Anthony Citrano2010-02-09T10:51:32-05:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=anthony-citranoCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Anthony CitranoGood old fashioned elbow grease.W Korea Takes My Side, Fixes Demi'stag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.4045622009-12-28T00:44:04-05:002009-12-29T15:25:03-05:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/[Update 3, 11:45 AM: Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing explains why this is important and why you should care.]
[Update 2, 10:15 AM: The volume of angry email I woke up to this morning has astonished me. People, think about this: I pointed out a blooper & was threatened with legal action for doing so. Now the basis for that threat is totally blown away by W's own sister publication. What would you do? This isn't about a hip, it's about my reputation - and about the rights of all bloggers to express themselves without being bullied with threats to their livelihood. Consider this before writing to tell me how stupid/obsessed/vicious I am.]
Fast forward to Christmas weekend. Right when we all thought (hoped) this whole thing was over, something comes along that, as the Jerky Boys would say, puts a whole different paint job on things. I was back in Maine for Christmas (and of course, holding my breath for an apology and retraction from Demi Moore and her legal team), just hanging out with my Mom and her cat - and in came a cameraphone tip from halfway 'round the world. [Thanks, Joe!]
The January 2010 issue of W Korea just hit the newsstands (with the ironic subtitle "Women in Full"). Unsurprisingly, they decided to use the excellent Mert & Marcus shot of Demi Moore. But very surprisingly, they installed a new hip on Demi. So: even W's sister publication thought the image looked weird enough to fix.
This raises a few serious questions for Martin Singer, his client, and W: did W's Korean team add in a fake hip because they just kinda thought it looked awkward? (Y'know, like I did, before you attacked, discredited, and threatened to sue me?) Or did they merely reveal a hip that was already there, but that Singer, et alia litigiously denied had been accidentally obliterated?
If it's the former: are Singer, Moore et alia now going to pursue legal action against W Korea? By retouching the image's supposedly "genuine representation" of her "absolutely not retouched" hip, did W Korea imply the same things Singer claims I did (but which, of course, I didn't)?
If it's the latter: who was aware of this? If Mr. Singer and Ms. Moore were aware, this raises some rather serious legal questions. Regardless of it being the dumbest argument ever, some very serious core principles are in play.
Anyway, to my eyes, the W Korea image looks great - it's a beautiful cover, and anatomically correct! If I'd seen this image in W's December advance, I never would have said a thing - except, perhaps, "nice work!" (And, had I not been threatened with a lawsuit, I surely would never have noticed the deformed thumb.)
My attempts to secure comment from the W Korea editorial team were unsuccessful.
[Crossposted from my photography blog.]]]>Demi Moore's Hip, and Handling the Truthtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3988512009-12-21T00:52:56-05:002009-12-28T01:16:52-05:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/aggressive and threatening letter from Martin Singer, Demi Moore's attorney. It is marked "Confidential Legal Notice - Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited". However, since Mr. Singer and I have no confidentiality agreement, and it provides essential context to the matter at hand, I have decided to publish it [pdf].
I'll start by expressing how bizarre it feels to be immersed in a controversy that should be no controversy at all. The question of whether a celebrity was over-retouched is not one I am particularly proud of spending my mental cycles on.
When I originally pointed out (in a friendly, lighthearted way) a simple retouching blooper, I had no inkling of the total shitstorm that would follow. It gained momentum quickly, and I commented to several media outlets on the matter, always sure to frame it fairly: I have no problem with digital retouching (do it all the time), no problem with Demi Moore (she's a beautiful woman), think the image is a great shot (kudos, Mert and Marcus) - I simply thought the missing hip-chunk was funny. I thought we could all laugh about it for the day (maybe tack it up on a retoucher's wall of shame) and move on to the far more important things. We are all human; we all make mistakes (me, more than my fair share.)
