Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

The New York Democrat had introduced legislation to reinstate the draft in January 2003 before the Iraq invasion. The Pentagon has said the all-volunteer army is working well and there is no need for a draft, and the idea had no traction in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years in the November 7 election, and a wholesale change in the leadership of Congress is to be made in January. Rangel is to head the House Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with U.S. tax and trade legislation.

The draft was in place from 1948 to 1973, when the United States converted to an all-volunteer army. But almost all men living in the United States - including most male noncitizens - are required to register with the Selective Service upon reaching 18, and federal benefits, including financial aid for college studies, are contingent on registration.

Rangel said his legislation on the draft would also offer the alternative of a couple of years of public service with educational benefits.

The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with multimillion-dollar backing from a range of companies that include the InterContinental Hotels Group, Anheuser Busch and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

The survey showed that the United States was ranked "the worst" in terms of visas and immigration procedures by twice the percentage of travelers as the next destination regarded as unfriendly -- the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent.

More than half of the travelers surveyed said U.S. immigration officials were rude and two-thirds said they feared they would be detained on arriving in the United States for a simple mistake in their paperwork or for saying the wrong thing to an immigration official.

The survey was taken between October 25 and November 9 against the backdrop of growing concern in parts of the U.S. business community over a steady decline in the number of foreigners visiting the United States.

"Between 2000 and 2006, the number of overseas visitors, excluding those from Mexico and Canada, has declined by 17 percent," said Geoff Freeman, executive director of the Discover America Partnership, "and business travel in that period has dropped 10 percent."

Travel Industry Association statistics show that the U.S. share in world tourism declined from 7.4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent last year. A one-percentage point increase, according to the association, would mean 7.5 million additional arrivals, $12.3 billion in additional spending, 150,000 additional U.S. jobs, $3.3 billion in additional payroll and $2.1. billion in additional taxes.

With about 50 million visitors a year, the United States is the world's third most-popular destination, after Spain and France.

"The problem is that since September 11, this country has viewed visitors more as a threat than an opportunity," Freeman said. "The entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is keeping foreign visitors away."

"Unless Congress understands there is a problem, nothing will be done ... though it wouldn't take much to make a change," Freeman said.

MTVNI said this figure was dragged down by young people in the developed world, including those in Britain and the United States where fewer than 30 percent of young people said they were happy with the way things were.

Only eight percent in Japan said they were happy.

Reasons for unhappiness across the developed world included a lack of optimism, concern over jobs and pressure to succeed.

In developing countries a majority in the same age group expected their lives to be more enjoyable in the future, led by China with 84 percent.

"The happier young people of the developing world are also the most religious," the survey said.

The crash killed Whalawitsa's 29-year-old son Calijah.

But instead of calling 911 and getting help for her son, troopers say she just went home.

"After the collision occurred, she was able to climb from the vehicle," said Trooper Jeff Merrill. "And for some unknown reason, she left the scene; left her son there... went home and didn't return until 10 the next morning."

He added that she never reported the accident. "In fact, it was called in by another motorist later that morning."

After spending the night in jail, Whalawitsa appeared in court Monday facing possible charges of vehicular homicide and felony hit and run. Investigators saw her return to the crash site eight hours later.

She told them she'd come to look for her son.

Investigators tell KOMO 4 News Whalawitsa told them she took the curve at just 35 miles an hour. But, investigators say the way her car hit this curb and catapulted toward the river, they have to think she was speeding.

Whalawitsa told investigators she was taking medication. Investigators believe it's possible she left the scene because she'd been drinking.

But the delay in reporting the crash may make it hard to prove.

In fact, late Monday, the judge said Whalawista can only be held at this time on investigation of felony hit-and-run because there is nothing in the court documents that indicates investigators are anywhere near being able to prove that she might have been drinking that night. She does admit to taking medication, but there's no proof yet of alcohol.

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," Murdoch said in a statement issued in New York. "We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

News Corp. is the parent company of Fox as well as the publishing house that was producing the book.

It was reported that in the book titled "If I Did It", Simpson discusses how he would have killed his ex-wife and her friend. The book was scheduled to be released on Nov. 30, and the two-part television special was scheduled for next Monday and Tuesday.

Simpson was the main suspect after his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her boyfriend were found killed on June 12, 1994 in front of her Los Angeles residence, but he was acquitted of murder charges by a grand jury in 1995.

Simpson has repeatedly denied killing his ex-wife and Goldman, but in the book and television interview he was expected to describe how he would have carried out the murders.

