Powered by Blogger

Ethel the Blog
Observations (and occasional brash opining) on science, computers, books, music and other shiny things that catch my mind's eye. There's a home page with ostensibly more permanent stuff. This is intended to be more functional than decorative. I neither intend nor want to surf on the bleeding edge, keep it real, redefine journalism or attract nyphomaniacal groupies (well, maybe a wee bit of the latter). The occasional cheap laugh, raised eyebrow or provocation of interest are all I'll plead guilty to in the matter of intent. Bene qui latuit bene vixit.

The usual copyright stuff applies, but I probably won't get enraged until I find a clone site with absolutely no attribution (which, by the way, has happened twice with some of my other stuff). Finally, if anyone's offended by anything on this site then please do notify me immediately. I like to keep track of those times when I get something right.

Google!


How to blog?

METABLOGGING

Blog Madness
Blog Portal
linkwatcher
Monitor

BLOGS (YMMV)

abuddhas memes
alamut
apathy
arms and the man
baghdad burning
bifurcated rivets
big left outside
boing boing
booknotes
bovine inversus
bradlands
bushwacker
camworld
cheek
chess log
cogent provocateur
cool tools
counterspin
crooked timber
delong
digby
drat fink
drmike
d-squared
dumbmonkey
electrolite
eschaton
estimated prophet
ezrael
fat planet
flutterby!
follow me here
geegaw
genehack
ghost
glare
gmtplus9
hack the planet
harmful
hauser report
hell for halliburton
honeyguide
hotsy totsy club
juan cole
kestrel's nest
k marx the spot
kuro5hin
lake effect
lambda
large hearted boy
leftbanker
looka
looking glass
macleod
maxspeak
medley
memepool
metagrrrl
mike's
monkeyfist
more like this
mouse farts
my dog
norbizness
off the kuff
orcinus
pandagon
pedantry
peterme
philosoraptor
pith and vinegar
plastic
portage
q
quark soup
quiggin
randomwalks
rip post
rittenhouse
see the forest
shadow o' hegemon
sideshow
simcoe
south knox bubba
slacktivist
smudge
submerging markets
sylloge
synthetic zero
talking points
tbogg
twernt
unknownnews
vacuum
vanitysite
virulent memes
whiskey bar
windowseat tv
wood s lot

TECH

Librenix
use perl
rootprompt
slashdot
freshmeat
Ars Technica
32BitsOnline
UGeek
AnandTech
Linux Today
Tom's Hardware
DevShed


"When they say, 'Gee it's an information explosion!', no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING." - Harlan Ellison



JOLLY OLD PALS
Old pals Rumsy and Saddam


Other stuff of mild interest to some:
unusual literature
scientific software blog
physical oceanography glossary
computer-related tutorials and texts

Thursday, November 20, 2003

ANOTHER $10 BILLION TO PLUNDER
It's party time this weekend for the cabal as they
take over the $10 billion per year Iraqi "oil-for-food" program from the United Nations. The festivities will include the finest Beluga caviar elegantly draped in gold leaf, 100-year-old brandy, and cigars rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins just seconds before they're gang-raped and strangled at Guantanamo. Nothing's too good for these lads as they boldly spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, ensuring that fellow freedom-fighters like Ahmad Chalabi aren't embarassed at the Freedom Club by their lack of vacation homes on at least four continents.
The US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) will get control of billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenues beginning midnight Friday when it formally takes over the seven-year-old, UN administered ”oil-for-food" program (OFFP).

The United Nations has already transferred $3 billion from the program to the CPA-managed Iraqi Development Fund (IDF), and will send another $1.6 billion Friday.

The program had been generating seven to $10 billion annually in oil revenues, but proceeds from oil sales will now end up in the coffers of the CPA, headed by US Ambassador Paul Bremer.

The change has left many opponents of the US-led war on Iraq bitter, along with some UN officials who helped build and administer the successful program.

"The CPA has so far not inspired confidence that it can do anything right, much less administer a massive program of food aid to 25 million people," Jim Jennings, president of Conscience International, told IPS Wednesday.

The program, which helped feed over 60 percent of the people in the sanctions-hit, war-ravaged country, was run by a network of some 44,000 Iraqi food agents under UN supervision.

"This is an enormous program with somewhere around $10 billion in cash flow every year," Jim Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, told IPS on Wednesday.

Paul said published reports have said the CPA has had about $5 billion in oil revenues at its disposal since it was established more than six months ago but only $1 billion have been accounted for.

"There are a number of delegations who have been talking about a black hole where the money disappeared," Paul said.

Last month, the London-based charity ActionAid charged that $4 billion was missing.
...
"What is striking and shocking is that until two weeks ago the CPA didn't really make any effort to coordinate with the United Nations and figure out what should go forward," he said.

"The idea that you can take over a program like this with all its enormous complexities and somewhat make a carbon copy of it in two weeks' time is simply ludicrous," Paul added.
...

Not to worry, fella. The CPA's going to privatize the whole operation, ensuring that the money will disappear more efficiently and quickly than it ever could via a pack of heartless, soulless U.N. bureaucrat drones interested only in grandstanding by giving food to hungry people.
posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 04:54:16 PM | link

THE WAL-MART LIQUIDITY MEASURE
Dan Ferris writes that Wal-Mart - a corporation that never met an employee it didn't want to overwork and underpay - has come up with a measure of the liquidity of its core customers, i.e. those who mostly live from paycheck to paycheck, and it ain't looking very good lately.
...
This quiet, almost desolate, place is Wal-Mart on the 14th of the month. The throngs of greedy, sharp-elbowed bargain hunters are not there.

This isn't a scene from Wal-Mart's future, either. This is how it is right now, today. You see, Wal-Mart's foundation customer has finally gone bust.

That's not idle speculation. It's based on an ingenious method Wal-Mart has developed for judging the liquidity of its core customers. Wal-Mart knows the paycheck-to-paycheck consumer is its lifeblood. It also knows that most paychecks are issued on the 15th and the 30th of each month. Government-issued checks come out at the end of the month. If you want to know how the wage earners are doing, you have keep track of the middle of the month.

