journey through the dark underside of our society. Violence, harassment and an astonishing list of antisocial behavior are commonplace.” These social costs are matched by fiscal costs. In Los Angeles it was estimated that the cost of “arrests, incarcerations, emergency medical care and other crisis interventions” runs between $35,000 and $150,000 per person per year for individuals who are chronically homeless. In Reno “a chronically homeless mentally ill man . . . cost the county at least $1 million during his 10 years on the streets before he died in 2005.” Fiscal conservatives thought that they would save money by emptying state mental hospitals, but they in fact only shifted the fiscal burden from the department of mental health to departments of corrections and social services and to the courts.

The three largest de facto psychiatric institutions in the United States are the Los Angeles County Jail, Chicago’s Cook County Jail, and New York’s Riker Island Jail. We have been unable to identify a single county in the nation where the county psychiatric inpatient facility is holding as many mentally ill individuals as the county jail. And once a person is in jail, it is almost impossible to find them a bed in a psychiatric hospital. In Virginia, for example, Sheriff Paul Lanteigne of Virginia Beach “estimates that it typically takes at least six months to find an available bed for a deranged inmate.”

In North Carolina, for example, Doug Trantham at the Smoky Mountain Mental Health Center described “an inpatient crisis so bad that what it does is backup the entire system.” Officers there have sometimes had to drive patients across the entire state—a seven- to eight-hour drive one way—to a hospital with a bed. Emergency rooms are said to have mentally ill people waiting “four or five days in our ICU just waiting for a place to go. . . . You may have somebody in there all weekend, screaming for 12 or 18 hours,” said a nurse. It is the same in every state; in Arlington, Virginia, county officials had to call 31 hospitals before finding one that would accept a patient. The impact of overburdening the ERs with patients needing hospital beds goes far beyond psychiatric patients; rather, it interferes with all medical and surgical care in the ER.

Because there are so few beds available, individuals with severe psychiatric disorders who need to be hospitalized are often unable to get admitted, and those who are admitted are often discharged prematurely. Fred Markowitz, in his 2006 study of 81 American cities, reported a statistically significant correlation between the number of public psychiatric beds available in that city and the prevalence of violent crimes, defined as murder, robbery, assault, and rape.11 This is not surprising, since studies have shown that between 5 to 10 percent of seriously mentally ill persons living in the community will commit a violent act each year, almost all because they are not receiving treatment. Such individual are responsible for at least 5 percent of all homicides.

So what can a Middle East correspondent write on a Saturday morning except that the world in the Middle East is growing darker and darker by the hour. Pakistan. Afghanistan. Iraq. "Palestine". Lebanon. From the borders of Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, we – we Westerners that is – are creating (as I have said before) a hell disaster. Next week, we are supposed to believe in peace in Annapolis, between the colourless American apparatchik and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister who has no more interest in a Palestinian state than his predecessor Ariel Sharon.

If we read the Bible, keeping in mind the desirability of those two survivals--of Christianity and the Creation--we are apt to discover several things that modern Christian organizations have kept remarkably quiet about, or have paid little attention to.

We will discover that we humans do not own the world or any part of it: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: the world and they that dwell therein" (Ps. 24:1). There is in our human law, undeniably, the concept and right of "land ownership." But this, I think, is merely an expedient to safeguard the mutuality of belonging without which there can be no lasting and conserving settlement of human communities. This right of human ownership is limited by mortality and by natural constraints upon human attention and responsibility; it quickly becomes abusive when used to justify large accumulations of "real estate," and perhaps for that reason such large accumulations are forbidden in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. In biblical terms, the "landowner" is the guest and steward of God: "the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me" (Lev. 25:23).

We will discover that God made not only the parts of Creation that we humans understand and approve, but all of it: "all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made" John 1:3). And so we must credit God with the making of biting and dangerous beasts, and disease-causing microorganisms. That we may disapprove of these things does not mean that God is in error, or that the creator ceded some of the work of Creation to Satan; it means that we are deficient in wholeness, harmony, and understanding--that is, we are "fallen."

We will discover that God found the world, as he made it, to be good; that he made it for his pleasure; and that he continues to love it and to find it worthy, despite its reduction and corruption by us. People who quote John 3:16 as an easy formula for getting to heaven neglect to see the great difficulty implied in the statement that the advent of Christ was made possible by God's love for the world--not God's love for Heaven or for the world as it might be, but for the world as it was and is. Belief in Christ is thus made dependent upon prior belief in the inherent goodness--the lovability--of the world.

