Bibi Netanyahu Wants You to Know He's Miffed

                Uncle Sam’s good friend Ben—you know Benjamin Netanyahu?  Israel’s Prime Minister?

Well, he stopped by the other day via NBC and CNN. He seemed troubled. Frustrated.  A tad angry.  He can’t seem to get our President to man up and lay down the law to the leaders of Iran the way he prefers.

  Ben wants Barack to tell Ali and Mahmoud—Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and its President Ahmadinejad—that the United States will smack them hard if they make “one [atomic] bomb’s worth of medium-enriched uranium” --meaning enough explosive material to make an A-bomb. Ben calls that drawing a “red line” that Iran must not cross.

Now Ben—we call him Ben, which is more dignified and less baby-like than his nickname, “Bibi”—has been saying this and saying this. He seems convinced that Mahmoud and his team aren’t kidding when they say they will rub Israel off the map. Ben thinks they will actually try it, if they can produce the bomb.  He fears the Iranians will give their equally fanatical and irresponsible allies bombs, causing a threat that will upend the world. At worst, Iran and friends could blackmail and dominate their neighbors. At least they would start another vast Cold War.

Of course, an A-bomb could go a long way toward devastating Israel.  Americas know that better than most. With a couple of A-bombs, America melted and practically erased two Japanese cities a few decades ago.

But in effect, Barack keeps saying cool it, Ben. We’re not going to let Iran get the bomb. We promise. Trust us. We’re working with you. We’re twisting Iran’s arm. Look, Iran’s in pain. Let’s see if its leaders give in and give up pursuing the bomb.

So Ben pops up on our national TV to explain to us why Barack’s wrong. And though he denies it, Ben may want his friend and former Boston Consulting Group colleague Mitt Romney to use the “red line” argument during his campaign for the presidency.

At any rate, Ben has inserted himself into our presidential campaign. He’s a smooth talker. He’s convincing when he describes the dangers of allowing the Iranian “fanatics” to get the bomb. However, he’s unlikely to sway Barack or those in the United States who have considered the stakes in this dangerous confrontation with Ali and his boys.

For one thing, Barak must know Americans are tired of war. And who wouldn’t like to see the money spent on fighting used instead to improve our economy?

 Why not wait and see if increased sanctions against Iran combined with sabotage, subversion, and cyber- attacks finally persuade Ali to settle for having A-power without having the A-bomb.

True, Ben may be right about Iran’s intentions. For political and religious reasons that are hard for us to understand, Iran probably won’t relent.

Yet we can afford to wait until we’re absolutely sure that’s so. After all, despite the pleas of other nations to wait and see, we hurried to brutalize Iraq because it supposedly was poised to use weapons of mass destruction. The world knows how that turned out.

If Israel attacks Iran, as Ben seems itching to do, Uncle Sam will be dragged into the fray. And we will suffer.  There will be casualties.  There will be attacks and firefights at U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Afghanistan. Hamas and Hezbollah fighters will take to the streets to attack U.S. government and commercial interests. This Iran promises.  Plus the flow of oil from the Mideast will be impeded. Gasoline prices in the U.S. will soar and again we will be saddled with the debilitating costs of war.

The picture is bleak enough to make one ask, “Why not let Iran have the bomb?” Iran could not be dumb enough to use it. An atom attack on Israel would invite a quick and terrible response that would cripple Iran for generations.  Because if Israel didn’t respond with the A-bomb it is thought to own, the United States would counter with its hellish weapons.

Then too, since the end of the Cold War, the balance of terror has kept the A-bomb toting nations of the world—the U.S., United Kingdom, France,  China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—from  seriously threatening their use. India and Pakistan, you’ll recall, are fierce enemies and occasional combatants.

In his TV interview, Ben declared that people who say it might be okay to let Iran have the bomb are “stupid.”

That’s the wrong word. They’re smart to try and think of ways to avoid further bloodshed.

                                                                                                        ----Gus Gribbin

 

His Voting Advice Was Great; Following It Tricky

                They sat down for dinner. He reached for the vegetables and:

                “Dad!”

                “Yes?”

                “What am I?”

                “Whadda you mean?...You’re an eight…oops… nine- year -old who is supposed to be eating his supper.”

                “No. I mean—am I a Republican or a Democrat?”