So each month, Wal-Mart adds up all the sales from all of its stores on the 14th of the month, when consumers are out of money. Then Wal-Mart subtracts that figure from all the sales from all of its stores on the 15th of the month, the day Joe and Mary Paycheck get paid. The resulting difference is perhaps the single best measure of the liquidity of Middle America.

"The consumer's liquidity crisis is the worst that Wal-Mart has seen and is the most pronounced in the last five to seven years," according to a recently issued Deutsche Bank report, quoted in Grant's Interest Rate Observer.

Lower interest rates have been great for homebuilders, mortgage lenders and car dealers. But Wal-Mart doesn't sell homes or cars. In fact, money once spent at Wal-Mart now goes into the new house and/or the new car. The company cites the rising cost of gasoline as a drag on earnings.

To fill in the gaps left by his spendthrift lifestyle and his increasingly inadequate paycheck, the American consumer is tapping his favorite alternative source of funds, high-interest revolving debt: credit cards and installment payment plans. According to the Federal Reserve, the U.S. consumer is now in hock to the tune of $1.75 trillion. That's $5,833.33 worth of credit card debt for every man, woman and child in the country.

I once knew a gal with six Visa cards plus a couple of department store cards. She ran up something like $25,000 on credit cards, in addition to what she owed on her car and her house. That $1.75 trillion number could be a tad conservative.

As you might guess, John and Mary Paycheck are having an increasingly difficult time paying off all this debt. More and more, they just stop paying. Dennis Hammond, executive director of the Debt Buyers Association, estimates that more than $80 billion of the outstanding $1.75 trillion of consumer debt has already been charged off. That's a 166% rise over 1996's cumulative chargeoff total of $30 billion.

Fitch Ratings agency tracks chargeoff activity in its Fitch Ratings Credit Card Chargeoff Index. This index is updated regularly in its Credit Card Movers & Shakers newsletter (available at www.fitchratings.com). The latest edition is dated Oct. 28, 2003. It reports that, for the month of August 2003, the chargeoff index is up 104 basis points (1.04%) over last year. Fitch concludes, "As consumers remain financially burdened due to the economic landscape, performance is expected to remain challenged over the near term and worsen later in fourth-quarter 2003."

John and Mary Paycheck are going bust.


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 03:17:18 PM | link

LEFT BEHIND
A
Texas Observer editorial describes the Texas left behind by the current occupants of the White House. Consider it a microcosm of the nation that will be left behind by the same.
...
These tragic stories beg the question, "Why weren’t more articles detailing the inevitable result of the legislature’s actions written when budget decisions were still being made?" It’s not as if social service advocates, state workers, and dozens of Democratic lawmakers (not to mention a handful of Republicans) didn’t warn anyone in the Capitol who would listen. But the Capitol press corps generally treated Democrats’ dire predictions as some form of partisan political spin "looming human catastrophe" versus Republican "belt tightening."

What passes for most political reporting these days begins and ends with gamesmanship: who’s ahead, who’s behind, who has the power, and who’s scheming to get it. During the session, most Capitol reporters couched budget cuts in lifeless statistics. When the budget was written in conference committee last May, the major state dailies carried high-school-hallway-gossip pieces chronicling whether the House or the Senate was ahead in negotiations. What ever happened to old-fashioned reporting on how government policies affect the citizenry? No wonder so many mistakenly believe that government doesn’t matter.

Just as media coverage during the session neglected the human element, the horror stories now being written by hometown reporters fail to explain the political decisions that led to these drastic service cuts. Most stories blame faceless "government spending reductions" or some equally bland phrase that leaves readers thinking the budget cuts simply fell from the sky. Lawmakers didn’t have a choice, the mainstream press seems to imply.

Well, they did have a choice. While a $10 billion budget deficit no doubt required some spending caps, the leadership rejected bills that would have raised new revenue without burdening middle-class Texans. Simply closing the franchise-tax loophole or hiking the franchise tax loophole and raising the cigarette tax would have garnered the state billions, enough to keep CHIP and most of Medicaid whole.

Even before the session, Texas was shortchanging its citizens. In 2002, the state once again boasted the nation’s highest percentage of people without health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, one in four Texans didn’t have health insurance. During the past two years, the number of uninsured Texans ballooned by 1.4 percent, the fourth-highest increase in the country. In the next two years, the legislature’s severe cuts to CHIP and Medicaid will deprive several hundred thousand more Texans of health insurance.

It’s not hard to imagine that in a few decades this very rich state will resemble a third-world nation. An elite group will live in gated communities. Armed guards will protect them from the majority of the population, a permanent underclass that lacks adequate education or health care. It’s not too late to prevent this future from coming to pass. But change can begin only when people make the connection between the budget choices the Republican leadership made in Austin during the last session and the reduced services at their local clinic and school.


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 02:48:06 PM | link

THE VENAL LAYER
Jean Shaoul shows that the bleedin' bocialists can still write with the best of them.
...
Like all welfare provision, pensions represent in the final analysis a deduction from the surplus value extracted from the working class and realised for the capitalist corporations and their owners in the form of profit. Any increase in the retirement age or reduction in pension benefit—be it in the form of corporation tax or employers’ contributions to a state and/or occupational pension plan—represents an attempt by the capitalist class to increase their profit or the rate of return on capital employed.

During the post-war period when profit rates were rising or at least not falling, governments of all political persuasions were able to increase welfare provision—including a reduction in the retirement age and improved pensions. But as the absolute amount of capital employed in modern industries has risen astronomically, there has been a tendency for the rate of profit measured against investment to fall.

Corporate bosses have sought to counter this by cutting out swathes of the workforce, attacking wages, gutting working conditions, driving up productivity and eliminating their rivals. They have demanded that governments cut corporate taxation and employers’ contributions to social insurance funds as a way of restoring the level of profit available for distribution to their shareholders. They have demanded, and got, a reduction in their own personal income tax at the expense of ordinary people as the top rate of income tax has been cut. The billions in revenues lost have then been clawed back via regressive taxes on the consumption of basic goods and services that hit the poorest families the hardest. They have also demanded a cut in the lower rates of income tax as a way of providing a subvention to the miserly wages paid by the corporations.

