Super-awesome light project show

Read the rest of this post...

WI GOPer Johnson testified against child sex abuse bill for Green Bay Diocese

We've written about Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Ron Johnson's relationship to the Catholic Church child rape scandal here and here. Johnson served on the Finance Council of the Green Bay Diocese, which is being sued over a particularly nasty case involving Father John Feeney.

Johnson's role became public because he testified against a bill to protect victims of child sex abuse in the Wisconsin legislature. When I posted the video of Johnson's testimony, I asked:

Seriously, who sides with child sex abusers over victims?

The obvious answer is, of course, Catholic Bishops.

Today, Brian Beutler and Johanna Barr at TPM tied Johnson's testimony against a child sex abuse bill directly to the Catholic Church. This controversy surrounding Johnson's role in the child rape scandal and its cover-up continues to grow:

Johnson insisted at the time that he testified as an active member of the business and non-profit community -- not specifically, and most pressingly, as a representative of the Catholic Church. But the road he took to testifying at the Madison statehouse in January of this year belies that contention.

Deacon Tim Reilly, Director of Administration for the Diocese of Green Bay told TPM that the Church played a significant role in getting Johnson to the state capital. According to Reilly, the Church didn't support the legislation and wanted to raise public awareness of its objections. So the diocese arranged for a meeting with Randy Hopper, the state senator in the Oshkosh area who sits on the panel that was deciding whether this legislation would go to the floor for a vote. Some 20 people met at St. Rafael's Parish in Oshkosh, several of whom spoke -- including Johnson. His arguments were among the most articulate and persuasive to the group, so Hopper asked him to go to Madison and testify -- the sort of not-quite-lobbying that happens in Washington and in state capitals around the country all the time.

Reilly reiterated to TPM that Johnson was not speaking specifically on behalf of the church. "He was speaking on his own behalf, as a concerned citizen, that this would adversely affect the Catholic School System and the Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA and other non-profits without government protection."

That beggars belief, according to experts and clergymen.

"He can't be testifying just as a concerned citizen," says Father Tom Doyle, a priest who presciently warned the Catholic Church about the looming sex abuse scandal years ago. "If he was a member of the finance council of the diocese, the senator picked him out not because he was concerned about the Boys and Girls Club.... I don't know of any instance where a layperson, on his own, without any connection with the Church administration has come forward to testify."

Doyle admonished that, though many finance councils around the country are intimately familiar with diocesan secrets (both good and bad), they are in some instances left in the dark by their bishops. He has no direct knowledge of what the finance council knew in Johnson's case.

Just like the Bishops, Johnson won't say what he knew. They put the financial interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the common decency.

Are Wisconsin voters seriously thinking of sending someone who sides with child rapists to the U.S. Senate. I'd expect that from some other states (I'm thinking Louisiana, for example), but not Wisconsin. Read the rest of this post...

Private sector employment stumbles

The employment numbers are not looking good at all. Can you imagine how bad they would look without the stimulus? CNBC:

Private-sector job growth tumbled by 39,000 from August to September, a considerably worse number than analysts had expected and indicative that the employment market is far from recovery, according to ADP.

The ADP National Employment report, compiled with Marcoeconomic Advisors, was projected to show a gain of 20,000 for the month.

"It's a disappointing number but it's not unexpected," Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, told CNBC. "GDP growth has slowed to below the growth rate of productivity and it's inevitable that you'd have this deceleration in jobs."

Read the rest of this post...

Obama administration strongly criticized in BP oil spill report

Rightly so. It took the White House a month to get on board and even when they finally came around, they deferred to BP much too often. Instead of supporting BP the administration should have been supportive of the US public and environment. Even now it's laughable to think back to the way the Republicans fumed about the administration mistreating BP. Why should either political party put the best interest of a corporation over the best interest of the country? This story is a bit too common from both parties, unfortunately.

One staff report said that the Office of Management and Budget denied a request by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to release "worst-case discharge figures" in late April or early May, weeks before the dire dimensions of the spill were publicly known.

"Putting aside the question of whether the public had a right to know the worst-case discharge figures, disclosure of those estimates, and explanation of their role in guiding the government effort, may have improved public confidence in the response," said one of the working papers by the staff of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

"Moreover," the paper added, "the national response may have benefited early on from a greater sense of urgency, which public discussion of worst-case discharge figures may have generated."

