In Order to Pay His Debt to Society, Attorneys Say Ousted Mayor Kilpatrick Must Hold Onto Affluent Lifestyle

Without women, the greatest moments in film this year would not have been possible.

Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan and I founded Women's Media Center (WMC) five years ago to keep proving that very point: Women are not only assets but requirements for a truly democratic media, and for strong, innovative entertainment. In this spirit, we at WMC celebrate all the women nominated for this year's Academy Awards. Our video tribute below features clips from Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, Meryl Streep's uncanny Julia Child, the set and art decoration for Sherlock Holmes, the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America from Executive Producer Jodie Evans (CODEPINK founder, and Women's Media Center board chair), and many more:



I've seen women's cinematic influence throughout my career, but despite some historic awards this year (for Bigelow in particular) an annual report from professor Martha Lauzen -- aptly named "The Celluloid Ceiling" -- reveals the grim state of women in Hollywood.

Women directors actually dropped by 2% since 2008, accounting for just 7% of directors on the 250 top-grossing movies of 2009. That's the same number as 1987. Only 2% of the top 250 films credited female cinematographers, and just 8% of writers were female; 86% of the films had no female writers credited. The list goes on.

Women's Media Center responds to just this kind of disparity; we recognize the need to amplify women's voices and tell women's stories. What we view in the media -- and who presents it to us -- does so much to determine how we think, how we feel about ourselves, and how we view the world. Studies like Professor Lauzen's are critical reminders of just how much work remains to ensure that all media -- including entertainment -- is a true representation of our world, our beliefs, and our experience.

I know how gratifying it is not only to work in film but to be acknowledged by peers; producing 9 to 5 was an opportunity that I valued precisely because it's so rarely in the hands of women. Join me in celebrating the work of these extraordinary filmmakers, and sign WMC's petition to ensure a longer list of women at next year's Oscars -- there's a long road ahead, and loads of work to be done. You can count on Women's Media Center to be there when that celluloid ceiling finally shatters.

More on Women's Rights

Prosecutors are seeking documents from Anthem, Aetna, Cigna, Blue Shield, Kaiser, Health Net and PacifiCare in a probe of whether they raised rates illegally and denied payment of legitimate claims.

The California state attorney general's office said Thursday that it had subpoenaed financial records of California's seven largest health insurance companies as part of an investigation into whether they illegally raised customer premiums and denied payment of legitimate claims.

For more conspicuous consumption, please visit our Déjà Vu blog at www.laphamsquarterly.org

2010: The Hummer died this week, not because of an American backlash that has been growing increasingly wrathful over the past eighteen years, but because of a failed deal with China, who determined the monster truck was simply not a good investment for the future of the Chinese car industry:

Specific reasons for the failure of the deal, first announced last June, were not released. But Chinese regulators had frowned on the purchase for much the same reason that U.S. consumers shunned Hummer; the vehicles size and poor fuel economy were incompatible in an era of high fuel prices, general economic weakness and greater concern about the harmful effects of vehicle emissions on the environment.

The Chinese government also wants to control a sprawling domestic auto industry that has expanded to more than 100 car makers nationwide. The purchase of Hummer by Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, a private company that manufacturers heavy vehicles and road building equipment, would have only contributed to the diffusion. "The purchase of this brand is not a match for China," says Yale Zhang, a China market analyst auto-industry consultants CSM Worldwide. "The government's general policies about efficiency and environmental protection and number two about consolidation, it is all about these two very broad, general policies. This purchase does not match those."

1959: With a twee name, terrible gas-mileage, and the grill that some critics argued looked like “a vagina with teeth,” the 1957 Ford Edsel was a monstrosity of poor design and poor planning. Ford marketed the car like the second coming, including a celebrity-filled television special on CBS, The Ford Edsel Hour. The company manufactured around 200,000 cars in the first year, roughly five percent of the entire market at that time.

Ultimately, only 64,000 Edsels were sold and the line went under only two years after its unveiling. A 1959 editorial in the Los Angeles Times on the eve of the Edsel’s demise described a car desperately in search of a market and a buyer who really ought to have known better.