This venal layer is determined not only to pay no tax itself, but to place the full burden of social provision onto individual workers. Pensions and other forms of social insurance, healthcare, education and transport must be turned into commodities produced for profit and purchased by workers. Hence, politicians, corporate bosses and economists in every country endlessly repeat the mantra that the present level of pension provision is unsustainable and call for the extension of the working life and a reduction in the state pension. Anything else, they say, constitutes an unfair burden on young workers. This is the classic technique of divide and rule, with the aim of pitting one generation against another.

Governments have promoted individual pension plans or stakeholder pensions based on investments in shares, with demagogic invocations of freedom and individual choice, in an attempt to undermine the conception that the provision of pensions is a social right rather than an individual responsibility.

All economic and social life is run in the interests of this tiny financial elite. It is this that lies behind the universal turn to “reform” and privatised pensions. The attacks on pensions throughout Europe can only be understood as part of an ongoing international offensive of the ruling elites all over the world to make working people pay for the growing economic breakdown of the profit system. But of course, pension reform cannot be discussed in these terms. Hence, the resort to obfuscation, deceit and the oft-repeated invocations of demographic pressures without presenting a shred of credible evidence to support these assertions or permit an informed public debate.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 02:31:59 PM | link

"VIRTUAL SYSTEM MELTDOWN"
Sandra Jontz reports on how an administration that has no problem smoothly delivering millions per hour to Halliburton and its other key constituents can't seem to pay on time the soldiers it's sacrificing to sustain an unsustainable neocon wet dream.
Army National Guard soldiers activated to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are plagued with pay-and-benefits problems and even denial of medical care to those wounded, auditors reported.

Investigators from the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative arm, tracked Guardsmen who weren’t paid in months, were told to repay debts they hadn’t incurred or told they didn’t qualify for medical care, according to a report released Thursday titled “Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems.”

“This is not just a ‘significant’ rate of error; it’s a virtual system meltdown of a critical support function,” Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., vice chairman of House Government Reform Committee said during a news conference, held in lieu of a congressional hearing, he said.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 02:20:34 PM | link

AND SPEAKING OF CONRAD...
...
Steven Pearlstein has a most interesting - albeit unsurprising - piece about the connections between Conrad Black's Hollinger International and certain other currently notorious players. Geez, Perle's name pops up these days more often than a whack-a-mole, and you can lay money on Kissinger attempting - and perhaps succeeding - to out-machinate the current administration in hell when he gets there. The financial skinny? Over the last four years, while Black was paying himself and his lieutenants $200 million, Hollinger's total profit was $23 million and the stock shares fell 25%.
It's amazing the coincidences you find digging into Hollinger International, the publishing empire that includes Chicago's Sun-Times and London's Daily Telegraph and is quickly slipping from Conrad Black's control.

Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications.

And there's Washington superhawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than . . . Richard Perle.

Perle, of course, has been pushing hard for just such a military buildup from his other perch at the Pentagon's secretive and influential Defense Policy Board, where there are a number of other Friends of Hollinger.

There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme.

And then there's Henry Kissinger, another longtime Hollinger director, though it must be said that Henry is very busy and was only able to make one board meeting last year.

Rounding out the Hollinger director-hawks is Richard Burt, the former arms negotiator and ambassador to Germany. Burt is also on the board of Archer Daniels Midland, whose former chairman, Dwayne Andreas, and director Robert Strauss, were also Hollinger directors until last year. Small world, huh?

Some might consider Andreas a somewhat risky choice for corporate director, inasmuch as ADM had to pay a $100 million fine for price-fixing during his watch. But Andreas probably felt right at home at Hollinger, alongside A. Alfred Taubman, who as head of Sotheby's was nabbed for fixing art auction prices. Taubman gave up his Hollinger seat last year, around the time he checked into prison.

The coincidences don't stop there.

When Hollinger wanted to unload some of its smaller newspapers recently, the winning bidders were Horizon Publications and Bradford Publishing, which happen to be partly owned by Black and his closest lieutenants. Hollinger even graciously agreed to finance a portion of the sales.

And imagine everyone's surprise when it came out that Hollinger had paid $8 million for a collection of memos and letters of FDR, who just happens to be the subject of Black's new 1,134-page biography.

Perhaps investors might have been willing to put up with a controlling shareholder inclined to use the company as his personal piggy bank (did I mention the lavish homes and chauffeured cars in Chicago and New York?) had Hollinger turned out to be a great investment. But, alas, it hasn't been. Between 1998 and 2002, as Hollinger paid out more than $200 million to Black and close associates in the form of salary, management fees and non-compete payments, the company was able to eke out a total profit of $23 million. During that period, Hollinger shares fell 25 percent while other publishing shares rose -- 17 percent at Gannett and 20 percent at Knight Ridder.

This is all, of course, vintage Black, who got his start as a corporate wheeler-dealer snookering Canadian widows and raiding employee pension funds. But shame on Hollinger's directors for letting themselves be used as corporate hood ornaments, lending legitimacy to Lord Black's financial manipulations and relentless social climbing.

Only one, former Illinois governor James Thompson, was willing to defend himself yesterday, suggesting at one point that there was only so much directors could do with a chief executive wielding absolute voting control. So far, however, there is scant evidence that any of them even tried, at least until dissident shareholders threatened to sue.


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 01:50:46 PM | link

THE CANUCK ON CONRAD
So I asked the Canuck - from whom I first learned about him - about the current travails of Conrad Black.
I've been following it with considerable schadenfreude, even though I still do own a few hundred hollinger shares.

I've known about those suspect "non-competition" payments for a couple of years now, and wondered if they would ever explode in his face. I wonder no longer. Congrats to Messrs Tweedy and Browne (not Jackson, he's still playing for Opus).
...
An interesting point: Conrad-baby was due to quit as CEO on Friday. Yesterday at 5:30 the audited quarterly report to the SEC was due, and it had to be signed by the CEO. Conrad advanced his quit date to 5:00 yesterday, and the report remains unsigned. The new CEO rather wisely says he won't sign it - after all he can't take responsibility for something he didn't participate in. Suspicious timing on the part of Conrad, isn't it?