                “You’re neither. When you get big, you’ll be able to choose one, or the other, or stay a neither.”

                “But when I grow up, which should I be? What are you?”

                “I’m a Democrat.”

                “Why?”

                “Aint you hungry?”

                “Tell me, dad.”

                “Lots of reasons. Let’s see.  At first I guess I became a democrat because our state, Maryland, is largely democratic. My friends were democrats. So….”

                “What should I be?”

                “Be what you want to be. But listen! And remember this! No matter which party you choose—even if you don’t join either—you’ve got to figure out who is the best for the job and vote for that person. The best for the job! Got that?”

                “Yessir.”

                “Okay. Eat your supper.”

                Many, many suppers—in fact, many, many years since his dad issued that advice, the “boy,” tries to figure out who is best for the President’s job in 2012. There are two incredibly smart, handsome, experienced, and patriotic men vying for the office.

                Like his father, the “boy” has a bias.  But he wants to be fair. Listen to the other side. Give the other candidate his due. Yet so many lies cling to the candidates or their parties. Real lies. Not just mistakes, but false statements intended to deceive.

Maybe he should choose the candidate whose side tells fewest lies. Read the reviews of independent fact checkers—not the so-called “fact checkers” each party employs”—and do basic arithmetic. Apply cool reason.

Do that and it appears the GOP team is winning the race to issue whoppers.

Among the tall tales are cheap fibs like the Veep Candidate’s extravagant claim he ran a marathon in “two hours, fifty something,” a blistering pace. It’s impressive that Rep.  Paul Ryan, the would-be Veep, can –or could—run a marathon. In fact though, it’s known that he completed the mentioned race in more than four hours. And though Mr. Ryan left the impression he was a regular marathoner, he actually ran just the one race.

And there are flagrant untruths like the Presidential contender’s claim that President Obama goes around “apologizing for America,” and that he “eliminated” the work requirement for welfare recipients. Also there is Mr. Ryan’s assertion that President Obama is responsible for the closing of a Janesville, Wisconsin, GM plant, when the plant closed five months before President Obama’s election and seven months before he took office. There is more.

Yet tallying the lies seems not to matter to political partisans. Partisans are “Predictably Irrational” –to borrow the title of the book by MIT professor Dan Ariely.  And as psychologist Jonathan Haidt points out, “We can believe anything that supports our team.”

  In his fascinating book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Dr. Haidt notes, “Political opinions function as ‘badges of social membership’. They’re like the array of bumper stickers people put on their cars showing [their] political causes.” He insists that gut feelings actually determine political choices and the mind merely comes up with reasons to support our emotionally dictated selections. Still, “Reasons sometimes do influence other people,” he writes.

Trusting that last thought, what reason would the biased “boy” use in choosing the best candidate for the job? Well there’s this and it’s big:

 The smart, handsome, GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, won the Massachusetts governorship as a moderate politician who declared among other things that he was pro-choice and that we should “sustain and support” Roe v. Wade, which he now says has “gone too far.”

Recently on Meet the Press Mr. Romney said he backed certain provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” although for months he has proclaimed that if elected he would begin working to eliminate the Act on his “first day in office.”

In short, the former moderate now says he is a “severe conservative.” Okay. That’s his prerogative.  But he owes us an explanation why he came to completely reverse his position on matters of concern to the electorate.

Absent that explanation, voters are left to believe he will say anything to gain the Presidency regardless of facts and regardless what he actually believes. Can one who would do that be trusted and be “best for the job?”

The “boy’s” father would say, “Absolutely not!”   And  as they say, “Father  knows best.”

                                                                                 ------------------ ------Gus Gribbin           

                (Note: In case you're interessted, Kenya’s Patrick Makau set the world marathon record 0f two hours and three seconds for the 26-mile-385-yard run in 2011.)

 

Poor Sen. Inhofe--He Can't Accept Reality

“A fool who persists in his folly will become wise,” noted William Blake, the eighteenth century poet and painter.

 That sounds right. Reality eventually delivers a jolt.

So my question is:

 When will Sen. John Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and climate hoax proclaimer, wake up? Reality has proved him foolish many times over.