When the Edsel made its debut to the tune of optimistic trumpeting that the American public was ready for bigger, more powerful care, I already had become convinced that what the public wanted and what it could afford were two different things…

Car dealers were selling $4,000 cars to $5,000 and $6,000 incomes and I wondered where the economists were hiding then. Did these social scientists really believe that $5,000-per-year-families could afford $1,500 depreciation the first year of ownership and continue to stay in the new car market?

Did we really want huge cars? We didn’t know what we wanted as long as we had fun, felt important, and could get the credit.

The Edsel is a case in point, and it proves that even if you plant a want, herald its spontaneous creation, and rush to fill it, it won’t grow without proper nourishment…We consumers ought to be more careful when polled on our buying intensions, and we ought to consider our financial limitations when baring our hungry little souls.

More on China

Schwarzenegger Says He Deserves Credit for Sticking Neck Out on Health Care; Economy Tough on All Office-Holders

Wall Street went back to its playbook of financial tricks to manipulate Greece, just like it tried to do with the bondholders of the country's largest trucking company, YRC Worldwide.

When the Teamsters shined a light on bankers selling insurance betting on YRCW's failure, they were forced to stop, and we were able to keep 30,000 Teamster jobs from being killed.

We saw through the scam. But we shouldn't have to monitor Wall Street. Until Congress stops financial firms from running amok, they will continue to loot the middle class in this country, and help push entire countries like Greece to the brink of financial disaster.

Guess what Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs sold YRCW bondholders and Greece on? Credit default swaps and other derivatives, fancy terms for unregulated financial instruments. These financial gizmos were cooked up by Wall Street traders in center of the mortgage meltdown last year that required the multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.

Greece reportedly used derivatives and other intricate financial transactions to move debt off its books. Wall Street helped Greece hide its debt, similar to way Enron did it. Goldman Sachs was the country's magician, all the while making exorbitant profits. No wonder Goldman Sachs handed out huge bonuses, some in the millions last year.

The European Union must now decide how to help Greece, which is not the only European country to try and mask its debt with complex financial transactions.

Goldman Sachs of course has said it did nothing wrong. But we can't rely on their word alone. To keep Wall Street on the straight and narrow, Congress must institute reforms such as cracking down on derivatives. The Teamsters support Sen. Maria Cantwell's call for more transparency and accountability for futures markets and derivative products that are promoted by banks and other institutions.

But until Congress makes such transactions transparent and holds firms accountable for these shady deals, trust me, they will keep trying to sell someone their snake oil.

Working men and women in the United States and around the world are sick and tired of being the chess pieces for the maniacal financial games Goldman Sachs and its Wall Street cronies like to play. Greek workers and their unions have been in the streets in recent days to prevent the looting of public assets.

The Teamsters have seen firsthand how a handful of reckless investors can nearly kill tens of thousands of jobs overnight. You don't have to be a financial whiz to know when you're being scammed. Our message to Wall Street is a simple one: the ATM they call the working class is closed.

More on Goldman Sachs

Over the past few weeks, we have seen social unrest reappear throughout Europe. This is often spontaneous and not instigated by the trade unions. While there were expectations that the fragile recovery would generate jobs, it appears obvious that unemployment will remain very high for the foreseeable future.

In Greece, the trade unions are organizing resistance to the austerity program prepared by the Government. Initiated by civil servants, it now spreads more widely. Greeks perceive the actions of the Euro Zone and the European Central Bank -and in particular German resistance to bailing out Greece- as justified as they are to be imposed by draconian European authorities and the faceless "Brussels". To make matters worse, Greeks are asking for "reparations" for Nazi destructions and killings.

The terms of the next bond issue are being closely watched: the spread between German and Greek bonds amounts to 220 basis points, far from Prime Minister Papandreou's "expectations" to benefit from the same conditions as the countries of the Euro Zone. Greece is paralyzed today by a general strike. And we will see what happens when the politicians try to reduce Greece's outrageous military expenses.

Europe's leading Airline, Lufthansa, saw its pilot strike. In the face of a huge public reaction accusing the pilots of making a "strike of riches", the strike was cut to one day instead of three. Germany is not used to seeing its flagship company react that way!

In France, where strikes have become "preemptive," the highly-paid French Air Traffic Controllers the best paid in Europe strikes regularly (preferably during hot vacations times) - are going back on strike. Their claim? They reject the merger with other European Air Traffic Controllers. It is as if the Massachusetts ATCs were going on strike to avoid merging with the New York ones. Europe is right to integrate those activities, and blackmail has become French ATC's favorite game.