The truly surreal thing is that this is occurring during his successful book tour for his FDR biography. He's getting pretty good reviews. To me it sounds like a combination of some pretty good points (if not exactly new) combined with some "what the hell was he thinking?" ideas. Basically he wants to claim FDR for the right by pointing out how conservative he was. Well, this isn't exactly news, but the implication Black misses is that of just how stupid the conservatives who, then and now, opposed FDR tooth and nail actually are. He was trying to save capitalism, not overthrow it. Though FDR and his Texan vice president, who paid his mexican workers a dollar for a very long and hard day's work, might have had different ideas as to just what capitalism meant.


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 01:42:20 PM |
link

A HYPOCRITE AND A BLOWHARD
Yep, you guessed it. We're talking about the gasbag who gives his dittohead sycophants chronic stiffies, although in this case "we" means
a columnist named Doug Casey over at WorldNetDaily, a publication that usually sits in Karl Rove's lap begging for a treat.
...
The discovery of Rush's liking for opiates makes him a hypocrite, as well as an insufferable blowhard. He served a useful purpose (and was often quite funny) when Clinton was in office. But for the last three years, he's been nothing but an unconscionable flack for the Republican Party, reflexively supporting anything they do or say. My guess, therefore, is that Rush won't be arrested for buying and doing illegal narcotics, as if he were a black, or some white trailer park trash. He's entirely too well wired with the Republicans.
...
That's all well and good, but then Casey takes off on his own magical mystery tour of fantastical speculation.
...
But the episode may cause him some moral introspection, in view of his having said: "... too many whites are getting away with drug use ... The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river too." And, "If people are violating the law by doing drugs they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
...
"But the episode may cause him some moral introspection" is the single funniest line I've read this millennium.
posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 11:44:32 AM | link

ANOTHER ATTEMPTED FBI COVER-UP
Big, Left, Outside clues us into a tale of Ashcroftian perfidiousness that demands much wider attention.
...
In addition to immediate personal risks from working undercover, the trips to foreign lands would, more than a decade later, entangle Lau in the ongoing battle between the Bill of Rights and the Patriot Act. In fact, just last month, Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department made an unprecedented attempt not only to seal documents in Lau’s court case--he’s sued for wrongful dismissal from the FBI--but also to gain access to the hard drives of activists, journalists and anyone else suspected of having copies of the documents.

In testimony, subsequently blacked out by the Justice Department, Lau claimed that “personnel armed with machine guns were a constant reminder to me of my fate if something went wrong. ... I anticipated death on several occasions, but I somehow survived it all.”
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 11:36:08 AM | link

MEDICARE MACHINATIONS
The
CBPP details the problems with the conference agreement on the Medicare drug bill. It probably won't surprise many that the adminstration wants to punish the poor (i.e. those without moral fiber) and create yet another tax shelter for the wealthy (i.e. those with moral fiber). Supply-side Jesus would be proud.
  1. “Premium support”: A six-year premium-support “demonstration project” would be established in six metropolitan areas. Medicare recipients in areas covered by the project would choose between traditional Medicare and private health plans; if the cost of the selected form of coverage exceeded a benchmark level set for the area — and the cost of traditional Medicare is likely to exceed the benchmark for reasons explained below — the individual would pay added premiums to cover the difference.
    • The proposal is much larger than what is needed for a demonstration project. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services show that it could cover several million Medicare beneficiaries, which substantially surpasses what is needed to conduct a valid demonstration.
    • The proposal is likely to cause a substantial increase over time in premiums for traditional Medicare coverage. As the two analysts who developed the premium support concept in the mid-1990s — Henry Aaron of Brookings and Bob Reischauer of the Urban Institute — have noted, premium support poses serious dangers unless it is accompanied by regulatory and other measures to assure that the private plans do not “cherry-pick” the healthier beneficiaries, leaving traditional Medicare with the sicker ones.

      The emerging conference agreement lacks these other provisions. It thus poses dangers to sicker beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare would likely cost more than the private plans, both because it would be serving a sicker population and because the emerging agreement includes billions in subsidies for the private plans. Because of the resulting differential, premiums charged to the sicker retirees left in traditional Medicare could rise substantially over time.

  2. Health Savings Accounts: Tax-advantaged savings accounts to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses, which exist now only in a limited demonstration project, would be made universally available. These accounts could be used with high-deductible health policies, but not with the comprehensive health coverage traditionally offered by employers. Holders of these accounts could make tax-deductible deposits in them, watch the earnings compound tax-free, and pay no tax upon withdrawal if the funds are used for medical expenses.
    • This would establish a new, unprecedented and extremely lucrative type of tax shelter. All existing tax-advantaged savings or retirement accounts provide a tax break when funds are deposited or when they are withdrawn, but not both. If a precedent of providing both “front end” and “back end” tax breaks is established, the political pressure to do the same for other types of savings and retirement accounts could become irresistible. A proliferation of tax-free accounts of this type would send federal deficits to much higher levels.
    • It would undermine comprehensive health insurance. Healthy, affluent workers would have a strong incentive to opt out of comprehensive health insurance plans in favor of the new accounts: they would receive a large tax break, and they would not be much affected by switching to a high-deductible health policy since they generally use fewer health services. If large numbers of such workers opt out of comprehensive plans, the pool of people left in comprehensive plans would be older and sicker, causing premiums for comprehensive insurance to rise significantly. Premiums for comprehensive, employer-based coverage could more than double if such accounts became widespread, according to major studies conducted in the past by RAND, the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries.

      That, in turn, would drive still more healthy workers out of comprehensive insurance, making those that remain even more costly to insure and adding pressure on employers to stop offering comprehensive coverage. Older and sicker workers could wind up paying more for health coverage or losing it altogether and becoming uninsured.

