-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Impeached POTUS Not to be Confused: the Flinty Mr. Ruff and the Rough Mr. Flynt by Mark Steyn 'WHO'S on today?" asked my taxi driver on Tuesday, whisking me to the Senate. "Wossname," I said, with the confident authority of a Beltway insider. "You know, the guy in the wheelchair." "Larry Flynt?" he squealed in delight. "Geez, I take my hat off to that man. Any chance you can get me in?" It seemed cruel to explain to him I meant presidential counsel Charles Ruff, whose wheelchair-chic quotient is considerably lower. They're not easily confused: Chuck Ruff is kinda flinty, while Mr Flynt, publisher of Hustler, likes to chuck rough. Mr Ruff is in a chair due to a polio-like virus contracted while working in deepest Africa; Mr Flynt because of an unsolved attempted contract killing contracted while working in deepest hardcore porn. Mr Ruff cited his father, who fought at Omaha Beach; Mr Flynt has threatened to name a Republican senator who's partial to three-way sessions with his wife and his hooker. Thus, like Britain, the United States maintains a careful distinction between the dignified and efficient parts of the Constitution. The two halves of the presidential defence come together formally only on very rare occasions - such as the meeting last June between Dan Moldea, the porn king's chief investigator, and Max Stier, one of the six attorneys presently defending Mr Clinton in the Senate. But it would be invidious to infer from that that the White House is directly engaged in the Hustler honcho and Clinton campaign contributor's transparent attempt to lean on the jurors. None the less, it seems that, as with Messrs Ruff and Flynt, the Clinton team lines up like mismatched twins. It's not true that all owners wind up looking like their dogs - although Mr Clinton was, at least for the duration, neutered around the same time as First Pooch Buddy a year ago. But it is the case that lawyers often wind up looking like their clients. From my seat in the chamber, I spend most of the day staring straight at David Kendall, whose lower lip is locked in the same downturned forward jut as the President's - Bill's lip says "little boy lost", David's says "lawyer boy rarely lost". They're like a double-act with no straight man: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" "He did not have sexual relations with that woman!" It took them the best part of a year but the White House has finally found a couple of lawyers who don't frighten the kids. Yesterday, it was gregarious Greg Craig and Cheryl Mills. But Mr Craig's contention that the President had been denied due process by overzealous prosecutors was a bit of a stretch: he said the perjury charges were unspecific "general charges" and that no defendant would be charged just with stealing "something". Actually, they are - all the time. As anyone who attracts the attention of the federal justice system can testify, all federal prosecutors are over-zealous and most of them are unspecific. They raid your home, and worry about what they'll stick you with later - and, if they can't find anything else, they'll use the handy catch-all general charge of "mail fraud". One of the great pleasures of this case has been to see the President hounded as obsessively as any citizen. But Mr Craig's complaint was strictly the dignified part of the defence. The efficient bit was the State of the Union address in the House, which, unlike the pinched, lawyerly State of the Dress reunion in the Senate, was genial, commanding, expansive, and sent Mr Clinton's approval ratings rocketing up to 93 per cent and the Republicans down to 4 per cent (I quote from memory). The poll numbers aren't surprising: the President is now the only politician Americans have heard of; everyone else has gone kaboom, or been reduced to a bit part. On Tuesday night, Mr Clinton was like a particularly smug game show host doling out heated hair-rollers to lucky contestants: at one point, pleasantly surprised by some rare Republican applause, he actually said "I like that", and then instructed the Democrats: "Let's give 'em a hand!"A Republican said: "I wanted to throw up." "The President," announced ABC host Ted Koppel, "greeting the new Speaker Denny Mastery - er, Denny Hastery." Try Denny Hastert, Ted. Mr Hastert is a former wrestling coach and from the look on his face he can't quite understand how he's wound up in the ring with Giant Haystacks but he'll be happy to get back to the dressing room without being sat on. Speaker Hastert is hardly a household name, even in his own household. But, in the post-Newt Republican Party, non-name recognition is a plus. These days, l'etat, c'est Bill - c'est tout. After years of being serviced by Monica and co, Mr Clinton, in a rare act of reciprocity, has swallowed all Washington. The London Telegraph, Jan. 21, 1999 Your Banker is a Snitch Foes Target "Know Your Customer" by Declan McCullagh A controversial plan to monitor all US bank customers may not happen after all, if congressional opponents get their way. In early February, a coalition of Republican legislators will attempt to block the Know Your Customer proposal, which is backed by a broad array of bank regulators and scheduled to take effect by April 2000. The legislation will include two bills that bar regulators