Crime & Federalism

This is an awesome movie:

Perfect review:

So, basically what happened here is that these bums - these crooks in suits - these educated idiots - these morally depraved criminals - took everybody's money and gambled it every which way, knowing that no matter what happened, they'd get rich and everybody else would suffer. And so the economy caved, and they're still rich, and 30 million people worldwide have lost everything - their homes, their jobs, their place in the community, their vision of the future, their identity.

We know this already. We're all angry about it: Americans are good at getting angry. But there's such a thing as smart angry, and such a thing as stupid angry, and after seeing "Inside Job," audiences will be smart angry. They'll know specifically how bankers, traders and economists brought on the recession. They'll know who did it, and where to place the blame. They won't be barroom cynics or monkeys holding signs, but educated citizens.

I once made the mistake of complaining of boredom.  My dad made me do a bunch of bullshit chores.  "If you can't find something to do, then I'll find something for you to do."  I learned how to fill my own days.  You cannot be bored if you're doing something.  And as an adult, I am sickened when people tell me they are bored.  "Well, go fucking do something."  Can't think of anything to do?  Then kill yourself.

Happiness is a lot like that.

People are unhappy because they don't do anything.  Happiness can't be found by doing nothing.  Happiness is something one obtains by doing an activity.  Of course, when one is fully engrossed in an activity, the person rarely says, "Oh, I'm happy."  It's a paradox - the so-called paradox of hedonism.

For those of you who still read dead trees, Harper's has a fascinating article into the cultural obsession with happiness: "The war on unhappiness: Goodbye Freud, hello positive thinking."  Here's the abstract, though the full article is available to subscribers only.  (And you philistines should be reading Harper's, anyway.)

The latest issue of Skeptic has an article on happiness -  "Ignorance of Bliss: We still know so little about happiness — except that we’re supposed to pursue it" - that explains in a few pages what philosophers have known for years, namely that happiness is undefineable and that it can only be attained indirectly.  You can only find happiness by having experiences.

If you can't  be bothered to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics (it will be the most enriching hours of your reading life, I promise, and the book is free), here's the summary: 

He says, not that happiness is virtue, but that it is virtuous activity. Living well consists in doing something, not just being in a certain state or condition. It consists in those lifelong activities that actualize the virtues of the rational part of the soul.

And then there are these people.  They are not happy.  They are looking for someone else to make them happy.  They think happiness is a state of being that can be induced through a drug.  "Are we happy yet?  No.  Be patient.  Happiness will hit you."  No.  It doesn't work like that.  An orgasm is about the most blissful state a man can attain, but even that requires some activity.

Probably these people go home from work, turn on television, eat shitty food and go to bed without sex.  Yet they wonder why they are unhappy.

When normal people steal, they don't pay fines.  Instead, they go to prison.  Yet the Department of Justice gives Wall Street special treatment.  A DOJ lawyer realizes that today's target is tomorrow's client.  When big guns leave the DOJ, they are made partner at large law firms - even though the big guns have no portable book of business.

DOJ lawyers then call on the same companies they investigated, seeking them out for business.  The targets - forced to pay token fines for billion-dollar thefts - are happy to obligate.  Kicking back a cool million to the guy who did you a solid by not indicting you is good business.  

There's no better example than the case of former AIG fraudster, Hank Greenberg:

A New York state judge has held Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former head of American International Group Inc., liable for "spearhead[ing]" a fraudulent transaction to remove $200 million in losses from the giant insurer's books. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos' ruling handed a victory to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who had sued Greenberg and AIG's former chief financial officer, Howard Smith, to recover investor losses stemming from two allegedly sham transactions designed to hide the company's true financial condition.

You can read the court's 83-page ruling here.  After reading the ruling, I thought: "I wonder if the Department of Justice will indict Greenberg.  The fraud case is clearly laid out.  This is basically a trial notebook for the prosecutor's to use."  Actually, no, I did not wonder that.  

I did, however, vaguely remember a story involving Greenberg's receiving a no-prosecution promise from DOJ.  

As expected, the Department of Justice [sic] lawyers put their own interest ahead of the public's.  People don't go to DOJ to serve the public.  The go to DOJ to build relationships with people like Hank Greenberg:

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former chief executive of American International Group Inc, believes he no longer faces possible criminal charges over a sham transaction involving the insurer and a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

There is no such thing as a "public servant."  It's all a lie.  People don't work for government.  People work in government to work for themselves.  As one commenter recently said, "People don't go to Washington to do good.  They go to Washington to do well."

Remember this when the government says, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you an do for our country."  Remember, too, that the person who made that statement never worked a day in his life, and inherited his wealth from his anti-American, law-breaking father.

Killing American citizens is the safest business in the United States.

Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

War is profitable.  Why do you think that people like Dick Cheney wouldn't kill American citizens in order to enrich themselves?  The burden of proof if on you to explain why sociopaths wouldn't kill you and your family.

If I were a sociopath, I'd work in the White House.  Why not?  I could become rich killing you -and you wouldn't try stopping me.  You'd even attack those who'd dare suggest that I was killing you.  