Most recently Mr. Inhofe accused James Hansen, the prominent National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist, of being an extremist in his own camp. Mr. Hansen released studies showing that last year’s intense heat and droughts and the forest and range fires in Mr. Imhofe’s home state and in Texas were likely related to climate change caused by human activities.

Then on August 8th the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that July 2012 was the “hottest month on record for the contiguous United States.”

 The average temperature for the month climbed 3.3 degrees to 77.6 degrees. That’s big. That figure translates to increasingly devastating crop damage, more frequent and widespread fires, increased economic losses, and genuine and persistent discomfort and suffering for people across most of the nation.

It’s reasonable for many in the most affected areas of the country to believe the climate we knew it is gone. Perhaps that seems less obvious in the Middle Atlantic States.

The climate here in Maryland seems relatively stable. There have been more 100-degree days than normal and many humid, yucky, 90-degree days.  Also thunder storms seem more frequent and severe—but that may be only an impression.  Then too, last winter seemed wet and un-winter like. Yet that’s not so uncommon.

Elsewhere though, our fellow countrymen are experiencing dramatic change. For instance, roughly 70 percent of the country is experiencing a prolonged, crop killing dry spell.  And NASA reports that in recent years extreme heat has affected 13 percent of earth’s surface up from 1 percent in the years before 1980.

Still the senator fights any suggestion that he is wrong. He is dedicated to blocking climate-change legislation. And on the same day NOAA issued its finding, Mr. Imhofe vowed he would block all climate-change research and activities.

Why?

It’s hard to think Mr. Inhofe actually believes what he says about climate change. It’s easier to believe he thinks he must continue to advance the interests of the powerful petroleum industry. After all, he is from an oil-producing state. And, of course, oil barons and other carbon producers hate the thought of further restrictions on harmful emissions.

Even so, there is such a thing as reality. And the reality is that even some of Mr. Inhofe’s staunchest academic allies and climate-change skeptics have recanted in the face of facts.

 D.R.Tucker, the conservative writer and talk show host who promoted Mr. Inhofe’s  rampant climate-change skepticism, admitted, “I was defeated by the facts.”

Dr. Richard Muller, the University of California-Berkeley physicist, admitted last month that for 20 years he had wrongly dismissed scientific evidence of climate change. “Call me a converted skeptic,” he stated.

Dr. Ricky Rood, University of Michigan meteorologist, stated a couple of months ago that a “couple of temperature facts struck me.”  He said that the last month when earth’s average temperature was below the twentieth century average was February 1985. “There have been 321 consecutive months with the temperature above the twentieth century average.”

The scientific dispute over climate change is about over. Now people who care about people want to focus on coping with an altered world where storms are stronger, dry spells longer, and high and low temperature extremes bring more and longer power outages.

And yet, as Eric Klinenberg, a New York University sociology professor, puts it in an opinion article, “Americans’ growing concerns about global warming will mean nothing if our national leaders are unwilling to seize the moment and do something about it.”

Sadly, many of our conservative leaders oppose taking action. They are being foolish.

“The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way,” said Josh Billings, the nineteenth century American humorist. But if the politicians blocking action to deal with climate change have their own way, all suffer, and the time for effective action is running out.

                                                        -----Gus Gribbin

What? A Moneless Man Donates Thousands to Politicos?

            Everyone can appreciate the benefit of having friends in high places. You never know when you might need a special favor. Agreed?

 And it’s likely everyone knows how to cultivate office holders and office seekers. Plant green in their palms—green the shade of U.S. dollars.

Truth is, though, some who have the desire and more than enough money to make large political contributions, can’t.  Crooks, foreign agents, and individuals and companies feuding with the government typically find politicians don’t want their money. Politicos dread being accused of accepting bribes or taking gangsters’ “dirty” dollars.

So how can undesirable donors cope with their handicap?  A straw man might help.

Consider the discovery of New York Times’ reporters Raymond Hernandez, Alison Leigh Cowan, and Jo Craven McGinty. They located a political donor with no job and no known assets who contributes big time to powerful politicians.

The donor is James Robert Williams, a gray-haired, cane wielding resident of a low-rent apartment in Jamaica, Queens, New York. He has given $900,000 to 50 political campaigns.

In recent years, Williams donated $400,000 to state and county committees in New York, $57,000 to Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and $10,000 to Rep. Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and House Majority Leader. Williams gave $37,800 to help democrat Andrew M. Cuomo in his successful run for the New York governorship, and donated $18,000 to Rep.  Charles B. Rangel, democrat of New York, among others.