We will discover that the Creation is not in any sense independent of the Creator, the result of a primal creative act long over and done with, but is the continuous, constant participation of all creatures in the being of God. Elihu said to Job that if God "gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together . . . " Job 34:15). And Psalm 104 says: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created.... " Creation is God's presence in creatures. The Greek Orthodox theologian, Philip Sherrard, has written that "Creation is nothing less than the manifestation of God's hidden being." Thus we and all other creatures live by a sanctity that is inexpressibly intimate. To every creature the gift of life is a portion of the breath and spirit of God. As the poet, George Herbert, put it,

Thou are in small things great, not small in any.... For thou art infinite in one and all.

We will discover that, for these reasons, our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God's gifts into his face, as of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them. To Dante, "despising Nature and her gifts" was a violence against God. We have no entitlement from the Bible to exterminate or permanently destroy or hold in contempt anything on the earth or in the heavens above it or in the waters beneath it. We have the right to use the gifts of Nature, but not to ruin or waste them. We have the right to use what we need, but no more, which is why the Bible forbids usury and great accumulations of property. The usurer, Dante said, "condemns Nature. . . for he puts his hope elsewhere."

American laboratories handling the world's deadliest germs and toxins have experienced more than 100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003, and the number is increasing as more labs do the work.

No one died, and regulators said the public was never at risk during these incidents. But the documented cases reflect poorly on procedures and oversight at high-security labs, some of which work with organisms and poisons that can cause illnesses with no cure. In some cases, labs have failed to report accidents as required by law.

The mishaps include workers bitten or scratched by infected animals, skin cuts, needle sticks and more, according to an Associated Press review of confidential reports submitted to federal regulators. They describe accidents involving anthrax, bird flu virus, monkeypox and plague-causing bacteria at 44 labs in 24 states. More than two dozen incidents were still under investigation.

According to the experts, there is a baseline risk associated with any high- containment. With expansion, the aggregate risks will increase. However, the associated safety and security risks will be greater for new labs with less experience. In addition, high-containment labs have health risks for individual lab workers as well as the surrounding community. According to a CDC official, the risks due to accidental exposure or release can never be completely eliminated, and even labs within sophisticated biological research programs—including those most extensively regulated—have had and will continue to have safety failures. In addition, while some of the most dangerous agents are regulated under the CDC-USDA’s Select Agent Program, many high-containment labs work with agents not covered under this program. Labs outside the Select Agent Program also pose risks, given that many unregulated agents can cause severe illness or even death (see appendix IV for a list of some agents, but not select agents, recommended to be worked on in high-containment labs). These labs also have associated risks because of their potential as targets for terrorism or theft from either external or internal sources. Even labs outside the Select Agent Program can pose security risks in that such labs represent a capability that can be paired with the necessary agents to become a threat. While the United States has regulations governing select agents, many nations do not have any regulations governing the transfer or possession of dangerous biological agents.

(1) Unquestioning U.S. support for Israel, especially U.S. support for Israel's heavy-handed treatment of Palestinians.

(2) The presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula. Bin Laden and his sympathizers view this presence as an occupation.

(3) The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, and now of Iraq.

(4) U.S. support for what bin Laden considers to be the suppression of Islamic minorities in Russia, China, and India.

(5) U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep the world markets awash in sufficient oil to keep oil prices low for the U.S. and other Western powers. Bin Laden believes that more oil revenues should be allocated for the benefit of Arab peoples.

(6) Closely related to (5) above, U.S. support for what bin Laden asserts are apostate, corrupt, tyrannical governments in the Islamic world, as in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and North Africa.

Bin Laden is a serious and wily adversary who knows how to manipulate the Arab "street." He is intelligent and well-informed-- clearly far better informed about the U.S. and the West than the apparatchiks and their bosses in the current White House are informed about him and his region of influence. Bin Laden thinks strategically and takes the long view; he is tactically flexible and is not afraid to retreat to attain an ultimate strategic advantage. Unfortunately for the U.S., he probably has a 40 point I.Q. advantage over the current occupant of the White House.

In short, we should not risk underestimating bin Laden by dismissing him out of hand as "crazy" and "evil."

FOREMAN: So Nir, we keep hearing reports, though, nonetheless out of Baghdad. People saying that give us time, we are trying to get this government worked out. We are going to make some progress. Do you see any way that can happen?