But as the story gained traction, Ms. Moore published what she claimed was the original, while describing my initial commentary as "bullshit". Several media outlets backtracked, folding like the lawn chairs so many of them are. Some went so far as to say she had "proven her point" and that I had some apologizing to do. Well, I take no pride in arguing over something so totally vacuous, but I do take great pride in my reputation, my integrity, my visual and creative acumen, and my credibility as a journalistic source. In fact, as Mr. Singer and his client are undoubtedly well aware, I have invested an entire lifetime building them, and my career and livelihood depend on them. And believe it or not, in the eyes of many (especially in a place like Hollywood) something as dumb as this can deal a serious and embarrassing blow.
So I knew sitting idly by while my veracity was attacked was not an option, especially in light of the huge reach of Ms. Moore's words and my sincere belief that I was right. So after sleeping on it, I put my money where my mouth was and offered $5,000 to a charity of her choosing if she proved it really was the original. Unsurprisingly, my offer fell on deaf ears. In the following weeks it quieted down, and I thought (and hoped) it was over - until I received Mr. Singer's letter.
I spent several days considering how to respond. On one hand, I do not want a fight over something so pointless; but on the other, my personal reputation is under attack.
Mr. Singer: I did not insinuate that your client was untruthful or hypocritical. I did not imply or infer that the photo was manipulated at her behest. I simply said that the photo had very obvious signs of clumsy retouching, most particularly what appeared to me (and thousands of others) to be a missing chunk of hip.
And I absolutely stand by my statements.
I also have a very hard time understanding what is "defamatory" about describing an image as retouched. Digital retouching is an important part of modern publishing and photography workflow. I doubt a single image has graced a major magazine cover in the past decade without being altered in some way. Ms. Moore's implication that her image went straight from camera to cover is incredible, whether she believes it or not. Simply put, this never happens.
In the statements solicited by Mr. Singer, W's Dennis Freedman says "no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image." Mert and Marcus say there was "ABSOLUTELY no retouching on her hips or waist or legs." This brings Nick Paumgarten's 2004 New Yorker article to mind, wherein Mert and Marcus' digital artistry is discussed extensively. In describing Mert and Marcus' work, Mr. Freedman himself said:
"there is an artificiality about it that can be upsetting."
Upsetting?? Frankly, I love it! But regardless, their recent statements fail the straight face test. Even without any serious digital forensics, zooming in on Ms. Moore's "original" image reveals either a serious physical deformity in her left thumb - or the painfully obvious artifacts of clumsy retouching:
And digging a bit deeper, if we compare Ms. Moore's "original" with the final W cover photo, we see unequivocal signs of digital retouching (not that there's anything wrong with that). Below, I layered the two images atop one other and animated three small sections to accentuate the changes. The loops are very short, so you may have to replay them a couple of times.
One, pay special attention to the area of her hip inside the "R" and against her left hand:
Two, the contours of her right thigh and hand are changed:
Three, the waist and upper chest are tweaked:
And these animations merely represent the changes between Demi's "original" and the final cover; they say nothing about whatever retouching occurred upstream of the two public images, and the public consensus seems to be that they were significant. Regardless, there can be no doubt as to whether the cover image was retouched.
Mr. Singer describes his client's appearance of great importance to her career and livelihood. I absolutely understand and respect that, and never said a single negative word in that regard. This was not about her; it was about noticing a mistake. In fact, as this story was exploding and W sat silent, I spoke out in Ms. Moore's defense several times, even expressing exasperation that she had been forced to explain the mistakes of others. Those remarks are widely available throughout the public record.
I would also like to reiterate that, while my livelihood is not dependent on my appearance (thank God!), it is dependent on my personal reputation and my perception within the media, technology, and entertainment industries as someone of integrity, reliability, and candor. Thus, Mr. Singer, I urge you to seriously consider the damage your client's public statements have had on me, as well as the serious discrediting effects of the public statements made by those acting at your and your client's behest. Your collective implications - and actual allegations - that I have been dishonest, deceptive, or defamatory are themselves seriously damaging. This is most particularly true because your allegations are fully and absolutely unsupported by the facts.
Finally, Mr. Singer: your demand that I retract my statements is a demand that I do further unwarranted and costly damage to a reputation you have already deliberately tarnished. Demanding an apology adds insult to this injury. Obviously, neither of these will be forthcoming.