Such generosity has made Williams prominent in Republican circles. The New York GOP chairman recently named Williams to an advisory panel along with a former White House spokesman and a former New York Secretary of State. And at one event, Williams shared a dais with the Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

The Times reporters relate that Williams created 25 companies. Most had their headquarters at his apartment. All existed in name only.  They were apparently dreamed up to help establish Williams’ credibility.

Williams claims to be a lawyer, but no law school claims him, and the law firm he says he worked for never heard of him. None of those who accepted Williams’ donations has any idea where his money comes from. Still, Williams is said to be quick to pick up a dinner check, owns a chauffeur-driven Cadillac, and employs a public relations spokesperson. He is said to know everybody, have a hand in everything, and to overflow with ideas.

Since the Times reporters began their inquiries, Williams has vanished. His spokesperson told the reporters that Williams was “completely unreachable.” That sounds dire. It also makes some sense. The FBI is chasing Williams. He and an accomplice have been accused of cheating would-be real estate investors of some 6,000,000. The investors went to Williams believing his political connections made him a likely middleman for purchases of affordable housing in New York.

The Times has uncovered much fascinating detail about Williams, but in the end, the nagging question looms. Where did he get the money he used to buy political clout? The real estate investment enterprise seems to have occurred following his many contributions.

Conceivably Williams could have inherited a huge sum from a relative who avoided a paper (or computer) trail by stashing his fortune under a mattress. Maybe he came across a personal metal detector and located buried riches at Brighton Beach.  Maybe he’s one of those mythical New Yorkers who accumulated a fortune by fetching coins accidentally dropped into drainage grates. (Okay. That’s a stretch)

            Could there be a clue in a report that Williams gets meals delivered to his door from an Italian restaurant?

            My guess? There is more than an antipasto connection between the missing Mr. Williams and the Tony Soprano types who like to own and hang out in Italian eateries. If any group needs a straw man to help cover its campaign gifts, its the Mafia.

            Here’s hoping The Times keeps us informed.

                                                                                    --Gus Gribbin

            The Times account of Williams’ gift giving was headlined “Behind Big Political Gifts, a Mysterious Donor.” The story appeared on page one of the Saturday, July 28, 2012 print edition.

When Sen. McCain Zigzags, His Favorability Does Too

Senator John McCain treads a zigzag trail.  So they say he’s inconsistent and a “maverick,” wandering politically like an unbranded calf.

Consider:

On Meet the Press last month, the Arizona Republican blasted the U.S. Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision, which allowed creation of the so-called and largely despised “Super Pacs.”

 Such Pacs can accept unlimited and secret campaign donations from corporations, individuals, and other Pacs to create campaign advertising.

The Court’s decision was “uninformed, arrogant, naïve…and the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21^st century,” fumed Mr. McCain. He added:

 “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it, and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.”

Terrific! We cheer the Senator. He expressed the feelings of a huge number of Americans who despise the Pacs for, among other reasons, the spurious attack ads they generate.

Then came Monday July 16.

That day Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island democrat, finally managed to have the Senate consider the Disclose Act he had authored. The measure would require Super Pac donors to reveal their names, thus remedying one major flaw of the SCOTUS decision.

The Disclose Act would eliminate the threat of corporations secretly and extravagantly backing candidates who would champion their pet—and possibly repugnant—causes once in office. It would eliminate the possibility of foreign governments hiding donations to beholden candidates under cover of phony “companies” with a name and address and nothing more. The Disclose Act would stanch what Sen. Whitehouse calls “the flood of secret money” which, he says, “threatens to drown out the voices of middle class families in our democracy.”

Given his earlier outrage over the decision that allows the Super Pacs, you’d think that Mr. McCain would support the Disclose Act.

But no. The glimpse we got was of Mr. McCain indistinguishable from his GOP- branded colleagues following their leader from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and stifling the Disclose Act debate.

Mr. McCain explained “the Disclose Act is closer to a clever attempt at political gamesmanship, than actual reform.”

Not terrific! We stop cheering the Senator.

Because even If what he said were true and the Act failed in some ways, wouldn’t it still  be better to have half of what we want and need than to have all of nothing?