  3. Effects on Low-income Elderly and Disabled People Covered by both Medicare and Medicaid: Currently, if a benefit is covered by Medicare and Medicaid alike, the low-income elderly and disabled people who are eligible for both programs receive the benefit through Medicare and also receive any additional assistance that Medicaid may provide, such as a lower co-payment for the covered services. The proposed conference agreement takes the unprecedented step of eliminating this Medicaid “wrap-around” coverage with respect to the new drug benefit. That would have adverse consequences for several million poor elderly and disabled people.
    • Many low-income Medicare beneficiaries would end up worse off than under current law and eventually could have difficulty affording their drugs. Low-income elderly and disabled people who qualify for Medicaid now receive drugs through Medicaid free of charge or pay nominal charges. Under the drug bill, such beneficiaries would be required to begin paying $3 per brand-name prescription per month and $1 per generic-prescription per month if they are below the poverty line, and $5 per brand-name prescription per month and $2 per generic-drug prescription if they are modestly above the poverty line. For seriously ill people who have a large number of medications, this could pose problems. Moreover, some conferees are pushing for these co-payment amounts to be raised each year at the rate that drug costs increase per Medicare beneficiary; this issue has not yet been resolved. Those costs are projected to increase at least 10 percent per year. Most elderly and disabled poor people, however, live on fixed incomes such as Supplemental Security Income benefits or small Social Security checks that rise with the general inflation rate, or only 2 percent to 3 percent per year. If these co-payment amounts are raised each year at the rate that drug costs rise rather than at the general inflation rate, prescription drugs will become increasingly unaffordable for poor elderly and disabled people who have a large number of prescriptions.
  4. Cost containment: Each year the executive branch would project the share of overall Medicare costs that would be financed with general revenues. When that share was projected to exceed 45 percent within the coming seven years, the President would be required to submit legislation presumably to alter Medicare to bring the projected percentage back below 45 percent.
    • Staying within the 45-percent threshold would entail making increasingly drastic changes in Medicare over time. The share of Medicare costs covered by general revenues is rising, largely because of advances in medical practice that are permitting patients to have shorter hospital stays and that make wider use of outpatient services and prescription drugs instead. (Hospital stays are covered by Medicare Part A, which is funded by payroll taxes; outpatient services and prescription drugs are covered by Medicare Parts B and D, which are funded by general revenues.) General revenue costs are virtually certain to reach the 45-percent level in the second decade of this century and to keep rising above the 45-percent level after that, even if Medicare costs in general and Medicare drug cost in particular rise more slowly than projected. Adhering to a 45-percent limit would consequently entail making increasingly deep cuts in Medicare, such as lower provider reimbursement rates, reductions in benefits, or higher premiums and other forms of cost-sharing.
    • The burden of financing Medicare could shift increasingly to working-poor families and middle-income families, as well as to Medicare beneficiaries. The proposal gives preferential treatment to income taxes over payroll taxes by setting a target for the maximum share of Medicare costs that may come from general revenues, and hence from income taxes. This preference favors higher-income people, since income taxes are progressive, while payroll taxes are regressive. By militating against general revenues as a source of added Medicare funding, the proposal makes increases in payroll taxes and/or higher premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries more likely. Both of these kinds of changes fall more heavily on people with low or middle incomes.
  5. Effect on states: State Medicaid programs face serious long-term budget pressures posed by the impending retirement of the baby-boom generation. Drug costs form a significant share of this problem, since drug coverage is the fastest-growing Medicaid benefit. Both the House and Senate drug bills provided states with some relief from rising Medicaid drug costs. The conference agreement, however, marks a major step backward from both the House and Senate bills in this area, removing most or all of the relief these bills provided. In fact, the conference agreement may even make states worse off financially than under current law, creating still greater pressure for states to cut Medicaid or other services in the future.

posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 09:08:56 AM | link

THE PREDATOR CLASS
Via
MaxSpeak, we read about Dick Meyer discovering a predator class. I'll swipe the whole thing, with the proceeds going to the Old Oceanographer's Home as usual.
The stock market boom of the 1990s, the proliferation of 401(k) plans and the mass use of mutual funds so greatly increased the number of Americans who own equities that a new demographic term was born: the investor class.

The emerging accounts of thievery in the world of mutual funds confirm, for me at least, something I have suspected since the go-go 1980s -- the existence of an economic predator class.

I believe there is now a professional, well-trained elite, supported by large institutions, that is adept and willing to use corrupt practices to accumulate wealth. Despite assurances from game-theorists and anthropologists that the criminal cadre in the species remains a constant percentage over time, I believe today's mainstream, sanitized, and institutionally sanctioned financial crime rackets are being run by a new breed of crook. There have always been scandals and crooks in the history of American money, but our predator class is a distinct creation of the late 20th century.

I believe there is no way the counter-class made up of regulators, watchdogs and do-gooders and hack columnists can match wits with the predator class. Today's piles of money are so huge, great fortunes can be amassed by swiping the tiniest of slices in the wiliest of ways long before picked pockets are discovered.

I also believe that my darling baby-boom generation and our successors in gens x and y, reared in raised consciousness, righteousness and me-first, are probably to blame.

The docket of this still running corporate crime spree has grown far too long to be dismissed as either a passing fluke, a few bad eggs or as regularly scheduled financial event. It is a more permanent condition of commercial culture. And it is barely scorned.

It is partly, of course, simple Wall Street and boardroom greed, a cousin to the greed and gargantuan rewards in entertainment and sports. It is partly the degradation of professional standards, of the concept of the fiduciary, akin to the same market-driven devolution in divergent fields such as medical care, Hollywood, publishing and, yes, journalism.

My guess is that financial historians will start the clock in this epoch with the big merger scandals of the 1980's -- Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and scads of lesser cads. Next came the long running, now forgotten, S&L scandals. Then a lull (maybe), punctuated by the pretty picture of the tech boom. That delusional portrait was been redrawn when we learned of the rigged IPO's, insider trading, completely corrupt "analysis" practices at the Wall Street giants and old-fashioned flimflam.