How did that delay of information work out? The funny thing is that much like Obama's gentle handling of Wall Street, these people still complain and attack him. When will this administration ever learn? I wish it wasn't so, but there's little expectation that they will learn. Read the rest of this post...

IMF cuts US growth due to lack of spending

The consumer culture that both political parties have promoted delivered this troubled economy. To go back to the old ways of spend, spend, spend will only lead to more trouble but not spending also has its own drawbacks for the US economy. Cutting government spending will only compound the problem and trigger an even worse economy. None of the options at this time are very appealing. Bloomberg:

The International Monetary Fund lowered its forecast for U.S. growth this year and 2011, predicting a “slow” rebound restrained by a lack of consumer spending.

The world’s largest economy will grow 2.6 percent this year, down from the 3.3 percent projected in July, the IMF said today in its World Economic Outlook report. Growth will slow to 2.3 percent in 2011, compared with a previous estimate of 2.9 percent, according to the Washington-based lender, which rescued economies from Iceland to Pakistan during the financial crisis.

“The most likely prospect for the U.S. economy is for a continued but slow recovery, with growth far weaker than in previous recoveries,” the IMF said in the report. “Much of the weakness of this recovery is due to sluggish personal consumption.”

Read the rest of this post...

Third Way to Dems: Ignore the liberal base

The NY Times has another article pointing out the lack of enthusiasm among liberal voters -- and the effort underway by the White House to motivate the base. This quote sums it up:

“It’s great that President Obama is showing a fighting spirit in the weeks before an election, but what his former voters need to see is that same fighting spirit when he’s governing,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a group started last year to advocate for liberal goals and candidates.

But, there's another perspective offered by one of the corporate-backed DC groups, Third Way. A group like Third Way could only exist in DC. It's got no constituency, was created by a rich donor and is constantly using its corporate resources to undermine the progressive agenda. This latest blurb, based on a Third Way "study," seems to indicate that the conservative-leaning groups says go ahead and ignore the base:

Third Way, an organization of centrist Democrats, produced a study showing that liberals are the smallest share of the electorate and not enough to keep Congress in Democratic hands. Citing Gallup polling data, the study said self-described conservatives made up 42 percent of the electorate, compared with moderates who make up 35 percent and liberals who make up 20 percent, a shift of several points to the right in the last two years.

In 16 of 21 hotly contested states, Democratic candidates who simply match Mr. Obama’s overall 2008 performance still will not have enough votes to win, according to the group’s study. Instead, the study said, the candidates must outperform Mr. Obama among moderates.

“Even if Democrats close the enthusiasm gap with their base, they still have another enthusiasm gap to close with moderates,” said Anne Kim, domestic policy program director for the group. “Democrats don’t have the luxury of leaning on their base to deliver wins because there simply aren’t enough liberals.”

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic politics. If the President actually stood up for his values, he'd be getting support from moderates. It takes leadership. And, that same failure to stand up and fight for values has demoralized the base. Third Way would have Obama offering pablum to the voters, as if that's going to motivate anyone. Plus, that's what got us into this mess we're in.

Now, Third Way may think the base is expendable, but it's not moderates who contribute to campaigns and volunteer. It's the base. The liberal base. When the base isn't motivated, money and bodies don't show up. That makes it harder to get the message out to those moderates.

For a little background on Third Way, know that the group thought trying to beat conservative Blanche Lincoln was a "strategic error." Funny thing: Lincoln serves as an honorary co-chair of Third Way. That conservative messaging from Lincoln is really motivating the base in Arkansas this fall, huh? Third Way also worked to kill the public option. That really got those moderates fired up for the fall, didn't it?

In DC, the professional Democrats (staffers, pollsters, media consultants) will salivate over this Third Way report and use it as a rational to ignore the core values of progressives. Fine, then let Third Way raise money and do GOTV. Here's another piece of advice from this report via the sages at Third Way:

Its conclusion: “To preserve their fortunes this fall, Democrats should focus as much (or more) on moderates as they do their liberal base.”