But how can you stay consistently peeved at the Senator?

A few days later we see him rising and lambasting the ugly, ignorant attempt of Minnesota republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and others to label Huma Abedin as a possible spy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some presume the Muslim Brotherhood is a U.S. enemy. Ms. Abedin is a Muslim and a valued and long-time deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. 

Mr. McCain told the Senate Ms. Abedin’s “character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness.” He said:

“To say that the accusations…are not substantiated by the evidence…is to be overly polite…. These allegations about Huma…are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant.”

Terrific! We cheer the Senator again.

Ah, but not everyone cheers. A fella named Wes Harris, an Arizona Tea Party leader, screams Mr. McCain must be recalled for defending Ms. Abedin.  The Huffington Post quotes, Harris saying the Senator is an “embarrassment”.

Harris proclaims, “Anyone that is a Muslim is a threat to the country and that is a fact. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Go to hell, senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap.”

Who dreams up this rancid nonsense? And where do bimbos like Harris come from? Think about it. Harris is not a member of the U.S. House, a haven of rampant foolishness. He’s not even from Minnesota.

Beyond that, how tawdry to personally insult a man like Mr. McCain. For five and a half horrific years, then Navy pilot McCain experienced the hell of imprisonment and crippling torture in Hanoi.  Among his other military honors, he won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Clearly Mr. McCain deserves respect. And those who criticize him for inconsistency and for failing to share our political beliefs and stands on issues do so while saluting a remarkably heroic American hero.

                                                                                       --Gus Gribbin

Sadly, Super Pac Lovers Win Again

To one viewing the Disclose Act debate in the U.S. Senate Monday night, July 16, it seemed preposterous that anyone could resist the logic of passing the hugely popular measure.

The Act’s backers skillfully laid out the facts and the critical need for passage while their opponents ignored the facts and ranted they were being subjected to a senseless “dog and pony show.”

Guess who won.

Naysaying GOP troopers of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader from Kentucky, effectively prevented a vote on the measure. They did the same next day.

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island democrat, put forward the compromise Act in March. When the Senate finally considered the proposal on July 16, it had 28 co-sponsoring Senators and more than 220,000 on-line citizen co-sponsors.

A Curb on Donations

The Act would require outside political groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to report the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. Importantly, it would require groups like the so-called Super Pacs to identify their big-money donors.

Polls indicate that a broad swath of Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--want action to curb Super Pacs. It’s widely believed that they corrupt political campaigns.

Here’s why:

 In its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave certain Political Action Committees (PACS) a new freedom. If the Pacs did not give directly to candidates, parties, or other PACS, they could accept unlimited funding from corporations, unions, other PACS and individuals. They could use the money to, for instance, pay for campaign advertising, movies, and such.

And

As it turned out, the donors to these newly freed “Super PACS” do not have to reveal the names of corporate or individual donors.

Corporate Camouflage

Also corporations can make secret donations using phony “shell” companies as cover. That way the public cannot learn the source of noxious ads plugging noxious policies and particular candidates. One danger of this is that foreign governments might form shell-companies to shield donations intended to influence U.S. elections.

Beyond that, consider that  big-time donors like the fabulously wealthy brothers  David and Charles Koch, owners of the second largest privately held company in the nation, and Sheldon Adelson, CEO of the Los Angeles Sands Corp., don’t contribute tens and millions of dollars to political organizations  for fun.  They want something for their money.

And although the public may not know who is behind the Super PAC ads for a given candidate, the candidate surely knows. He will be expected to show his  gratitude later.

What’s more, as Sen. Whitehouse says, “The flood of secret money unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision threatens to drown out the voices of middle class families in our democracy.”

Protection against Special Interests

The Senator says the Disclose Act would, “uphold every citizen’s right to know where this secret money is coming from and whom it is going to, and will help protect the interests of middle class families from the special interests who already have too much power.”

What’s wrong with that?

In the GOP view, plenty. Super Pacs are Republican favorites. That’s partially because the best funded, most successful Super Pacs are products of GOP luminaries like the Kochs. And those smarmy Pacs shower their blessings on those who protect them.

So the GOP champions secrecy even though the record shows the GOP once screamed and yelled for disclosure and transparency in campaign financing.