Did you know that Israel bombed a U.S. Naval ship in an effort to drag the United States into its war with Egypt?  Have you heard of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident?  What about Operation Northwoods?

No rational person can deny that those in the highest levels of government will kill you.  Yet you'll buy the official explanation for 9/11.  When Americans graduate from debt slavery to actual slavery, you'll have no one but yourselves to blame.

The truth is in your face, but the truth is too much to face.  You turn your back and close your eyes and plug your ears.  And when tyranny is no longer covert - and when it's you and your families suffering - you'll scream about injustice.

You don't care about anyone else, so why should anyone care about you?  

All they talk about is terrorism on television.  They tell you to listen, but they don't really tell you they mission.   They funded Al-Qaeda, and now they blame the Muslim religion.   Even though Bin Laden, was a CIA tactician.   They gave him billions of dollars, and they funded his purpose Fahrenheit 9/11, that's just scratchin' the surface.

Provident & Associates is a California law firm that advertises itself as offering loan modifications.  First, that's a huge warning sign.  Banks rarely give loan modifications.  But it's a way for law firms to make payroll.  Here's how:

Send mass mailings to people, telling them they will lose their homes.  BUT WE CAN HELP!  For $2,500, we'll seek a loan modification.  We guarantee nothing, however.

Then you hire clerks for $12/hr. to call banks.  When the banks deny the modification, you apologize profusely to your client.  "We tried."  

Here is a demonstration, via a help-wanted ad Provident & Associated posted:

Provident & Associates Seeks Case Managers and Processors To help!

All agents will be offered at least 3-5 leads per day it is YOUR JOB to Help them. We are looking for professionals that have a positive attitude ability to empathize with prospective clients and above all the ability to Really hear what people have to say and the ability to help them overcome.

Yes, that sounds like solicitation - which is unethical.  Maybe these "leads" are not potential clients?  And it seems the people who are given leads need not even be lawyers:

For the Case managers We require a minimum 2 Years Customer Service experience (exceptions will be made for the right person). experience is a plus but not necessary.

Yet it seems unlikely:

An East Bay law firm says it mistakenly sent out thousands of letters to San Francisco homeowners earlier this month warning them that their houses were in default -- even though the loans weren't delinquent.

The letters were sent out by Provident & Associates, a Pleasanton-based law firm that is attempting to help people with loan modifications.

"I screwed up," said Corey Hill, a marketing executive with Provident & Associates. "I made a mistake that scared the wits out of some people."

Why is a marketer sending our letters on behalf of lawyers?  Here is what those scumbags sent innocent homeowners:

"Dear Alan, a notice of default was filed against your property initiating the foreclosure process," the letter began. "Our records indicate that you may be eligible to stop the foreclosure." The letter added that it was the "single and final notice" about the situation.

Alan, however, had been paying his mortgage.  Imagine his shock when reading that letter.   Alan, like most of us, realizes that banks are wrongfully foreclosing on homes.  Paying on time is a technicality that can be overcome with forged documents and robo-signer.

That guy's day was ruined.  He was probably living in fear of foreclosure.  And yet it was a lie.

We can hope that the California State Bar investigates the matter.  Even if the State Bar allows a law firm to terrorize innocent people, at least using Google to investigate Provident & Associates will find this post.

I love it when people say they won't "suck up" or "glad hand."  Do you refuse to pay people compliments because you're "keeping it real," or because you're so self-involved that you don't notice anyone else?  Or are you so hateful that noticing something positive about someone would remind you of your own inadequacies?  

Some wont' glad hand because that means shaking the hands of filthy, disgusting people.  You know, other people.  People not like me.  They should be shaking my hand.

Isn't that just narcissism?  You probably pay a lot of attention to yourself - your petty problems are hugely important.  Yet other people are so filthy that acknowledging them would denigrate you?  

Seriously, think about it: By refusing to glad hand, you are in your own mind creating a barrier between yourself and others.  You are telling yourself that you are better than those other people.  Maybe you are.  It's highly unlikely, but perhaps more than one Nobel Laureate reads these pages.

If you are so full of yourself that you others who get haircuts, lose weight, get promotions, have work recognized, consider this: It's bad for your precious, unique, special, completely-unlike-anything-anyone-else-does-or-has done career:

Once you have chosen the right department three things matter more than anything else. The first is the ability to “manage upwards”. This means turning yourself into a supplicant: Barack Obama asked about a third of his fellow senators for help when he first arrived in the institution. It also means mastering the art of flattery: Jennifer Chatman, of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted experiments in which she tried to find a point at which flattery became ineffective. It turned out there wasn’t one.

The funny thing about flattery is that even when you're lying, it works.  Ask a fat guy if he's lost 10 pounds.  If if he's not dieting, he'll puff up.  "Well, I haven't been trying, but maybe you're right."

One writer for the Financial Times started to flatter people:

I was pretty sceptical about this, as I’d always thought shameless crawling was not merely undignified but ineffective, too. So last week I decided to put this theory to the test. I picked on six colleagues, each of whom had recently written something that I admired, and plied them with praise in increasing quantity.