On the contrary, I demand a complete retraction of all statements made or solicited by you, your client(s), and W that denied this retouching, and served to deliberately impugn my credibility and that of countless others who made similarly fair and accurate observations. I further demand a sincere and prominent public apology.
In closing, what might be most surprising about this is that Ms. Moore has clearly embraced the incredible power of the web. As she surely knows, what makes the web beautiful is its rich diversity of opinions and ideas; free expression is in its DNA. But by asking her attorney to intimidate, bully, and silence critics and fans who are guilty of nothing more than speaking unpleasant truths, she is enabling conduct that strikes at the very heart of free expression.
So let's get this behind us and talk about something that actually matters.
Crossposted from my photography blog.]]>Task Force Raids LA Marijuana Dispensaries, Shoots Dog (HuffPost Exclusive: Search Warrant)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2587512009-08-18T17:00:47-04:002009-12-11T12:32:52-05:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/
In February, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the DEA would no longer raid marijuana dispensaries that are operating in accordance with state law. Holder later said "our focus will be on people, organizations, that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with Federal law and State law."[ HASK3MP8NUTT ]
On August 12, a task force that included the FBI, LAPD, LASD, and DEA raided the Organica and Overland Gardens collectives at gunpoint, in riot gear, and with air support. At Organica, the officers shot a dog belonging to owner Jeff Joseph, detained patients and employees, used sledgehammers to knock away interior sheetrock to search for evidence, and confiscated cash and property. Joseph was taken into custody and charged with felony marijuana possession under California's Health and Safety Code. Although LAPD sought the search warrant last week -- and it's still unclear exactly why Organica and Overland were targeted -- witnesses say DEA appeared to be in command.
California law allows individuals to possess or grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, but laws regarding distribution and sale are less clear and enforcement is typically left to local authorities.
Mr. Joseph's attorney, William Kroger, described a legal environment that is evolving rapidly and often varies wildly from one locale to another. Kroger provided Huffington Post with an exclusive copy of the search warrant served on Joseph and Organica.
Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper told me that the intended effects of Mr. Holder's statements about federal involvement "can easily be blunted if the state law loophole is exploited by law enforcement" and that the sometimes cozy relationship between area federal and local officials can mean that agencies are "only too happy to enlist" each other when one jurisdiction wants to initiate a case but cannot themselves do so.
DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, appointed by President Bush after serving in various California DEA field posts, has overseen the last decade of DEA paramilitary-style engagement with California marijuana dispensaries. While it seems unlikely she sought approval from the AG's office for the latest raids, she is undoubtedly aware of the new administration's change in direction (however nuanced it may be.)
No federal charges have been filed, raising the question of what standard the DEA is applying when deciding whether to "assist" local authorities in enforcing state marijuana law.
The legality of the two raided collectives is for the courts to decide. As perplexing as the current legal environment is for medical marijuana patients, one thing is quite clear: despite administration statements, little has changed with regard to federal enforcement of marijuana laws, even in states where it has been decriminalized.]]>California TV Stations "Just Say No" to Drug Policy Adtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2283422009-07-08T21:50:08-04:002009-08-08T05:12:02-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/ The 30-second spot features "marijuana consumer" Nadene Herndon of Fair Oaks accusing the Governor and Legislature of ignoring millions of Californians who "want to pay taxes" on their marijuana consumption.
The ad is currently airing on KPIX (CBS 5 Oakland), KOVR (CBS Sacramento), KXTV (ABC Sacramento), KRON (San Francisco), and -- via California cable operators -- on MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN.
However, San Francisco ABC affiliate KGO-TV rejected the ad, telling MPP that they "weren't comfortable" with its content. KNTV -- San Jose's NBC affiliate -- also balked, saying only that "standards rejected the spot." KABC in Los Angeles told MPP on the phone earlier today that the ad "promotes marijuana use" and thus wasn't suitable for KABC viewers. Los Angeles-based KTTV (FOX) and Tribune's KTLA also refused to air the ad.
