Month: March 2015

‘You eat what you kill’
Tom Sullivan

You know, when I saw that headline in the Guardian, I thought I was looking at a decade-late review of the 2004 Vin Diesel film, The Chronicles of Riddick. If you missed Chronicles on cable, the film’s Big Bad (h/t to you Buffy fans) is a murderous group of interstellar religious fanatics called the Necromongers. They rampage across the galaxy, like ISIS in space ships, converting or killing everyone in their paths. They also “believe heavily in a philosophy that says ‘you keep what you kill’, believing that ending another’s life entitles you to their property and position.” Having screwed investors, thrown families from their homes, brought the planet to its economic knees, and demanded tribute (bailouts) lest they take us all down with them, that pretty much describes Wall Street’s philosophy these days, too. Which is why, as Suzanne McGee writes, “’You eat what you kill’ is the motto on many a trading desk.”

What Wall Street doesn’t believe in is its own bullshit, business school catechism about how in a meritocracy pay is a function of celestial mechanics that must not be perturbed lest we offend the Market gods – pay is an elegant function of one’s contribution to the enterprise’s bottom line. How do we know they don’t believe this?

… Wall Street’s profits aren’t what they used to be. Pretax profits fell 4.2% in 2014 to $16 billion, according to New York’s office of the state comptroller. If you think that sounds like a relatively modest decline, consider that 2014 profits were 33% below 2012 levels, and a whopping 74% below 2009, when Wall Street posted record results as markets zoomed back to life after the crisis and banks profited from ultra-low asset values and interest rates.

So what? Well, in spite of the falloff, bonuses rose for the second straight year, with “a 30.1% decline in profitability, and a 15% increase in bonus payments” in 2013, followed by a more modest 2% increase this year.

McGee explains:

Of course, here’s where the fun and games start on Wall Street. Bonuses don’t come out of a bank’s profits, but out of its revenues. It’s only folks like you and I – and, one would hope, at least some of the investors – who might want to take a look at these numbers and tie them to profits. Because what good is it rewarding employees for bringing revenue through the door if it isn’t profitable revenue?

This year, bonus payouts will amount to a whopping 170% of the profits reported by New York stock exchange member firms – profits that continue to be eroded by legal settlements and regulatory expenses. Back in 2009, that figure was slightly more than 36% of profits, and it has crept steadily higher.

Because Wall Street figures bonuses on revenue, not profits, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley dole out “about 40 to 50 cents out of every dollar of revenue they generate every year in bonuses.” That is to say, the Necromonger priests are raiding the grainaries.

But what about the excuse that Wall Street base pay is too low? McGee responds:

It only feels low if you happen to work on Wall Street. If you’re starting out, right out of college, you’ll be making about $85,000, after a wave of raises announced last year.

If they really believed in their own meritocratic gospel, the pharisees wouldn’t behave as if bonuses are bestowed by the Market simply as reward for their faith and devotion. And if shareholders weren’t such suckers for Wall Street blather, they wouldn’t stand for it.

QOTW: Vox

by digby

In humans, you might find a sex pheromone by using erections or other signs of sexual stimulation as the response. But humans are far more complicated than goats — and we don’t behave sexually in such a binary, reflexive way.

You know want to read the story that goes with that …

It’s actually a very useful expose of science in bed (ahem) with industry. Featuring horny goats.

.

Sick and twisted

by digby

Ugh:

A former hostage held in Syria by ISIS extremists for more than six months has described mock executions and other forms of psychological torture against him and other captives.

Spanish journalist Javier Espinosa wrote in The Sunday Times that militant Mohammed Emwazi played a lead role in the mock executions.

Emwazi, a Londoner nicknamed “Jihadi John,” is believed to have played a central role in a series of beheading videos.

Espinosa, who works for Spain’s El Mundo newspaper and was on assignment when he was abducted in September 2013, characterized Emwazi as a bloodthirsty psychopath who enjoyed threatening him and other Western hostages.

There are horrible details but I’m not going to relate them here. Mock execution always plays a big part in a psychological torture regime. And it’s always awful.

Patriotism for dummies

by digby

 Oral Roberts University:

There’s a metaphor here somewhere …

h/t to Spocko
.

The guy who got played

by digby

I couldn’t understand why Jonathan Karl was so excited over Hillary’s email story this morning on This Week. (Seriously, if you have a chance to listen to his segment, you’ll see what I mean.) And then I remembered that Karl has a dog in this fight — he seriously damaged his reputation by quoting Republican sources who lied to him. This is from Jay Rosen back in 2013:

1. On May 10th ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported a source’s description of a White House advisor’s email about the Benghazi talking points:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

2. That turned out to be misleading and inaccurate, as revealed initially by CNN’s Jake Tapper and later confirmed by the release of all the emails in question. Karl’s source, said Tapper, “seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.” Tapper had obtained the text of the email in question. It simply didn’t say what Karl said it said on one key point. Karl, it appeared, was relying on a source’s quotation.

3. Tapper is a former colleague of Karl’s at ABC News, and a former guest host of ABC’s This Week, a duty Karl also takes on from time to time. The two men are in the same business. Both have covered the White House for ABC. If one says the other’s source “invented” evidence that was passed along to ABC’s audience, that is a serious matter.

4. Karl responded to Tapper’s report by obfuscating without backing off, and claiming that the release of the full email chain would clear this up. So how about it, White House? ABC News also doubled down. It’s spokesperson told Erik Wemple of the Washington Post that Tapper’s report was consistent with Karl’s.