                                     ---Gus Gribbin

Skip the News? You'll Miss the Drama

              At the Fourth of July party, the lady sitting opposite us overheard the words “New York Times.”

“I would not read that paper,” she interrupted. “I don’t want to read foreign news. I want to read local news.  Local news! “

“Ahhh…” I began to reply…but she was sashaying out of the room.

She’s right, of course. The Times overflows with overseas coverage. But I had a rejoinder. (And what are blogs for if not for firing off rejoinders?)

 “How,” I’d challenge her, “do you tell foreign from local news these days? And besides, foreign news contains the stuff of suspenseful drama.”

We Need Local News

Yes, yes, I know local news is crucial. It’s truly important to know what’s going on around you. And it’s clear that knowing what’s going on locally can enable news consumers to react to hometown events. That’s one reason people pursue local news.  And okay, there’s hardly anything at all we can do about events in Syria, Yemen, or tottering Greece and Spain.

Yet consider that what’s occurring in Iran, the Euro Zone, and England (home of naughty Barclays bank) could impact the U.S. economy, the economies of other nations, the U.S.  Presidential campaigns--and ultimately your bank account.

 Therein lays the drama.

A Little Imagination Please

Imagine the goings-on in, say, Iran and England as a novelist might.

The plot: Iran’s the protagonist. It is a nation smaller than Alaska

  A white-bearded religious tough in a turban and medieval robes rules the country, and he’s managing a fight with the world’s most powerful countries. Iran is out muscled and staggering from hard economic blows to its breadbasket. But it’s hanging on, stretching hard to grab a weapon that will—like Popeye’s dose of spinach--give it a knockout punch. It would make Iran mighty.

Iran’s foes see it reaching for the weapon. They yell,” Surrender now or we’ll hit harder and harder.”

 But Iran refuses. It’s not only stubborn; it’s smart. If it can keep absorbing the punishment, it might wear out its enemies. And if it can taunt them to lose patience and hit with everything they have, they will surely also hurt themselves. They will likely damage their own economies, restart a huge recession, and upend one of their chief foe’s presidential race. Everyone in the United States will be affected.

Who will win the war of wills? Suspense builds.

New Story

Turn now to England. The plot there:

 Barclays, a too-big-to-fail bank, is the main character.

 As the story begins, Barclays is pictured frowning and crumpling copies of email printouts. Barclays knows detectives have the originals, and the originals show the bank has manipulated interest rates and possibly adversely influenced some $350 trillion worth of financial instruments in England and elsewhere.

Barclays is in trouble. It faces endless interrogation, and it’s almost certain its cronies in the United States will reveal how they figured in its schemes, further implicating it.

Readers see Barclays as surrounded in mystery. Here the novelist deftly weaves in the ideas of Joe Nocera, a New York Times columnist. Nocera notes that Britons who learned of Barclays’ violation of law and “abuse of trust” are in an “utter frenzy.” He says Barclays’ big bank buddies in the United States, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and others are being investigated.

Outrage in the Offing

 “Which means,” he writes, “there is going to be a lot more opportunities for Americans to become outraged over this scandal. And maybe, finally, the will to change banking once and for all.”

It’s clear as the novel progresses that if banking is finally changed, that affects everyone in the country.

At this point in the tale, the novelist splices in facts the Times’ Nathaniel Popper gathered. Popper adds new characters. He portrays Baltimore city lawyers fighting in court against the world’s big banks. The lawyers accuse bankers—some call them “bankstsers”—of cheating Baltimore when the city borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars.  The city’s resulting losses helped create the need to fire employees and curtail certain needed services.

The moral of both stories is that foreign affairs can and does influence local citizens.

Fantasizing aside, it has been plain for many, many months that the monetary situation in the Euro Zone threatens the United States. Unless Europe’s leaders properly aid money-shy Greece, Spain, and possibly Italy, the United States and other nations could re-run the Great R.

We know from experience how a big recession hurts all in local communities.

                                                                              --Gus Gribbin

Joe Nocera’s column titled Libor’s Dirty Laundry appeared on the Op Ed page of the July 7, 2012 print edition of the New York Times.

Nathaniel Popper’s report headlined Rate Scandal Stirs Scramble for Damages ran on page one of the July 11 print edition of the Times.