Alison Holcomb, drug policy director of the Washington ACLU, said that while the refusals obviously don't "implicate the First Amendment from a legal standpoint," she believes the practice "undermines a core principle underlying the First Amendment: that the strength of a democracy flows from the exchange of ideas."
Marijuana decriminalization is getting fresh attention due to broad public support of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's bill -- AB 390 -- which would decriminalize personal possession of marijuana for adults and essentially treat (and tax) it like alcohol. Support seems to be building at the federal level as well, with several prominent members of Congress recently signing on to cosponsor Congressman Barney Frank's decriminalization bill.
But major hurdles remain for decriminalization advocates, such as this week's locking-of-horns with the management teams of major broadcast stations. MPP's Bruce Mirken told me that the stations' actions were "almost certainly legal, but that doesn't make them right or fair ... they're shutting out one side of a debate that our own governor says [we] should have."
This is not the first time the MPP and its brethren have encountered media double standards; in 2003, Comcast refused to run ads for the MPP-funded New Hampshire group "Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana". Comcast refused to explain their reasoning while simultaneously pledging $50 million in advertising to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. At the time, the PDFA gushed in a news release that it was the "largest single upfront commitment of advertising from a major media company in [our] organization's history." This, while Comcast was refusing to accept paid advertising from those arguing the other side.
The ACLU's Holcomb said such conduct "weakens our democracy and is bad citizenship."
The stations' management teams did not respond to requests for comment.]]>Stressless Tests: Our Treadmill Of Delusiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1979992009-05-06T14:22:46-04:002009-06-06T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/
But that's exactly the approach we're taking with the banking system. As if we can just think this problem away - if we close our eyes and don't think too negatively, the problem will subside. That is: feeling OK is the same as being OK.
Last week at the Milken Institute Global Conference, this theory was illustrated for me in living color - literally. Certain things were "on the table" for discussion - such as when real estate prices would return to their glory days and when the financial boom of yesteryear would return. But the question of if they would was unspeakable; asking such a silly thing felt gauche. This terrible slump we're in is just a momentary condition, they said. And reliably, every time I saw a PowerPoint slide with a graph that endeavored to project the next few years of economic activity, there was a beautiful upward ramp (usually green or blue) just around the corner. I saw it so much that I started calling it "The Blue Phoenix."
No one thought it was funny.
Now, while we all hope it's true, we must also be responsible enough to entertain the idea that it may not actually be true. If we don't, we are just being delusional.
And the methodologies used for the bank stress tests are delusional indeed.
In the model, banks are "asked to estimate" and "instructed to project" losses for "baseline" and a "more adverse" economic scenario. The "more adverse" scenario is the Federal Reserve's version of a worst-case scenario. That scenario has United States GDP growing by 0.5% next year. That's right, folks - when it comes to conceptualizing how badly things could go over the next eighteen months, 0.5% growth actually represents the outer bounds of the Federal Reserve's imagination. That ought to disturb all of us.
To be fair, the Fed says in the white paper that the "more adverse" scenario it is not intended to be a worst case scenario - it's just supposed to be "severe but plausible." In other words, it's the worst scenario they are willing to entertain in pleasant company.
Further, the Fed says analysis is intended to be "...forward looking [with] losses and resources projected over a two-year period." I'm reminded of the absurdity of the media and marketeers fawning over Bernanke's optimistic remarks yesterday. Given that Bernanke, the Fed, and the big banks never saw any of this coming, we're now expected to rely on their ability to predict the future? This, when we know the banks themselves are basically authoring the test results?
Further, the tests mostly overlook derivatives - the $50 trillion elephant in the room - by essentially letting banks apply their prior calculus in valuing them.
Shall we rest soundly on their collective optimism, especially in light of their track records?
Here's the truth: many of our largest banks are insolvent, and their only hope for recovering is for the US economy to stage a roaring comeback - indeed, an unprecedented comeback - and to do so very quickly. While we all want that very much, we also need to accept that it's exceedingly unlikely.