Coveting the vast instant riches of the techno-boomers and baby billionaires was way more than many titans of less glamorous industries could bear and in virtually all companies executive salaries soared beyond all proportions of the post-war era. And in many of those executive suites, greed morphed into felony -- Tyco, Enron, Rite-Aid, Adelphia, Global Crossing, WorldCom, ImClone, Lucent, KMart, MicroStrategy, Qwest Communications. And then scandals at the supposed auditors, like Arthur Andersen, insulted the injury.

As the market turned down, the corporate crime spree didn't wane as some theorists said it should. Hot stocks, IPO's, M&A were no longer where the Willy Suttons with MBAs, Turnbull & Asser shirts and Patek Philipe watches saw the money. They saw it in those huge piles of money accumulated by working people for savings and retirement -- corporate pension funds, public pension funds, 401(k)'s and mutual funds. Who would notice a few mil or bil siphoned off in arcane late-trading deals? They'll never know what hit them.

So, pension funds were raided, an entirely legal scandal. And now we're learning about the mutual fund grifting rampage that may affect Main Street as much as prior fiascos: Putnam, Alger Management, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Strong Capital Management, PBHG Funds, Bank One Corp., Alliance Capital, Janus Capital Group are some of the implicated names.

So now we'll be told that the market, smarter than any deliberately organized system, will correct this. After all, who would invest in a known corrupt game? No one, so the market will fix it. Plus, the regulators are on the case.

This time, I don't buy it. The predator class will not be exterminated by cease and desist orders, Senate hearings, independent boards of directors and the invisible hand. It's a culture. And essentially, it's our culture.


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 08:53:39 AM | link

STOCK OPTIONS DECONSTRUCTED
The Canuck sends along a
Globe and Mail piece about stock options. Basically, they're an incentive for management to gamble with the stockholders', i.e. somebody else's, money.
...
University of Texas law professor Calvin Johnson, in an article published with those of two Canadian scholars, is contemptuous of the claim that options match executives' interests to those of shareholders. Options give executives a free bet on the share price, he writes, creating "truly perverse incentives" to undertake long-shot projects in pursuit of gains.

"A corporation that has given its top management stock options has given its management a private incentive to undertake risks that are suicidal for the company as a whole. An option holder does not share in the downside risk on the underlying stock. If the stock loses value, the option holder will simply fail to exercise the option and will thus avoid the loss. Risks that would properly scare the flesh off a shareholder are a matter of indifference to the option holder."
...
Mr. Johnson finds nothing to like about them. "The growth in popularity of stock options has been driven most importantly by deceptive accounting," he says. "Stock options worth tens of millions of dollars are reported to shareholders and investors as if they were free, allowing top management to extract a higher salary from shareholders than it could otherwise get. Stock or stock option compensation is a terrible idea, and in the absence of deceptive accounting, it would probably disappear."

Amin Mawani, an associate professor of accounting at York University, writes that a third of Canada's 100 largest public companies used stock options in 1991 but all of them do now.

"In recent times, many senior executives have accumulated substantial wealth from stock options as their companies have floundered by both accounting and stock market measures. . . . For example, the [2001] management information circular of Nortel Networks Corp. reveals that John Roth, the former chief executive officer, exercised options to earn $135-million in 2000, just before the company's share price dropped drastically."

Stock options give corporate insiders the opportunity to profit extravagantly from the release of temporary good news or the deferral of bad news, he says. A U.S. academic has noted that National Football League players are barred from betting on games because they can influence the outcome, he says.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/20/2003 08:49:26 AM | link

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

JUICING ON THE JOB
Don't have the equipment or the demeanor to fight the New American Reich with your First and/or Second Amendment rights? There's always the option of avoiding such nasty realities with booze, and via
Cheek, we learn some tips for Juicing on the Job from Modern Drunkard Magazine.
...
Why Drink on the Job?

Because most jobs suck. If you love your job, if the workday just flies by and you have to be dragged away from your desk at the end of the day, you don’t need alcohol. You need a psychiatrist. If you dread going to work, if the workday drags along like a crippled slug crawling across sandpaper, if clocking out feels like a jail door springing open, then a little booze can go a long way toward making a nightmarish death march of a shift seem a hop, skip and sip through a field of flowers.

You may wonder if you can actually perform your job while drinking, which is a ridiculous notion. Jackie Gleason threw together one of the greatest feats of television history (The Honeymooners) while fully in the bag. Alfred Hitchcock directed some of the finest movies ever committed to celluloid in between champagne breakfasts and gin-soaked lunches. So did Orson Welles. A prominent biographer estimates that Sir Winston Churchill spent the entirety of World War Two with a measurable amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. And if Sir Winston could survive the Blitz, rally a reeling nation and eventually whip up on millions of Nazis, surely you can throw together a spreadsheet by Friday.
...

I gave up the lunchtime beer years ago, when it became obvious that even food at lunch would knock me out for most of the afternoon. The Canuck and I - before he picked up his skirt and ran away to North Carolina - used to have lunch at a local bar called Duddley's Draw, which has some damned good and cheap sammiches. Although neither of us touched the sauce at lunch there, our boss's secretary was apparently convinced that we both got a snootful there every single day. One day she mentioned her theory to the Canuck, who laughed at the idea, at which point she actually got angry at having her pet theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
posted by Steven Baum 11/18/2003 11:02:40 AM | link

Monday, November 17, 2003

"DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU"
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have
written a memo for the cabal's figurehead.
We write to express deep concern over the growing mistrust and cynicism with which many, including veteran intelligence professionals inside and outside our movement, regard the intelligence cited by you and your chief advisers to justify the war against Iraq. The controversy over intelligence on Iraq has deep roots, going back a decade. It came to a head over recent months as intelligence was said to be playing a key role in support of your administration´s decision to make war on Iraq. And the controversy has now become acute, since you have been backed into the untenable position of assuming the former role of Saddam Hussein in refusing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. (Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei noted earlier this week, "We have years of experience and know every scientist worth interviewing.") The implications not only for U.S. credibility abroad but also for the future of U.S. intelligence are immense. They need to be addressed without delay.

Prominent pundits (and, quite probably, some of your own advisers) are now saying it does not matter whether so-called "weapons of mass destruction" are ever found in Iraq. Don´t let them fool you.
...