from following through on the plan, while a third will grant Americans access to files that the IRS and Treasury Department have collected on them. "If we require private credit agencies to establish a process by which citizens have access to their records, we should expect nothing less from the government," says Bradley Jansen, an aide to Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), the chief sponsor of the legislation and a member of the House banking committee. The proposed Know Your Customer regulations would require banks to review every customer's "normal and expected transactions" and tip off the IRS and federal law enforcement agencies if the behavior is unusual. Agency officials say such monitoring is necessary to detect drug-related money laundering. Since the plan surfaced in December, thousands of irate Americans have flooded regulators with complaints. As of Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had received over 10,800 email messages -- a new agency record -- that overwhelmingly oppose Know Your Customer. At a Monday meeting on Capitol Hill of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Financial Privacy, representatives from a dozen organizations gathered to rally support for Paul's three bills: �Know Your Customer Sunset Act: Aimed solely at Know Your Customer, this would bar agencies from following through on the plan. �Bank Secrecy Sunset Act: Bank regulators claim that existing laws such as the Bank Secrecy Act give them monitoring authority. This bill would repeal the measure one year after the date of enactment. �FinCEN Public Accountability Act: The IRS and Treasury's FinCEN jointly run a mammoth searchable database with information about nearly every American. Over a dozen agencies can browse the data, including the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, bank regulators, and state law enforcement. This measure would let consumers check their own files and challenge information they believe to be false. The amount of widespread support for these measures is unclear. But in December, 11 members of the House banking committee joined Paul in a letter to the FDIC saying they "oppose the draft regulation" and were prepared to fight it. Phil Gramm, the new chairman of the Senate banking committee, has also said he believes regulators may "have gone too far." He said in December that he plans to hold hearings early this year. The Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have published identical versions of Know Your Customer. The rules currently will not apply to credit unions. Comments to the agencies are due by 8 March 1999. Conservative and libertarian groups have been the most vocal in opposing Know Your Customer, though the ACLU and civil liberties groups also expressed concern. The Libertarian Party complained the plan "will force banks to spy on their customers." The Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly called it "one more tentacle of the Clinton administration's plan to monitor the daily business of law-abiding citizens and treat us all as if we are criminals." Wired News, January 21, 1999 US Stocks Greenspan Nixes Clinton's Social Security Stock Plan Government Ownership = Government Control NEW YORK - Just hours after President Bill Clinton suggested investing part of the pension money in the Social Security trust fund in the stock market, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, told Congress on Wednesday he thought it was a bad idea. Mr. Greenspan said he opposed the concept because it would be impossible to insulate investment decisions from political influences. ''What I do not support,'' Mr. Greenspan said, is ''the investment of government funds, especially Social Security trust funds, in private securities, especially equities.'' Mr. Greenspan's comments to the House Ways and Means Committee did not provide much guidance about the Fed's interest-rate policy. He did say the central bank was primarily concerned with the overall economy, not just stock prices, which he warned were high, reflecting ''substantially greater growth of profits than has been experienced of late.'' But his comments did not indicate an imminent rate increase, and as he testified the market began to rise, led by surprisingly high earnings from Microsoft and General Motors, but blue-chip shares closed lower. In response to a question from Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means panel, Mr. Greenspan said it was ''virtually impossible'' that there would not be ''some kind of direction'' from politicians in the way the money was invested. Although his prepared testimony to the committee on the state of the American economy did not refer to Social Security, Mr. Greenspan did say it was crucial that capital be allocated toward productive investments. When he responded to Mr. Archer, the Fed chairman said, ''our experience with state and local pension funds'' shows that these government-run bodies obtain rates of return that are usually ''two, maybe three percentage points lower on average than private pension funds of comparable nature.'' He said studies suggested that the greater the number of political appointees to the boards of the state and local funds, the lower their returns. William Schneider, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a