More truth: The FDIC has about $50 billion in reserves - ostensibly insuring 8,000 banks and more than $7 trillion in customer deposits. Just the top 150 banks have deposits exceeding $2 billion each. Hundreds of institutions sit on the FDIC's internal list of troubled banks. Probably ten to twelve of the big banks will need to raise more capital.
Additionally, several of the largest banks have exposure to derivatives that exceed their total assets - in some cases, they exceed a given institution's asset base several times over. No amount of rosy projection is going to change the reality that a very large number of these contracts will ultimately turn out to be worth nothing - that's right: $0.
So, the remaining question is: where is all that money going to come from?
The answer: probably you.
How's that heart feeling?]]>Four Course Insanitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1926122009-04-29T01:20:34-04:002009-05-29T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/Milken Institute Global Conference tonight, a techie friend of mine and I pondered (over cocktails, of course) whether the evening dinner panel would be worth seeing. It wasn't a question of interestingness; the speakers were former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, Congressman Harold Ford, entertainer-commentator Rush Limbaugh, and former RNC chair Ed Gillespie. As I said earlier, Milken has pulled together a great list of people and the event has been executed well. The question was if we'd learn anything from this one or if it would just be a bunch of vapid posturing and performing. But after a martini or two, we decided to go for it.
The panel was moderated by Frank "Dial-O-Meter" Luntz, who somehow manages to convince conference organizers that he will bring objectivity -- or gravity -- to such things while reliably delivering neither. In his trademark (sixth-grade-social-studies-teacher) style, Luntz asked each panelist to grade President Obama's "first 100 days."
Congressman Ford gave the president an "A minus" and said the president had brought a sense to the nation that things were once again moving in the right direction.
Willie Brown gave the President an "A", but -- much to Brown's credit -- he called Luntz out for asking such a simplistic question. One hundred days is "artificial", he said, and we need to think outside the limits of such media-perpetuated silliness. Obama has "aroused an interest" in politics "like never before seen", said Brown, and inspired young people to participate in the "resurrection of America" after the "horror of the last eight years."
Then it was Rush's turn, who had obviously had a difficult time waiting. Limbaugh was animated and clearly knew his audience. "Barely a D," he said -- and launched into an unfocused -- yet grandiose -- tirade; "unlike the rest of these panelists, I am not in electoral politics. I don't pander, I don't lie, and I don't say things I don't believe." Resisting Luntz's attempts to move the panel forward, Limbaugh continued, even leaping to his feet a couple of times. Professing his belief in a free market, he joked that "six months from now, when you buy a car, they'll automatically register you as a Democrat." He called President Obama a "cult-like figure" and, responding to Mayor Brown's characterization of the prior administration and need for resurrection, decried the "last eight years as a disaster is a media myth" and that "if Obama has his way, this country will need a resurrection." He said that Obama's domestic policy could be summed up in one sentence: "Return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners." He closed his initial rant with, "If you want to get even with those who have achieved, this is the administration for you." The group went wild for Limbaugh; he dominated the conversation and also got the strongest (and mostly positive) audience response. (Frank, where's your dial-o-meter when you need it?)
The conversation then moved to Ed Gillespie, who, after plaintively remarking that Rush was a tough act to follow, said there was an "important distinction" between style and substance. He gave the President a "B" on style and a "D" on substance. He said "first term rookie mistakes" were one thing, but that more serious mistakes were on the way. "He's gonna raise taxes on every American," said Gillespie, clearly unaware that only Congress -- not the president -- can raise taxes.
What impressed me most was the relative civility considering the passionate disagreement on the stage. Limbaugh and Willie Brown kept doing a "fist bump" with each other that I really didn't get. I think the message was supposed to be, "We're pals, really."
And that's it, for tonight, from Beverly Hills.
]]>Sunshine, Recessions, and Imperialismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1925172009-04-28T18:04:56-04:002009-05-29T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/2009 Global Conference has again assembled an impressive group of business and political heavyweights. It's clear that Wall Street has descended on these generally laid-back hills; the last time the Beverly Hilton saw this many wingtip loafers was surely during a movie filming.