To preserve their fortunes this fall, the Democrats should have enacted the agenda that got them elected. But, instead, DC insiders like Third Way helped derail the progressive agenda. Look where that got us.

Now, Third Way did get some press coverage from this latest study. Two hits in the NY Times alone. That should please their corporate funders, which seems to be their sole reason for existence.

I'll end with what Oliver Willis wrote about Third Way:

These guys are losers, and their prescriptions for the Democrats are losers. In a two party country, there’s no reward for one party to be the faint echo of the other. Democrats can (and have) won when they stick up for progressive values, and not when they genuflect to the right and beg “please don’t hurt me.”

Read the rest of this post...

Is foreign money influencing the Senate race in Missouri?

How do you say "my fellow Missourians" in Arabic?

The GOP Senate candidate from Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), won't say a word about concerns that foreign money may be helping his race for the Senate in Missouri. When asked about it, he quite literally ran (to the best of his ability).

It's one hell of a story. In a nutshell, the US Chamber of Commerce, a GOP leaning organization (to put it lightly) has been accepting foreign donations and putting them in the same account is uses to finance US congressional races. The problem? Do you really want Bahrain and India picking your next Senator, Missouri?  And it's not just Missouri.  Any race in which the US Chamber of Commerce is spending money is at risk.

Let me walk you through it:

1. Roy Blunt is being supported by the Chamber, including financially via ads against his opponent Robin Carnahan.

In August, Blunt announced that he received the Chamber’s endorsement. Currently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ads trashing Blunt’s Democratic opponent, Robin Carnahan. The ads are run out of the same 501(c)(6) account used to fund raise from foreign sources.

2. The US chamber is allegedly co-mingling foreign donations in the same fund it uses to influence US elections.:

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), it is illegal for "foreign nationals" to "directly or indirectly" contribute, donate, or spend funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the U.S. It is also illegal to "solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a trade association that qualifies as a 501(c)(6) organization which can engage in limited political activity, lobbying, and accept dues from foreign members. While regular dues from American companies like Aetna or News Corp. can be used for any purpose deemed necessary by the Chamber leadership, 501(c)(6) organizations, like any organization, cannot use foreign funds to advocate for a political candidate or cause. What the ThinkProgress investigation found is that the Chamber has spearheaded efforts "to raise money from foreign corporations, including ones controlled by foreign governments" and funneled that money into its general 501(c)(6) account. Foreign members send money either directly to the U.S. Chamber or to their country's local American Chamber (AmCham), which then transfers dues payments back to the Chamber's H Street office in Washington, D.C. While the Chamber may claim to have internal controls, foreign funds are fungible and all dues go to the same general account, which is then used to fund the Chamber's political attack campaign. Essentially, as Shakir pointed out , "they're acting as a [Political Action Committee]" which "run[s] ads against political candidates. But the difference here is PACs disclose where they get the money from." The Chamber refuses to disclose its donors.

3. This includes money from Bahrain and India.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported an exclusive story on how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the big business lobbying juggernaut running an unprecedented $75 million dollar attack campaign against Democrats in midterms this year — is actively fundraising from foreign corporations and foreign nationals, and depositing the money in the same 501(c)(6) account used to run its campaign advertisements. Dues from foreign corporations have flowed into the Chamber’s coffers, including from government-run companies like the State Bank of India and the Bahrain Petroleum Company. ThinkProgress has reported at least $300,000 in foreign money to the Chamber from Bahrain and India alone.

4. Why won't Roy Blunt answer a simple question about whether foreign money is being used to help his race?

Following ThinkProgress’ report, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) wrote to the FEC — a federal agency that has ironically “been rendered toothless by its Republican members” — asking it to launch an investigation and to insist that foreign companies prove whether their funds had been used in campaign activities. Today, outside of a fundraiser for Nevada’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle at the National Republican Campaign Committee, ThinkProgress asked Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), a candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri, if he would comment on the story. After hearing the question, Blunt quickly turned and began walking away briskly towards the Union Station building. He initially simply ignored the question, then took out his phone and pressed it against his face. Eventually, Blunt replied, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” and told ThinkProgress to “talk to the Chamber”.