British Airways cabin staff is also announcing its own strike.

In Belgium, GM announced the closure of its Opel operations and Carrefour made severe cuts in its retail operations. It is the country's fate to suffer closures by foreign owners who control most of the country's corporations as a result of its abysmal social system. It became even more obvious when Belgian train drivers, after a dramatic train accident that killed 19 and wounded 160, decided to go on strike for security. Even fights between communities resumed over the nature of the accident. In Belgium, the third generation of "unemployed" is cashing benefits because they are better off not working rather than accepting low-paying jobs.

The resistance throughout Europe to the extension of the start of pension benefits by a year or two is palatable and the topic is the subject of forceful negotiations. Spain is going on strike this week because the age for pension is proposed to move from 65 to 67. The age of 65 was fixed 60 years ago, when 65 was the equivalent of 75 today.

Europe cannot afford to maintain its current system. It is definitely over. Their huge budget deficits are mostly due to these unaffordable expenses. The solution to Europe's public deficit will require revisiting some of the elements of its social solidarity. Future pension payments are unfunded in countries where demography decreases.

Will European Governments have the leadership, the ability and the political will to restore a sensible balance between social contribution and costs?This is definitely the core issue. The debt problem is, to a certain extent, an expression of Europe's tendency to live beyond its means. After a financial crisis and stimulus packages, most European countries no longer have the means to finance their social system. Historically, these circumstances have led to serious social turmoil.

The challenge is huge and potentially disturbing for European growth in a situation where consumer spending was reduced by 2.5 % in January. Hard times ahead will require courage. It is the world's best interest that Europe finds the strength to reform itself.

More on Spain

Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post waxed lyrical today about the compromise deal on financial regulations proposed Sens. Dodd and Corker, calling it a "creative bipartisan proposal." It's certainly "bipartisan," and it may even be "creative." What it isn't is effective. It's not just a compromise - unfortunately, it's also compromised.

It's bad enough that consumers are likely to get the short end of the stick on this deal. What may be even worse is that it's a recipe for bureaucratic gridlock and regulatory impotence.

"You have to wonder how big a financial crisis we have to go through," writes Pearlstein, "before we get the new regulatory apparatus in place to make sure it doesn't happen again." That's the right concern, and we certainly need a regulatory structure designed to prevent future catastrophes. But, while Pearlstein mocks "liberal Democrats who insist the only solution is to micromanage the financial services industry from Washington," the Dodd/Corker alternative looks like that old definition of a camel as a horse designed by committee.

The Administration has been pressing for a new, independent agency to regulate consumer lending in all forms. According to Pearlstein, this agency has become a "litmus test" that has "assumed symbolic importance way beyond its practical significance." Enter Dodd and Corker. Pearlstein describes their solution as follows, based on what he describes as "conversations with several key players": "The compromise ... would establish a single regulator of federally chartered banks with a dual mission and an independent source of funding. One division would promulgate and enforce rules to protect consumers; the other would fulfill the traditional role of supervising banks for safety and soundness."

That's Problem #1 with Dodd/Corker: Dual missions ares a recipe for organizational disaster and an invitation for bureaucratic infighting. And when Main Street competes for resources with Wall Street, Main Street always seems to lose. Here's an example: The Federal Reserve's two organizational objectives are to create price stability and achieve full employment. Nevertheless, Ben Bernanke told the Wall Street Journal that "our dual mandate ...is growth and inflation." Bernanke forgot half of his organizational mission and nobody even seemed to notice, even in a period of massive unemployment.

It's funny how Main Street interests always seem to get forgotten in the hallowed halls of Washington.

True, Dodd and Corker would create a consumer protection division, but two "equal" subordinates in any organization inevitably end up competing for dominance. And ask yourself: Who's likely to win in this case - the one who's being fed predesigned arguments by high-priced consultants and lobbyists, or the one fighting for those who don't have special-interest dollars or resources to throw around?

The assurance given by Pearlstein's sources that "... any conflicts between the two would be resolved by the head of the agency" is cold comfort in a town dominated by K Street and special interest money. Do we really want the financial safety of the American consumer left to the capricious judgment of unnamed and unknown future agency heads, all of whom will be political appointees?