public-policy research organization in Washington, said that Mr. Greenspan's opposition, coupled with a Republican-dominated Congress that was hostile to the plan, made it unlikely that Mr. Clinton's proposal would pass. Indeed, on Tuesday, Mr. Archer said, ''Government-controlled investment in markets is contrary to free enterprise.'' Such investment would ''open the door to all kinds of mischief involving government dictates, favoritism and cronyism.'' Mr. Schneider said, by way of example, that if the government controlled billions of dollars in stock-market funds, that there might be calls for it not to invest in tobacco companies or corporations accused of polluting the environment. Although such objections might be ''admirable,'' they could be contrary to sound investment practice. In his review of the U.S. economy, Mr. Greenspan said it ''certainly has remained vigorous.'' He attributed the ''sparkling economic performance'' of the past eight years in part to reduced inflation, enhanced competitiveness ''and the flexibility and adaptability of our businesses'' that have ''enabled them to take advantage of a rapid pace of technological change.'' ''Clearly,'' he said, ''we use both domestic savings and imported financial capital in a highly efficient manner, apparently more efficiently than many, if not most, other major industrial countries.'' He also said a ''drift toward protectionist trade policies'' would be ''a much greater threat than is generally understood.'' Some U.S. industries, steelmaking for example, have complained that low-priced imports should be limited. Because Americans increasingly rely on stock-market investments for their savings, Mr. Greenspan said it was important to maintain the flexibility of business and labor that have encouraged the rise in U.S. asset prices. This required that investments be channeled to the most ''productive uses,'' he said in his statement. His answer to Mr. Archer's question indicated that he did not believe government-run pension funds would be able to allocate capital in such an efficient manner. Mr. Greenspan said it was ''important not to undermine the highly sensitive ongoing process of reallocation of capital from less to more productive uses.'' It was this ''continuous churning, this so-called creative destruction, that has become so essential to the effective deployment of advanced technologies by this country over recent decades.'' International Herald Tribune, Jan. 21, 1999 Crisis in Japan Japanese Central Bank Brings in Foreign Consultant McKinsey & Co to Kick Bureaucratic Ass Japan's central bank, besieged by criticism at home, has broken with tradition and appointed a foreign management consultant to help it improve efficiency. The decision to bring in McKinsey of the US to shake up the Bank of Japan's bureaucracy overturns the institution's reputation as one of the world's least accessible central banks. Analysts think the timing of yesterday's announcement was deliberate. The Bank is trying to bully the private-sector banks it supervises to improve their credibility with foreign investors by restructuring. "If the Bank can show that it is listening to advice from foreigners, then it will have a powerful impact," Robert Feldman, economist at Morgan Stanley, the US investment bank, said yesterday. "This is one area where the Bank can play a real leadership role." But the Bank is also scrambling to defend its own independence, against a rising tide of criticism. The Japanese media has recently alleged that the Bank has granted excessive fringe benefits to its employees. The Japanese tax office has also probed the Bank for the first time in three decades. And though the Bank vehemently denies any wrongdoing, some officials suspect that these attacks reflect a growing political tussle over economic policy. Some politicians are pressing the Bank to increase its purchases of Japanese government bonds. The Ministry of Finance has asked the Bank to provide large loans to fund banking reform. However, the Bank has refused both requests, on the grounds that agreeing to them would undermine its credibility as an independent institution. The Ministry of Finance is also concerned that a big increase in the issuance of Japanese government bonds - required to fund a stimulus package - could force up long-term interest rates. This, in turn, could hold back economic growth. The McKinsey report is unlikely to deal with controversial areas such as monetary policy. Instead, Takeshi Nakashima, chief manager of the Bank's budget and management office, said that the consultants would "focus mainly on the operations department, currency department, administration department and information systems department". "In those sections productivity will be easy to measure and so it is easier to start with them," he said, adding that McKinsey was selected from a shortlist of six firms. "We did not intend to exclude Japanese consultants, but we looked for a firm with lots of overseas experience." Masuhisa Kobayashi, analyst at Merrill Lynch, the US investment bank, said he thought the Bank was now committed to a much wider reform that would lead to a radical reorganisation of its branch network, and measures to improve its balance sheet. The Financial Times, Jan. 21, 1999 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