Now, watch Roy run:
Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich promotes 'no food stamps for the poor' in campaign

Just so we're clear on everything, it's sound policy to take food from the poor even though this is the worst recession since the Great Depression and it's common sense to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans even though the income disparity is higher than during the Robber Barron years. Am I really hearing that correctly? What selfish bastards. People like Gingrich are the ones who are destroying America and making it a selfish society. Newsweek:

Say what you will about Newt Gingrich, but the man’s record includes the Herculean comeback of Republicans in 1994, thanks partly to the "Contract With America." That's why leading Republicans and GOP candidates are looking to Gingrich as the quarterback for the 2010 campaign. So what’s he advising they do?

Vilify food stamps. Gingrich more than most people knows that Washington tends to lock itself in intensely wonkish policy squabbles--need one say more than "budget reconciliation"?--that simply don’t resonate with the rest of the country. So to make it simple, Gingrich and his political action committee are sending a "close the deal" memo to Republican candidates, spelling it out in über-simple terms. What do you want more of: paychecks or food stamps?

Read the rest of this post...

Ed Rendell repeats absurd White House talking point that Democratic voters need to 'get over it'

How many times does the White House have to screw things up, message wise, before the party stops letting them set the message?

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is the latest democratic official to repeat the White House talking point that liberals need to "get over it" and vote for Democrats. The message seems rather counter-productive. Lying to voters and then telling them to "get over it" is not the way to make friends and influence votes.

Yes, it would be a bad thing if Republicans won the election. But elections are the only leverage that the people have over their politicians. So to make campaign promises, then break those promises, then tell voters to ignore those promises come the next election, is certainly convenient for the politician, but it rather negates the point of having elections at all.

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote, I'm not saying they should vote Republican. I am saying that if you let politicians flagrantly break their campaign promises to you, and then you vote for the same politicians again, they will never feel the need to keep another promise to you, ever.

And that's the conundrum for Democratic voters this time around. They're just not that impressed any more with the Democrats they elected to office. And repeatedly telling those voters to "get over it" - treating them like petulant children - isn't helping. It comes off as rather arrogant (another common White House messaging problem) and it's only ticking people off even further. Read the rest of this post...

Don't forget 'witch' and 'nearly Hare Krishna'

From HuffPost Hill:

After Christine O'Donnell more or less insulted all of Delaware by comparing herself to the population in her first ad, Chris Coons' campaign has already launched a "Not Me" section on its website. The page more or less reads like a HuffPost Hill rant: "In her new television ad, Christine O'Donnell says she is you," it says. "But unless you think the retirement age for Social Security should be raised, want to further de-regulate Wall Street, are against a woman's right to choose, think public schools should teach Creationism, and think homosexuality is an 'identity disorder,' she is not you."

Read the rest of this post...

Daschle confirms White House agreed with industry to scrap public option

This isn't news. The President never gave anything other than lip service to the public option, and even his lip service was lacking (remember, he refused to list the public option among his "must include" provisions in the bill, and refused to issue a veto threat). Still, it is interesting to see Tom Daschle confirm that the President gave away the public option in order to appease his political opponents.

Here's Daschle talking to the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky:

"I don't think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others," Daschle told Wonk Room's Igor Volsky. "I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it's almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and [the public option] was the price some thought they had to pay."

Couldn't be any clearer than that. Of course, Daschle is now trying to back off of his statement.

Happy voting. Read the rest of this post...

Who is Pete Rouse, the new WH chief of staff?

This is a nice Countdown segment on the incoming White House chief of staff, as Rahm Emanuel blunders his way into Chicago.

The new guy is Pete Rouse, who plays nicely with Republicans. This is an informative piece, and a little complex in that it doesn't sum to a single idea. Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone called him the man "who brought 'no drama' to Obama", and Keith credits him with making the Elizabeth Warren appointment fly with her opponents.

Yet in the first minute, Olbermann also says that Rouse is an ex-Daschle aide who "works well across party lines" — like we don't have enough of that already from these guys.

And then there's the question of does he also "play nicely with progressives?" Keith and Richard Wolffe, who seems to have lost his consultant tag, talk that through. (The Wolffe interview starts at 1:55 in the clip.)