I waylaid my subject, and started: “I much enjoyed your piece on ‘xx’,” and then proceeded to phase two: “I mean it was incredibly clever/original/funny/fascinating,” and from there to: “In fact it was by far the best thing that I’ve read in the newspaper – or anywhere – ever.” I finished off with: “I just don’t know how you do it. You are a total genius.”

In each case the smile got wider as the dose increased, and by phase four there was a flush of pleasure across the face. In three of the cases the subject told me in return that I was also a genius, an observation that I found myself inexplicably willing to take at face value.

I flatter people not to get ahead (I wish I cared enough to try to get ahead), but to increase human happiness.  Life can suck at times, and if paying a few compliments makes it suck less for other people: Why not do it?  It's not that hard once you realize you're not too important to notice other people.

Motives aside, flattery works.  And if you won't flatter others because it's beneath you, then it's likely you'll remain at the bottom, always looking up.

(Hat tip: Aaron.)

Why are so many criminal defense lawyers often seemingly out for blood when white collar crime is mentioned?  This article indirectly explains why:

“The average Joe Schmoe is paying the price financially while these CEOs get a slap on the wrist and a big check to retire.”

“People are losing their homes and dignity and jobs. We are finding out more and more every day that the money has been stolen from the average Joe and distributed to the high level executives.”

“You steal from people and you walk free by giving part of your loot to the police.”

A criminal defense lawyer's life rarely consists of watching a Very Bad Man arrested.  Mostly, being a criminal defense lawyer means seeing decent people go to prison for making stupid mistakes.  Most people are arrested for D.S.S. - doing stupid shit.

The average criminal defendant is not a serial child rapist who was found with 14 bodies in his basement - and three in his car's trunk.  The average criminal defendant is someone like you or your kid.  

Ever start a fire near a neighbor's property?  If not you, what about your kids?  If that fire spreads too quickly, you're an arsonist.  If someone is in your neighbor's home, you're a killer.

When I was a kid, we used to put some aluminum foil into a 2-litter bottle.  Toss in some toilet bowl cleaner.  Seal the bottle.  Ka-Boom!  It made a loud noise, but didn't have any destructive power.

I was a kid before 9/11.  Now-a-days, throwing some foil and toilet-bowl cleaner into a Mountain Dew bottle will catch you a federal charge.  Children become criminals.

Even "serious" drug cases involve insufferable hypocrisy.  I can walk next door to buy a pack of Camels and a fifth of Vodka.  I can go see my doctor to give me a prescription for an anti-depressant.  When some black kid sells medication on the streets, suddenly we care about sobriety.  

While the criminal courts of fill of people who make stupid mistakes, Wall Street is filled with people who know exactly what they were doing.  And yet a Wall Street crook who stole $500 million won't spend a day in prison.  

Slip a $500 iPad under your coat, and see if you're so lucky.

Some have suggested that my posts about revolutionary imply violence.  While it is morally acceptable to beat Wall Street banksters (just as one may morally beat any common thief whom police refuse to arrest because they are on the take), the revolution can succeed without violence.

Bankers, like all parasites, do not create: They take.  Wall Street sucks blood from people who work.  It's time to start taking the bank's money. 

And so the revolution can begin effectively and peacefully: So Sue Me.

A friend of mine has been in a billing dispute with Westlaw.  Westlaw engages in fraudulent billing practices.  It sends a lawyer a large bill.  When the lawyer asks questions about the bill, no one can explain it.  Yet if the lawyer refuses to pay the bill, Westlaw calls and calls.  They threaten to send the action to collections.  They threaten lawsuits.

I said to my friend, "Let them sue you.  If they can't explain the bill to you, good luck explaining it to a jury."

For years, such suggestions were dismissed as craziness.  What about credit scores?  What about stigma?

Forget all of that.

Banks and big businesses like Westlaw have stolen from us for decades.  We've allowed them to, because we are slaves.  A good slave pays his bills on time.  Since we live because of the mastah's grace, we must be good to mastah.

We slaves also had shame.  Imagine if our fellow slaves found out we don't pay our bills.  They might think we were dead beats.

The Bailouts taught us that the real dead beats are banks and large corporations.  Wall Street - and large corporations like General Electric - stole trillions in taxpayer money.  Westlaw can proclaim that we must pay them, but they cannot explain why.  Like all slave masters, banks and large corporations issue proclamations based on threats rather than explanations based on reason.  

As such, there is less shame associated with defaulting on debt.

Yet we are only halfway towards a new morality.

For the first time in American history, defaulting on one's bills is not shameful.  The final evolution requires us to recognize that defaulting on debt is awesome.

If your bank cannot prove that you own your home, stop paying your mortgage.  If you can file for bankruptcy, do it.  If Westlaw sends you an outrageous bill, invite them to explain their fraudulent billing practices to a jury.

In short: So Sue Me.

Banks have begun suing homeowners in foreclosure actions.  Because banks cannot prove their own your home, banks are losing.  So Sue Me works.

With enough effort, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and unethical corporations will be bankrupted.  Once the parasites have been cut from society, economic health will become possible.