Ray McGovern - one of the signers and a former CIA intelligence analyst of 27 years - is interviewed by Andrew Gumbel. Excerpts of the interview can be found at Demagogue (via Atrios).
posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 07:14:20 PM | link

"MARINATED IN PRIVILEGE"
A whomping good portion of
bloody-well-put-mate over at Corrente.
...
In Shirk, however, the chickenhawks found their own useful idiot. Shirk not only lacked any appreciation of nuance in diplomacy, he was uninterested in acquiring it. Marinated in privilege, his class prejudices and intellectual sloth reinforced by the simplistic moral nostrums of philistine right-wing evangelism, Shirk's success in business and politics derived instead solely from his ability to keep his sponsors happy and get everybody out before the roof caved in (a talent the Bush family in general seem preternaturally blessed with). Self-reflection and humility are not marketable commodities among hucksters. In this, his cheerleading past was a pretty good prologue.

Shirk's deficiencies were abundantly clear to anyone who paid attention during Campaign 2000, yet, as Bob Somerby and Gene Lyons and a few others have pointed out, Shirk's very liabilities were transmuted by a puerile press corps into something approaching virtues. Drunk with utopian fantasies about the business cycle, enslaved to the cult of celebrity, and deranged by years of sexual McCarthyism and pseudo-scandal politics generally, the Fifth Estate pretty much decided that the Most Powerful Office on Earth could be run on autopilot--indeed would run better on autopilot, or at least in a manner congenial to the thumbs-up/thumbs-down, nuance-free media culture. Thus, what mattered in the new millennium was finding the right cheerleader to occupy this now largely ceremonial post. That the cerebral, technocratic Al Gore still managed to actually get 600,000 more votes than the cheerleader probably only confirmed his backers in their contempt for the popular intelligence.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 07:08:02 PM | link

EXPERTISE AS IDEOLOGICAL PREDILICTION
Josh Marshall
deconstructs the Feith rehash of the ostensible evidence for connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq over the last decade. Read the whole thing. I'm just going to steal one marvelous paragraph.
...
Now, of course, Feith's advocates say that everyone else was just doing their own sort of cherry-picking, picking the evidence that supported their preconceived notions, etc. But this is simply another example of a pattern which we see widely in this administration: the inability to recognize that there is such a thing as expertise which is anything more than a cover for ideological predilection.
...

posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 12:42:06 PM | link

TORYGRAPH FELLATES PERLE
The
Daily Telegraph allows Richard Perle to explain at length why his critics are evil and tragically misinformed idiots. As we get very near the end of the article we find out exactly why the interviewer is giving Perle much more than the usual $5 special.
...
During the war, Mr Perle - who is also on the board of Hollinger International, the Telegraph's parent company - stepped down as chairman of the Defence Policy Board amid accusations of a conflict of interest. He was formally cleared over the weekend, and remains hugely influential in conservative circles.
...

posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 12:09:52 PM | link

RUMSY GETS AN EARFUL
That arrogant bastard Dr. Rumslove got a taste of his own medicine
on a trip to Okinawa. The insufferable schoolmarm who likes nothing more than lecturing those who disagree with his royal majesty received a lecture of his own. As to the "crime rate" allegation, it's not a terribly well-kept secret that the easiest place to find red light districts overseas is near military bases.
Okinawa has asked the US to reduce or relocate American military bases on the island and to remove large numbers of US Marines, which its Governor says would lower the crime rate.

Keiichi Inamine made the plea to the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Japan and South Korea to discuss bilateral security and Pentagon plans to realign the postwar US military global "footprint".

In an unusual act of public diplomacy, the Okinawa Government decided that news organisations would be present at Sunday's meeting between Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Inamine, ensuring that the Governor's request would receive a wide airing.

Mr Rumsfeld listened to the Governor's list of complaints, challenging some of them including noise pollution, the level of military training conducted in Okinawa and the Navy's effect on marine wildlife.

After nearly 40 minutes, Mr Rumsfeld said it was time to end the discussion. "We've listened," he said politely but firmly.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 11:59:06 AM | link

CRYBABY PISSPANTS AVOIDS SPEECH ENGAGEMENTS
The cabal has
pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament. Why? Because they weren't guaranteed a standing ovation for Boy George. I guess he'll just have to be satisfied with getting hummers from Blair and the Queen, as well as the adulation expressed by literally dozens along his heavily restricted parade route through London. I'm sure Maggie can scare up at least a score of fellow Tories to line the route.
GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.

Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.

A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address.

"His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.

"I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen."

Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.

It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.

The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help."  

The cabal has also pulled the blow monkey out of a speech to the British parliament for the same reasons, i.e. the boy king might not receive unanimous adulation.
GEORGE Bush was last night branded chicken for scrapping his speech to Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs.

The US president planned to give a joint address to the Commons and Lords during his state visit to Britain.

But senior White House adviser Dr Harlan Ullman said: "They would have loved to do it because it would have been a great photo-opportunity.

"But they were fearful it would to turn into a spectacle with Labour backbenchers walking out."
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 11:51:22 AM | link

THE REAL MISSION
Justin Raimondo justifiably gloats over the distress currently exhibited by the neocons who fomented the Iraq invasion, and speculates as to the real mission behind the invasion.
...
What is the mission, anyway? To the neocons, it's "democracy" throughout the Middle East, which means an extended stay. Kristol is right: the "forward strategy" enunciated by the President in his recent speech before the National Endowment for Democracy is in direct contradiction to the administration's actions on the ground in Iraq. The real mission in Iraq is to build a forward base to be used in a future Mideast war. "The president wants to win," says Kristol, "and the Pentagon wants to get out." Yes, it's those "cut and run" peaceniks over at the Pentagon, and not the antiwar movement, that has the War Party up in arms. Forget Noam Chomsky, and Robert Fisk – the real object of the neocons' scorn these days is Donald Rumsfeld, who last week said:

"You've got to get the security responsibility transferred to the Iraqi people.... It's their country.... We're not going to provide security in their country over a sustained period of time."