See what I mean? On the one hand, Rahm was the fighter; too bad he fought with the wrong people. On the other hand, Pete is more conciliatory; but will he "conciliate" with the wrong people, the right people, or with everyone? There's a way this could be OK, and a way it could go way wrong.

We'll see if Wolffe's assertions in the last half-minute of the interview are true, that "they" realize that Repubs are a no-go from here on out and Fox is their enemy. Color me not sure. I've had that Hope thing kind of kicked out of me. I'm in a "prove it" state of mind these days.

By the way, Pete Rouse's Wikipedia page is interesting. Among other things, it says:

Rouse also is credited with persuading Obama to vote against the nomination of John G. Roberts, who was nevertheless confirmed and is now Chief Justice of the United States.

Really? Obama needed convincing? And Rouse got it right. As I said, complex.

Update: Added Daschle link.

GP Read the rest of this post...

'F---ing retards' revenge

It appears the professional left isn't too thrilled about the prospect of a Mayor Rahm.

During his most recent stint in the White House, Emanuel was the bête noire of liberal activists; it seemed as if he took pleasure in abandoning progressive policy priorities during legislative negotiations and then colorfully dismissing related (and reasonable) criticisms from the left. Emanuel famously called health-care advocates who were planning to target conservative Democrats "f------ retarded"—not the type of comment that endears a candidate to voters in a heavily Democratic city.

With Election Day four months away and the enormous field still shaking out, few prominent members of Chicago's liberal community have dismissed Emanuel's candidacy, formally launched Sunday, outright. "Everybody has a right to run," says 27th Ward Alderman Walter Burnett, chairman of the City Council's Black Caucus, in a typically diplomatic statement.

It's nearly impossible, however, to find a liberal pol or institutional organization publicly cheering the possibility of an Emanuel administration. Indeed, several have taken minor jabs at the candidate himself and the media circus that's followed his every move.

Read the rest of this post...

The other 'slow motion coup'

I've been using the phrase "slow-motion coup" to describe the slow take-over of our political process by billionaires and their Big Money friends. (The "billionaire's coup" has gone international, by the way; Karl Rove has been consulting in Sweden.)

But Digby points us to another "Creeping Coup" — this one in the military. She examines an article in Politics Daily that starts with this:

The military officer corps is rumbling with dissatisfaction and dissent, and there are suggestions from some that if officers disagree with policy decisions by Congress and the White House, they should vigorously resist.

Officers have a moral responsibility, some argue, to sway a policy debate by going public with their objections or leaking information to the media, and even to sabotage policy decisions by deliberate foot-dragging.

This could spell trouble ahead as Washington grapples with at least two highly contentious issues: changing the policy on gays and lesbians in the military, and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan. In both cases, senior officers already have disagreed sharply and publicly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barack Obama, and in some cases officers have leaked documents to bolster their case.

I believe this began in the 90s, when Clinton "was faced with the clearest insubordination from his senior officers one of whom (Colin Powell by name) was conspicuous" (Christopher Hitchens).

It's since gotten worse. We've had tales of evangelicals taking over the Air Force Academy (ah, Colorado; some day I'll write about how the mountain states got to be "that way"). And as Digby points out (my emphasis):

This coincides with our new fetish for everything military, including the president of the United States announcing over and over again that he would "listen to the commanders on the ground" which likely gave more than a few of them the idea that they were the ones in charge. When you add that to the canonizing of the The Man Called Petraeus during the Bush years, this seems like a logical outcome. (I would also add that more than a few of them may be part of the religious "crusade" that some of the evangelical military brass are involved with.)

This is perfectly coincident with all of our recent fetishes — cops with Tasers, soldiers with shoot-first in their eyes, politician with whips, all the strong Daddies that frightened tough-guy conservative voters (in and out of the Republican party) worship and adore. Seems like a problem to me. Good catch, Digby.

I'll make a larger point as well, one that points to world-historical arcs. This nation (going back to its pre-Revolutionary roots) has had a major internal crisis roughly every seventy years — the Constitution discussion, the Civil War, the Great Depression. We're about due.

Each of those earlier times has seen the emergence of a "great man" — Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt — who has led us truly forward. (I'm deliberately referring to Carlyle's "great man" theory of history. I don't think "dialectic" helps much in a crisis.)