5. The White House said Karl’s source had “fabricated” the email in question. Here, the Obama Administration was warning ABC News that Jon Karl got played. Again, a serious matter. Also: news.

6. Karl’s colleagues weren’t buying his defense, as can be seen from this post by NPR’s Scott Neuman and Mark Memmott. They were bothered, as well, by the way Karl created confusion about whether he had obtained the email in question or just heard its contents described by a source. This too counts as a serious matter.

7. Later, when the full email chain was released, the news was bad for Karl. The originals show that Karl’s source was wrong about the White House protecting the State Department’s concerns over other agencies. Jon Karl had called for this evidence to be released. It was released. The results only cast more doubt on his defense of the original story, and strongly suggested he had been played.

8. Yesterday, Taking Points Memo reported that members of Congress and their staffs were briefed on the emails and their contents. That’s how Karl’s source knew about them.

The ABC report was based on notes taken by a still-unnamed source, presumably a Republican, in attendance at one of two briefings the administration held for members and senior staffers of the Senate and House intelligence committees and top leadership offices in February and March of this year. The ABC report contained a great deal of the information the White House would ultimately reveal itself this week when it released all of the inter- and intra-agency email communication that ultimately resulted in the talking points Susan Rice used in a now-infamous series of appearances on network news shows on the Sunday after the attack.

But it got one big part about the White House’s role wrong…

Again: serious business.

There’s lots more at the link. And this analysis from Josh Marshall is worth reading.

.

Big Brother is a very silly boy

by digby

Hey @radleybalko have you seen the RHINO? pic.twitter.com/ySCm7xR8Ae
— Greg Newburn (@gnewburn) March 15, 2015

In case you can’t see the fine print, that’s from the Panama City Police Department. It says,
“Warning: this vehicle is watching or recording a nuisance or drug house based on citizen complaints.”

I guess your mileage may vary on what constitutes a “nuisance.” I know I have a neighbor who is constantly moving the garbage cans around in ways that make it difficult for the garbage trucks to pick them up.  It’s a nuisance. Perhaps I can get the police to “monitor” him. Who knows what he might be getting up to that could land him in trouble with the law?

.

“Pushing us into another costly war…”

by digby

I saw this ad on CNN this morning:

If I had to guess, when the Republicans are all shooting the shit late at night over brandy and cigars (or beer and pretzels…) and they really let their hair down, what they want is for the US to occupy the Middle East. (As John McCain said, “for a hundred years.”) We need oil and it’s going to get scarcer. (Also too, religion.) They can’t say this, of course. It just has to “happen” in a way that doesn’t seem to be our fault.

.

Sunday Funnies

by digby

Also too …

It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come. 

Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.

“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”

Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”
The sabotage is part of an ­ongoing feud between the two Democrat powerhouses.

Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.

Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.

My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced after years of living in obscurity. Jarrett discreetly put out word to some friendly members of the press that the White House would look with favor if they gave Monica some ink and airtime.

Relations have gotten even frostier in the past few months.

After the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterms, the White House scheduled a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When she showed up in the Oval Office, she was greeted by three people — the president, Jarrett and Michelle Obama.

With his wife and Jarrett looking on, Obama made it clear that he intended to stay neutral in the presidential primary process — a clear signal that he wouldn’t mind if someone challenged Hillary for the nomination.

“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”

If she gets into the White House, they believe she will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and undo Obama’s legacy.

“With Obama’s approval,” this source continued, “Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination.”

Lulz. Yeah, that happened. Sure it did.

.

They’ve got a little list
by Tom Sullivan

A few weeks ago, we looked at how Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin is using his position to weaken and eliminate pockets of political opposition. The University of Wisconsin system, specifically. Chris Hayes had observed:

There’s something sort of ingenious about this from a political standpoint. It seems to me that one of his M.O.s in office has been to sort of use policy as a mechanism by which to reduce the political power of people that would oppose him — progressives, the left. I mean, go after the unions, right? Which is a huge pillar of progressive power in the state of Wisconsin. And another big pillar of progressive power in the state, frankly, is the university system.

I noted that Republicans in North Carolina were using the same M.O. Since then there have been more efforts by the NCGOP at legislatively targeting political opponents. Democrats swept the four open seats on the Wake County Board of Commissioners last November? No problem.

The Raleigh News and Observer’s Rob Christensen crystallizes how the GOP is working “to rig the system so the wind is always blowing at their backs.” If they control the governor’s mansion and legislature where you live, you’d best watch yours. They’ve got a little list:

This shows how politics has changed over the years.

OLD POLITICS: When your party lost an election, you got off the ground, dusted off your pants and figured out how you could do better next time.

NEW POLITICS: You begin plotting in the legislature how you change the election laws to make sure it is nearly impossible that you ever lose an election again.

OLD POLITICS: You analyze the results, figure out how to improve your get-out-the vote effort, improve your messaging, recruit better candidates and maybe raise more money. It is a strategy that requires heavy thinking, hard work and discipline.

NEW POLITICS: Draw up legislation to create new districts that makes it difficult for your party to lose. All it requires is political power, connections and a little bit of guile.

OLD POLITICS: The public is the master and elected officials are the servants, hence the term “public servants.”

NEW POLITICS: If the public – in this case the Wake County voters – do not vote in the politically correct way, then the voting system must be changed so that it does not happen again. In this case, the masters of Jones Street have deigned that the people of Wake County voted incorrectly and therefore corrective action must be taken.

Nixon had a little list. You can be sure they have too.