The only real, workable solution is a truly independent consumer agency - not because of it's a "litmus test," but because it would work. The Dodd/Corker proposal, on the other hand, is a recipe for infighting and paralysis that will leave the American consumer unprotected.

There's another problem with the Dodd/Corker proposal: its solution for institutions that are "too big to fail" is "too small to work." The House's bill would have them pay into a bailout fund and would raise their capital requirements. Pearlstein summarizes the Dodd/Corker alternative as follows:

" any time a big financial institution is threatened with insolvency, the government would be authorized to take it over and close it down in a bankruptcy-like process. The government could provide temporary loans to ensure an orderly liquidation process and prevent financial panic, but only to the extent that the loan would be repaid from proceeds of the sale of the bank's assets. '

It's not readily apparent why this would be better than current bankruptcy practices under the FDIC, but what is clear is that it lacks the most important element of the proposal passed by the House: Under the House bill, institutions that choose to endanger the nation by becoming "too big to fail" must proactively put up money for the risk, rather than leaving that responsibility to the taxpayer. It sounds good to say that loans will be repaid from the sale of bank assets, but what happens when that doesn't cover the cost? And the House proposal has the added benefit of providing a brake on excessive expansion, discouraging excessive risk-taking through a "pay as you go" approach.

In an online chat session today, Pearlstein described the breakup of "too big to fail" institutions as a "populist fantasy." Sadly, he's probably right. But we can certainly ask mega-institutions to pay a form of failure insurance, both to protect the public's funds and to discourage excessively risky consolidation.

The Dodd/Corker proposal is designed to win sixty votes in the Senate. But the Senate's reconciliation rules are traditionally used for matters that affect the Federal deficit. Wars aside, what has exploded the deficit more in recent history than bank bailouts?

A better solution would be to scrap Dodd/Corker and address this issue through reconciliation, creating the CFPA while implementing new requirements for dangerously large institutions. That would protect the American consumer and the Federal piggy-bank, while at the same time providing greater financial stability than we're likely to see under the Dodd/Corker proposal.

______________________

Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer, is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard blogs at:

No Middle Class Health Tax
A Night Light

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) likes to tout his experience as a former military lawyer. Graham apparently thinks this makes him sound more convincing when he goes around advocating military trials for all suspected terrorists, as he's been doing lately. Graham's now trying to get that idea signed into law by proposing it as an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill that's headed for a vote in the House of Representatives this week.

The odd thing is, in doing that, Graham is going up against a huge and rapidly-growing number of military leaders - including Defense Secretary Robert Gates himself - who say that forcing the government to try suspected terrorists in military commissions is a really bad idea.

In October, Gates joined Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to Senators urging rejection of the Graham amendment. Noting that the Pentagon and Justice Department now work jointly to evaluate every terrorism case, they wrote that "it would be unwise, and would set a dangerous precedent, for Congress to restrict the discretion of either department to fund particular prosecutions."

As the defense secretary put it: "We must be in a position to use every lawful instrument of national power--including both courts and military commissions--to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives."

Then on Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell, who served in both the Bush I and Bush II administrations, made the point that civilian federal courts have been far more effective than any military commissions.

"In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial," said Powell. "Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail." Meanwhile, the civilian court system "has put dozens of terrorists in jail and they're fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn't born out by the history of the military commissions."

In an apparent reference to Graham, Powell added:

"I think a lot of people think, 'just give them to the military and the military will hammer them.' Well, guess what? Officers in the military are obliged to follow the constitution. Military lawyers are obliged under their oath to give the best possible defense to the defendant no matter whether he's a terrorist or not. And so you didn't get out of the military commissions what a lot of people thought at the beginning you would get and a lot of us did not think it was a good idea in the beginning."

Even the former chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals in the JAG Corps disagrees with Lindsey Graham, despite Graham's former JAG credentials.

Military investigators know how to get information on an actual battlefield, Retired Brigadier General James P. Cullen told the New York Times the other day. But prosecutors and FBI agents are better able to link intelligence to track down more terrorism suspects. They're also better at winning convictions.

"You've had about 800 cases that were supposed to be run through the military commissions in Guantanamo, and there have only been three convictions," said Cullen. "You have three-eighths of 1 percent return on military commissions, versus 90 percent plus when they are tried in the federal court."