This was enough to cause conniptions over at War Party headquarters:

"On the Sunday talk shows at the beginning of last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn't exactly say that we were going to run, but he certainly sounded as if he were eyeing the exits."

Rumsfeld, West, and the officer corps – exemplified by those senior retired officers who spoke out against this war before it started – look at Iraq from a purely military point of view, and with the goal in mind of protecting their troops while carrying out a well-defined – and therefore limited – mission. Beyond that, they clearly see Baghdad as another Beirut waiting to happen. Ronald Reagan got out of Lebanon, and fast: will George W. Bush show the same wisdom? Or will we have to learn that lesson all over again?
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 11:37:54 AM | link

THE WRITING ON THE WALL
Only in a Bush administration can you find
more truth in Pravda than in the "liberal" media.
The massive security operation in London to protect George Bush, the lies and reiteration of lies and Washington's acts of butchery in Iraq spell a clear message to the President of the United States of America.

In three years, George W. Bush and his odious regime have managed to destroy the carefully-built climate of trust between the USA and the international community, to create the most venomous anti-American feeling the planet has ever known, to drive a wedge between the USA and the British public, traditionally the country's closest friends and to tear apart the tissue which bound the international community together in a framework of international law and norms, based upon dialogue, discussion and debate, in the proper forum, the UNO.

The massive security operation in London speaks for itself: five thousand Metropolitan Police officers, 700 US security men, not to mention the invisible army of British security officers and Military Intelligence operationals. 5,700 people to protect George Bush would suggest that he is more than a little unpopular. Normally, heads of state need a security barrier to hold back cheering, flag-waving crowds, not to save his life.

The fact that nowhere on Earth except in parts of the USA will George W. Bush see cheering, flag-waving crowds, should send him and his administration a clear reminder that if he needs 5,700 people to protect him in the home of his closest ally, then he would not dare to step off a plane elsewhere in the world, for some reason.

The fact that a British Prime Minister has, for the first time in history, to argue his case to stand with the US President also speaks volumes about the chasm which this administration in Washington has driven between itself and the British public, traditionally derisive of Americans in a jocular way but nurturing at the same time a deeply-felt respect. After three years of George W. Bush, that respect has turned into a sullen hatred and a heartfelt mistrust.  

Bush's invention of a causus belli based upon lies might have been a mistake caused by an excessive zeal to go to war. However, the fact that he continues to mention Iraq in the same breath as September 11th, after he himself has admitted on more than one occasion that there is no link between Iraq and the Twin Towers, means that either he is a barefaced liar, or else is unable to grasp the facts, in both of which cases he is unfit for his position.

If he is waging war as a last resort, as he stated at the weekend, why then did George Bush invent false pretexts to launch this act of butchery in Iraq, in which tens of thousands of people have been killed or injured or maimed for life? If Bush is waging war as a last resort, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction, which this invasion, as a "last resort" was expected, not supposed, to find?

George W. Bush is a liar and a mass murderer. These are the reasons for the 5,700 security men the US and British taxpayers have to finance, these are the reasons why Bush has lost the heart of Middle England, these are the reasons why the US taxpayer will have to foot the bill of an ever-increasing disaster in the Middle East for many years to come.

As Bush pushes blindly and arrogantly ahead, repeating the same old phrases, giving the same old reasons, the writing is on the wall. Isolated and despised, he has dug his own political grave from which he will be parted only by a matter of time.


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 11:30:38 AM | link

BLAIR BLOVIATES
Lap-poodle Tony is attempting to spread the same agitprop as his master, i.e. that those who are in fact anti-Bush are instead anti-American.
Jonathan Freedland and the general British public beg to disagree.
...
The vast majority of Britons who oppose this visit maintain a very simple position which, for some reason, the government cannot seem to understand. They are pro-American, but anti-Bush.

They agree with much of the message put out over the last few days by Mr Blair and his ministers, aimed at warming the British public to tomorrow's guest.

They agree that America is our natural and greatest ally; that our two nations are linked by profound bonds of history, culture and shared sacrifice in two world wars. Most will agree with Jack Straw's sense of relief that the world's sole superpower is a democracy and not - as it might have been had the Soviet Union "won" the Cold War - a tyranny.

They believe all that.

BUT they still think this visit is a mistake, not because they nurture a pathological hatred of America but because they distrust its current president.

How else to explain the surveys which simultaneously show great affection for the US, even as they record intense suspicion towards Bush? Pick up one poll and it finds that half the public reckons Blair's closeness to Bush is bad for Britain. Pick up another and it reveals the US is still the place where most Britons want to go on holiday, and even where one in five of us would like to live.

The evidence is pretty clear. Millions of Britons are pro-American - but anti-Bush.
...


posted by Steven Baum 11/17/2003 11:21:56 AM | link


Comments?
Archive

LISTS

Books
Software

uPORTALS

cider
crime lit
drive-in
fake lit
hurricanes
os
scripting
sherlock
texas music
top 100
weirdsounds
wodehouse

LEISURE

abebooks
alibris
amazon
bibliofind
bookfinder
hamilton
powells

all music guide
best used cds
cd bargains
second spin
raven's links

ampol
arts & letters
atlantic
art history
attrition
bibliomania
bitch
bizarre
bizarro
bloom country
bob 'n' ed
bob the angry flower
callahan
chile pepper
classical music
cnnsi
crackbaby
cult films
culture jamming
discover
disinformation
dismal scientist
electric sheep
espn
exquisite corpse
feed
fine cooking
fishbowl
fluble
fried society
fry and laurie
hotel fred
hotendotey
hypocrisy network
jerkcity
last cereal
leisure town
logos
london times
mappa mundi
miscmedia
mp3lit
mr. chuck show
mr. serpent
national geographic
new scientist
no depression
not bored
obscure store
onion
on-line books
parking lot is full
pearly gates
phrase and fable
probe
red meat
rough guides
salon
Simpleton
sluggy freelance
spacemoose
spike
straight dope
strenua inertia
suck
superosity
tawdry town
too much coffee man
toon inn
verbivore
vidal index
yes minister
you damn kid





Powered by Blogger