Milken's ambitious agenda spans from civil rights to sports philanthropy, and guests range from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Deepak Chopra. But there's no mistaking that this is a gathering of financiers; Fox Business News has set up a remote, a sea of plasma screens scream the latest Wall Street news, and companies selling trading software and jet leasing are handing out tchotchkes. And there's a rushed, dog-eat-dog vibe amongst conferencegoers that feels a little discordant under the warm and mellow California sun.
Over lunch today, Milken - a skilled but stiff moderator - hosted a panel with Nobel Laureate economists Gary Becker, Roger Myerson and Myron Scholes. Milken asked his guests about the uniqueness of our current economic moment.
Becker said he sees "no comparison" to the Great Depression, when unemployment went from 3% to 25% in just four years. We are, he said, in a "serious recession" but - in the absence of "foolish policies" - he doesn't see unemployment exceeding 12%.
A highlight today was game theorist Myerson - who cautioned of dark dangers with regard to human suffering, human behavior, national imperialism, and aggression. In times of crisis, he said, populations historically line up behind leaders who exercise "aggressive" military power - yet it is that aggression that often poses the most serious threat to a nation's economic survival.
Myerson described the global goodwill America enjoyed after World War II. We were a clear military superpower, yet (most of) the rest of the world trusted that we would be restrained in the application of that power, and that U.S. dominance was not a threat to their sovereignty and way of life. During the decades of detente with the Soviet Union, this was an important position for us to be in - we needed the world to see us as the good guys. Yet now, almost twenty years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. still spends more on the military than the next fifteen countries combined. That largesse now looks much more ominous to the rest of the world because - over the past several years - we have demonstrated that we will apply that power preemptively against nations who do not threaten us. This, Myerson feels, has shaken past global confidence in U.S. military restraint. He concluded that this is an extraordinary moment in history - when a new President must rebuild confidence in U.S. financial institutions while also restoring confidence in our military restraint.
I can't help but wonder if, perversely, economic reality will force that restraint upon us - whether we consciously choose to heed Myerson's advice or not.
One thing that has really stood out at the event is the predominant phraseology surrounding the idea of a global economic "recovery." For most of the people I've talked with, "recovery" seems to mean a return to the ever-expanding financial fauxconomy of yesteryear. For the most part, I've heard plenty of quibbling about how soon it will return, and what, precisely, its return will look like - but I've heard no doubt expressed that it will be back. In this crowd, I suspect asking "if" would be a bit loutish. And I (for once) am not going to be the rude guy.]]>Nationalization Is A Bridge Over Troubled Waterstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1723152009-03-05T16:56:05-05:002009-04-05T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/
But the last few years have shown us how - and how spectacularly - a poorly-operated market can fail. And contrary to the religious tenets of a pure free marketeer, it has failed in a way that has punished everyone, not merely those who are supposed to get punished for making bad bets.
What has happened over recent years in the banking sector has enabled (directly or indirectly) criminal theft from the American taxpayer. The so-called "profits" of the past several years - which enabled management and shareholders to extract hundreds of billions of dollars - were, in reality, money shifted from the future (us, now) to the present (them, then) via complex financial instruments.
Let's be honest: we are truly dealing with zombie banks. These banks are dead. But we refuse to admit it, and we're handling it in a way that is politically palatable yet much worse than nationalization. Think about this: if the US taxpayer has already injected an amount of capital into a bank that exceeds its market capitalization, and the taxpayer owns less than 100% of that institution, then they have made a very bad deal. Net/net: we continue to be stolen from; we're chumps.
Photo: Steve Rhodes
What's unique about banking - and really, money and currency itself - is that it has the strange characteristics of being at once a public utility and private property. Thus, embedded in (and thus endangered by) a private sector are profound public interests. We all utilize some sort of mutually-agreed-upon currency. Thus, whether we're in the banking sector or not, we are all impacted when that currency (or its trading and transport system) has a serious illness. And at the moment, the private interests of the few continue to be lubricated while the public utility component is in cardiac arrest.