It feels like we're at another of those world-historical moments. And if the past is anything to judge by, we're going to need another great man, another real Lincoln. It won't take a Hitler to sink us, just another non-entity, a General McClellan, let's say. Someone who thinks he means well, but fails to lead.

Let's keep that in mind as 2012 approaches. The easiest solution would be that the current office-holder find his Inner Lincoln. But whether he does or not, we do need a solution, and for my Carlylian money, that's a person, not a process — or an ad campaign.

That person may need to start by standing up to the army.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Tonight, the President will be in New Jersey for a DNC fundraiser. This afternoon, he is awarding the Medal of Honor to Staff Sergeant Robert J. Miller. Via the Daily Guidance:

the President will award Staff Sergeant Robert J. Miller, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. Staff Sergeant Miller will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in Afghanistan on January 25, 2008. He displayed immeasurable courage and uncommon valor - eventually sacrificing his own life to save the lives of his teammates and 15 Afghanistan National Army soldiers. Staff Sergeant Miller’s parents, Phil and Maureen Miller will join the President at the White House to commemorate their son’s selfless service and sacrifice.

There's more information about Staff Sargent Miller at Honor The Fallen.

The Veep is in DC today. No campaigning today.

Imagine the outrage if Democratic groups were using foreign dollars on to support Democratic candidates. FOX News, which is part-owned by a Saudi prince, would be apoplectic. Glenn Beck would be in tears. But, hardly a peep when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is supported by foreign funds, supports GOPer by attacking Dems. Think Progress broke the story yesterday.

27 days til Election Day. Read the rest of this post...

French rogue trader sentenced to 3 years in jail, fined $7 billion

Jérôme Kerviel, the former trader at Société Générale was found guilty by a judge in France. If only this meant the rest of the bankers who lost billions and trillions in risky gambles were also going to prison. There never seemed to be much doubt about his illegal trading though the decision to lay all of the blame with Kerviel did come as a surprise. The defendant's excuse that he was a victim of the system may have some merit though blaming the system for everything was a bit much.

Equally extreme was the decision to fine Kerviel nearly $7 million, which was the amount lost by the bank during his failed trade. Again, if the courts were consistent on such issues, maybe, but until everyone else is returned the trillions lost during the crisis, it feels like he's being blamed for the banking crisis. The banks have the luxury of their own insider influence in politics that has enabled them to skate through the banking crisis with barely a scratch.

As Bill Clinton reminded us when he defended his Wall Street friends and tore into liberals, the bankers mostly acted within the law. Perhaps. And this is exactly why many are still so upset with this one-sided system that is owned by the big name banks. Where is the justice for the destruction of global wealth? Are we really to believe banks are innocent and the real victims? The Guardian:

The ruling read out in Paris's historic Palais de Justice was eagerly anticipated. But few had predicted how hard the court would come down on Kerviel, the man behind one of history's biggest trading scandals.

Accused of breach of trust, computer abuse and forgery, the 33-year-old was convicted of all three charges and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with two years suspended. In an order that prompted an audible gasp from court observers, he was also told to pay damages to Société Générale of €4.9bn (£4.2bn) – the total sum of money his risky betting strategies cost his former employers in January 2008.

It is understood the bank views the granting of damages as a symbolic payment, and may not intend to force its erstwhile employee into a lifetime of unpayable debt. Its lawyer, Jean Veil, said the tough verdict was "moral compensation" for a company which insists it knew nothing of the malpractice. "It has been very clearly shown that Jérôme Kerviel's behaviour, his lies, were so sophisticated that the bank could not suspect what he was doing," he added.

Read the rest of this post...

Oil continues to be the weak link in Afghanistan

The attacks against US forces have been deadly and costly in terms of supplies. While it's good that the US military is forcing the issue of alternative energy supplies, it still leaves us with the question of why we're still in Afghanistan. BBC:

Gunmen in Pakistan have torched at least 10 oil tankers carrying fuel for Nato vehicles in Afghanistan in the latest such attack in recent days.

A driver died in the ambush near the south-western city of Quetta.

The number of attacks on tankers has soared in the last week since one of the main routes into Afghanistan was shut by the Pakistani authorities.

Read the rest of this post...