ROSEN: No. This has been the case for the past ... two years at least. There is no hope. There is no government. Neither side is interested in compromise and why should they? The Shias control Baghdad. They have removed the Sunnis from Baghdad, from Iraq's political future.

FOREMAN: What's going to change that if anything?

ROSEN: Nothing is going to change that.

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us.

From the beginning of his rise with George W. Bush until the day of his abrupt resignation, Alberto Gonzales was anointed, directed and protected by Karl Rove. At the Department of Justice, Gonzales served as Rove's figurehead. In the real line of authority, the attorney general, a constitutional officer, reported to the White House political aide. Bush did not nickname Gonzales "Fredo," after the weak brother in "The Godfather," without reason.

As White House counsel and attorney general, Gonzales operated as the rubber stamp of the two great goals of the Bush presidency -- the concentration of unaccountable power in the executive and the subordination of executive departments and agencies to partisan political imperatives. Vice President Cheney directed the project for the imperial presidency, while Rove took charge of the top-down politicization of the federal government. Gonzales dutifully signed memos abrogating the Geneva Conventions against torture, calling them "quaint," and approved the dismissal of U.S. attorneys for insufficient partisan zeal.

This is how the system works. Big players can, and do, put the Federal Reserve over a barrel. The Fed doesn't like it, but what can it do? Not to bail, when the markets implode, isn't an option. Too many innocents would get massacred on the way by.

Sordid necessity thus killed Bernanke's "inflation targeting" approach to monetary policy. And this leaves the true nature of Fed policy plainly exposed. In normal times, a Fed chair can pretend to follow his academic formulae. But once the air-raid sirens sound, policy isn't made on Constitution Avenue at all. It's made on Wall Street, and don't let us forget it.

Wall Street likes volatility. And so we have a system based on credit bubbles, one after the other. The information-technology bubble from the late nineties to 2001 brought us full employment and budget surpluses, but it could not be sustained. The housing bubble has kept us going ever since. It too was bringing us high employment and falling budget deficits. And it too could not be sustained.

...I believe that greed and competition are not a result of immutable human temperament; I have come to the conclusion that greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. The scarcity is in our national currencies. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.

1. The executive branch shall, upon the request of any senator or congressman, promptly produce all documents and information requested within its possession or control to the requesting member, irrespective of classification, sensitivity, or any other danger to national security that might result from the disclosure of such documents or information to the member or to third parties. Such requests may be directed to any employee or officer of the executive branch, irrespective of position, rank or contractual provisions that may require non-disclosure. The duty of the executive branch to respond fully and completely to such requests shall extend to testimony by officers, employees and contractors of the executive branch before either house of the legislature and their committees

2. The agency receiving such request may, within 7 days, object to the production of the documents or information or any portion thereof by serving its objection upon the requesting member, setting out in detail the reasons for its objections, and unless 55% of the members of the house of Congress to which the requestor belongs votes to sustain the objection, the agency must comply with the request. The vote to sustain shall be privileged and each member is limited to 30 minutes of debate.

3. Each house of Congress may, by a two-thirds majority adopt rules limiting the access of all members to certain categories of documents and information, but may by a two-thirds majority exempt individual members from any or all such limitations. Any rules adopted under this section must be drafted with specificity as to the documents and information protected and any ambiguities shall be interpreted in favor of disclosure.

4. Executive privilege is hereby abolished. No member of the executive branch, including the president or vice president, may refuse to provide any information or documents required to be produced under this amendment.

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

- to integrate those aspects of public and animal health research that have been determined to be central to national security;
- to assess and research evolving bioterrorism threats over the next five decades; and;
- to enable the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture (USDA), and Health and Human Services (HHS) to fulfill their related homeland defense research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) responsibilities.

Wackenhut has the contract to secure the Army's Holston Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. Last year, guards at the plant told lawmakers that boaters were easily able to float into restricted areas at the riverfront facility, and that Wackenhut only bolstered patrols when it knew that Army inspectors were up for a visit. Wackenhut has contracts to secure 31 nuclear power plants around the country. Last year, the Project on Government Oversight reported that Wackenhut nearly got employees killed by not stopping a mock terrorism-response exercise at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in time. Perhaps most egregiously, the Department of Homeland security opted last year not to renew Wackenhut's contract to protect DHS's Washington headquarters after guards told the AP about numerous security breaches -- including a botched anthrax scare. (Wackenhut security officials actually took the "suspicious white powder" into the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff and sprinkled it out of his window into the area below.)

Coulter responded with a laugh and charged that Edwards was calling on her to stop speaking altogether.