On Bill Moyers' program the other day, economist Robert Johnson described our current methodology as the "IV drip" method of capitalization. Yet here we sit, essentially ignoring the structural problems of the sector. Johnson is absolutely right. This is unsustainable, and the only question is when we accept the inevitable (and how much of our children's money we will pour down the sewer before we accept it.)
These institutions - no need to mention them herein because you all know who they are - are unquestionably insolvent. Many recipients of Treasury aid are now worth considerably less than the total amount of government capital that has been injected into them. And they will continue to consume any further money injected into them until we stop the madness.
There are really only two ways to do that. One is to let the private market mentality dominate and allow a painful and spectacular death for all of these institutions (and the serious punishment the US dollar will take as a result). This would also mean that our taxpayer injections are essentially lost. This also probably means a dramatic global financial unwinding unlike anything we have ever seen before (and unlike anything that most people will still talk about in pleasant company.) It means a global recession becomes something worse.
The second option is far more palatable: government receivership. The banks could be brought into an operational state exactly like a failed bank does under the FDIC. Frankly, if these were small banks, it would have happened a long time ago. This is not an "unjust taking"; you cannot have it both ways. Either survive in the private market you claim to worship, or accept the consequences of your failures. There are serious public interests at stake here - and, judging from stock prices, the market has essentially accepted this as a likelihood anyway.
Under a receivership process, we can quickly expose the rotten assets to the light of day (e.g. actual market pricing.) We can tell the truth about those that are worthless (there will be lots). We can also segment off the healthy assets and offer them to private investors as new, clean banks. (Insert "Good Bank-Keeping Seal Of Approval" here.)
I find it a nauseating example of American stupidity that we have a knee-jerk reaction to "nationalization", yet we willingly slurp up the current solution - which, while politically saleable, is far worse than temporary nationalization. Right now we're accepting the worst of both worlds.
We need to see nationalization for what it is: a bridge over troubled waters. This would not be government leaping into the retail banking business. This is government - i.e. We, The People - restoring health to what is unquestionably a dysfunctional, failed public utility. If the electricity was out 9 hours a day in every US city, I doubt we'd be quite so loath to step in and do something.
Thus, The People must step in immediately and seize these failed banks, with a goal of re-privatizing the healthy components therein, and disposing of the detritus with all speed. This requires us to give due deference to the public utility side of banking, and it's the absolute best way to get us moving toward a restored, healthy, trustworthy banking sector.
Until then, we're just going to keep bleeding.]]>Bill to Tax, Regulate Marijuana Introduced in Californiatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1692582009-02-23T16:28:26-05:002009-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 390, titled "The Marijuana Control Regulation and Education Act".
The bill's language is not yet available on the Assembly's bill retrieval system, but according to reporters who were at the press conference, the bill enables the state to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.
Legislation like this is long overdue. (See my recent drug policy piece for more extensive reasoning.)
Yes, there are federal issues to contend with, but I remain optimistic about bills such as HR 5843 - co-sponsored by Representatives Barney Frank and Ron Paul - which would decriminalize adult personal possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Eventually either common sense, new leadership, reality or some combination of the three are going to constrain the Feds' ability - and desire - to meddle in the personal lives of responsible adults, and these bills are all steps (however small) in the right direction.
Bills like this make our streets safer by reducing the money, power, and influence of the illegal drug trade.
They also help restore basic civil rights for responsible marijuana users.
And finally, they could help states raise significant revenue to help support the essential public services that are so gravely threatened in these bleak economic times.
California residents interested in expressing support for the bill may do so here.]]>An Opportunity For President Obama: Change America's Status Quo on Drug Policytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.1671402009-02-15T22:20:42-05:002009-03-18T05:12:01-04:00Anthony Citranohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-citrano/
Having described the War On Drugs as an "utter failure" a few years ago, the President owes Americans a much better explanation.
The word is that the President will name Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the next "drug czar." While Chief Kerlikowske will undoubtedly represent an improvement from the past, his appointment will sadly demonstrate that our new President wishes to continue a status quo, law enforcement approach.