Okay, but what about all those lawyers who Graham says will tell their clients not to talk? As Graham put it recently: "Is reading Miranda rights to terrorists any way to fight a war?"

Actually, retired 4-star General Colin Powell doesn't have a problem with that.

"I have no problem with them being tried here in the United States," said Powell. "We have two million people in jail. They all have lawyers. They all went before the court of law and they all got hammered. We have got three hundred terrorists who have been put in jail not by a military commission but by a regular court system."

As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who Graham seems to think has special powers that will be unleashed against Americans as soon as he enters a federal courthouse, Powell said: "I have no problem with him being tried in our federal system here in the United States."

Here's what four other retired generals had to say about Lindsey Graham's idea back in September:

"We believe that it would be wrong to treat the leaders of al Qaeda as warriors deserving of military trials," said Retired Rear Admirals Don Guter and John Hutson, and Retired Brigadier Generals David Brahms and James Cullen in a letter to President Obama.

"America's well established system of civilian justice is not just well equipped to handle these cases, it is far better suited to the task of discrediting and defeating the terrorist enemy we face. When the planners of 9/11, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are finally brought to justice, it will be an extraordinarily important moment in the struggle against terrorism. If these trials are held before civilian judges and juries, it will highlight the strength and legitimacy of our system of justice, and at long last focus the world's attention where it belongs: on the crimes these men committed against us, rather than on how we are treating them."

Even the new-and-improved military commissions will not be able to achieve that, the military men warned. Not only are they still tainted with the stigma of Gitmo, but their questionable legitimacy will become a tactical advantage for terror suspects.

"Defendants before military commissions will have the advantage of being able to challenge the legitimacy of the system in which they are being tried, instead of simply having to face the evidence against them." That will further delay justice: "Particularly in the most prominent terrorism cases, our nation cannot afford more legal controversy and doubt; and we will not have another chance to get this right."

Even if the military commissions were flawless, military leaders claim that giving terrorists warrior status only bolsters their cause.

"Like virtually all terrorists throughout history, al Qaeda members want to be seen as soldiers, not as criminals. That warrior mystique helps them recruit more misguided young men to their ranks, and justifies, in their own minds, the murder of their enemies. This is why al Qaeda has always described its crimes as acts of 'war.' "

Counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan has said exactly the same thing.

And in January, a group of 33 different retired military leaders, with experience in every war the U.S. has waged since 1941, came together to urge President Obama not to treat terrorists as warriors deserving of special military tribunals.

"Some have suggested that suspects like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of attempting to bomb Flight 253, do not deserve the protection provided in our federal courts and should instead be subject to military tribunals," they wrote. "On the contrary, we believe that Abdulmutallab and his ilk should be treated as the would-be mass murderers they are. To bestow on him and others like him the designation of "enemy combatant" reinforces their claims to be jihadist warriors. They are not warriors. There is neither nobility nor ideological justification in murdering innocent civilians." As for the claim that they'll get a high-profile platform to spew their hateful ideologies, the military leaders wrote: "On the contrary, we are confident that these trials will showcase America at its best, a nation of laws."

So the overwhelming majority of actual military leaders, with hundreds of years of military experience behind them, all disagree with Lindsey Graham.

I know Senator Graham spent six and a half years as an Air Force lawyer, but he's never prosecuted a single terrorist. After all, that's not what military lawyers do. For the most part, they prosecute and defend U.S. military personnel for mostly minor crimes.

So who should we believe?

I think Judge William Young, the federal court judge who sentenced "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to life in prison without parole after the Bush administration won his conviction in a civilian trial, put it best when he said to Reid at his sentencing:

"You are not an enemy combatant.

"You are a terrorist.

"You are not a soldier in any war.

"You are a terrorist.

"To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier.

"You are not--you are a terrorist.

"And we do not negotiate with terrorists.

"We do not meet with terrorists.

"We do not sign documents with terrorists.

"We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

"So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big."

More on Barack Obama

resident Barack Obama is in a difficult position when it comes to deficits. Today's high deficits will have to go even higher to help address unemployment. At the same time, many Americans are increasingly concerned about escalating deficits and debt. What's a president to do?

More on Financial Crisis