Mr. President: the status quo has failed. The only outcomes of this unjust "war" have been the destruction of millions of lives and billions of dollars. Our punitive approach is extinguishing human hope, tearing families apart, empowering violent criminal enterprises, and - at a time of dramatically shrinking budgets - straining social and police resources to their breaking point.
Drug offenders represent the largest source of our prison population growth, and more than half of federal inmates are drug offenders. More than a half-million people are currently serving prison time for non-violent drug offenses and one third of all women in jail are serving time for a non-violent drug conviction. One out of every nine young black men in America lives in a prison. The direct cost of this imprisonment exceeds $14 billion annually, and the additional law enforcement support costs drive the yearly tab to well beyond $40 billion.
This year, about two million people will be arrested for a drug offense. In a great number of these cases, young Americans guilty of nothing more than the possession of a politically incorrect intoxicant - ranging from marijuana to crack cocaine - will be separated from their families, stripped of eligibility for student aid, and eternally exiled from the world of gainful employment. This unfolds hundreds of times each day while we - the privileged - sip our martinis and dare wonder why they don't make better lives for themselves.
These policies have amounted to nothing short of a genocide. Millions of supposedly free Americans - most of them poor black Americans - have been arrested, imprisoned, and had their hopes and futures destroyed - all for possessing the moral equivalent of a bottle of wine.
Beyond staggering social costs, these policies have seriously damaged the Constitutional rights of us all. In the name of protecting us from our vices, we have assented to the evisceration of our fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth Amendment rights. And recently, in the Supreme Court's Morse v. Frederick decision (colloquially known as "Bong Hits for Jesus"), we trimmed our hallowed First Amendment rights as well: the Court actually ruled that speech can be selectively punished based merely on its marijuana-based content. This is a flagrant affront to the Framers' First Amendment intent that no idea should ever be considered too dangerous to be heard.
Our double standards are staggering: American television networks sandwich "anti-drug" ads between beer commercials and dreamy sequences that promote "medications" to cheer us up. That most of us miss the irony is a vivid demonstration of our blindness; it would be funny were it not so heartbreaking.
With 800,000 people arrested annually for marijuana offenses alone, even so-called "soft drugs" are not immune from our insanity. John Walters, President George W. Bush's drug czar, recently referred to marijuana growers as "violent criminal terrorists .. who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties." I do not know a single human being who believes this to be true, yet his conflation of two drastically different problems went completely unchallenged by the mainstream media - and by most of us who were paying his salary.
Whether with marijuana, cocaine, or other illicit drugs, it never seems to matter that the sensationalism is unsupported by the facts. These monumental inequities are based entirely on ideology, superstition, and racism. The science - that is, in the rare instances when the interest-conflicted DEA permits such science to be done - doesn't support the logic of these policies at all.
Even today, the mere suggestion that the demonized substance du jour isn't a major threat is considered fringe, unserious, and hardly worthy of acknowledgment, let alone any serious intellectual indulgence.
One of the stated principles of the Obama Administration with regard to science and health policy is to "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on ideological predispositions." The millions victimized by our War On Some Drugs would benefit immensely from the reality-based approach that this principle demands.
We sometimes look back on historic injustices - slavery, segregation, internment - and wonder why so many good citizens stood by and did nothing while epic moral crimes unfolded around them. Likewise, our children and grandchildren will demand to know why we stood by and did nothing in the face of this.
Our nation confronts unprecedented - even existential - social and economic challenges, thus we must be unafraid to ask the big questions. One such question is: how can a nation committed to justice and liberty for all continue to enforce policies that corrode liberties, destroy communities, strain police forces, and empower violent criminals?
As the Great Depression ravaged our society in the 1930s, we came to realize that alcohol prohibition was creating more problems than it solved. A perfect parallel, the War On Drugs is socially, morally, and economically unsustainable, and the time has come to end it.
In contemporary American politics, there are few things more blasphemous than suggesting we end the War On Drugs. But we'd do well to remember what George Bernard Shaw once said: all great truths begin as blasphemies.]]>