News of the book and television interview prompted harsh criticism from the victims' families, who called Simpson a killer and denounced the publisher and Fox News. Many in the media and the publishing industry also expressed their opinions against the book and TV interview project for its possible social and legal consequences.

"Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech," the ruling stated.

Internet free speech advocates, had warned a contrary outcome could have affected users of newsgroups, blogs, listservs, and bulletin boards who enter those forums to discuss the views of others. A loss could even have jeopardized websites run by students to evaluate their professors, said the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in friend of court briefs.

In Monday's ruling, the California Supreme court said that granting such broad immunity for posting defamatory statements "has some troubling consequences."

Nevertheless, the court said, "Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area" people who contend they were defamed on the Internet can seek recovery only from the original source of the statement, not from those who re-post it."

The 10-code system dates to the 1920s when police radios had only one channel and officers needed to relay information succinctly. But over time, departments developed their own 10-codes.

A 10-50 to a Virginia state trooper, for example, means an auto accident. In Maryland, it means an officer is down. (10-4 seems to mean the same thing everywhere: OK.)

The potential for confusion became all too plain during such disasters as the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, when Virginia state police went to Mississippi's Gulf Coast to help out.

The York-Poquoson sheriff's department switched to plain talk two years ago. The city of Hampton is thinking about it. More departments are expected to follow in the next year or two.

Some slip-ups

For the Virginia State Police, the switch to a "common language protocol" took effect November 1, but it's clear that change is not going to occur overnight.

The codes are second nature to many officers, some of whom have been using them for decades. It's how officers were trained, and it's probably one of the things that made police work seem so glamorous when they were kids. Some officers even speak to each other in 10-code off the radio.

"We haven't had any mass cries of blood," said Lt. Col. H.C. Davis of the Virginia State Police. "But when you go out on the radio, you still hear the 10-codes. And we knew that was going to happen."

Trooper Steve Rusher, a 10-year veteran, said: "Every now and then, you slip, but everybody knows what you mean, so it's not a big deal."

In fact, 10-4 is so ingrained that it's fine with the State Police if troopers continue to say it instead of "Affirmative" or "OK."

Also, asking for backup or telling a dispatcher that an arrest is about to be made will still be done in code to avoid tipping off anyone who might be listening to radio traffic.

A sheet with a list of standardized plain-English terms is being sent to all troopers to make sure they sound professional on the radio.

"You don't want to say 'broke-down car.' It doesn't sound professional," Davis said. "You don't want to say 'dead skunk in the road.' You want to say, 'There's an animal carcass."'

In 2000 the total value of homes in the US was $11.4 trillion. Today that number has shot up to $20.3 trillion; nearly double.

At the same time, mortgage-debt in 2000 was a trifling $4.8 trillion (about half) while in 2006 it skyrocketed to a whopping $9.3 trillion.

So, how do we explain these enormous increases in value? After all, wasn't the housing boom just the natural outcome of "supply and demand"?

No it wasn't. That's an unfortunate myth that should be interred with the withered remains of Milton "free-market" Friedman.

If we really want to know what's going on, we need to look back at the machinations at the Federal Reserve in 2001, that's when Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1.5% to soften the blow from the stock market meltdown. Rather than tighten interest rates and let the country to go through a period of recession, Greenspan lowered rates and ramped up the printing presses to "full-throttle".

Voila; the housing bubble! Or what the conservative "Economist" magazine calls "the largest equity bubble" in history.

The housing bubble has nothing to do with supply and demand or with the fictional increase in workers salaries. (which have actually gone down since Bush took office) Rather, it is the predictable result of dramatically increasing the money supply while expanding personal debt via home-mortgages.

Remember, the central banks are not in the mortgage business; they are in the "money-pedaling" business. And the way you sell more money is by making it as cheap as possible. The Fed intentionally inflated the bubble with cheap money so they could keep the printing presses whirring-along. They worked in concert with the banks to lower the requirements for mortgages so they could attract an endless swarm of "unqualified" customers who wanted to join the feeding-frenzy.

Isn't that what happened?

And, didn't that make it possible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars on "no-down payment", "interest only", ARMs or other equally risky mortgage-packages?

Of course it did.

There are some who will argue that the Federal Reserve just made an honest mistake and were merely trying to steer the country away from impending recession.

That may be true, but let's consider the facts before we draw any hasty conclusions.

Did the Federal Reserve double the money supply in the last 7 years?

Yes.

Did they know what they were doing?

Yes.

Did they know that printing more money creates inflationary pressures and reduces the value of money already in circulation?

Yes.

Did they realize that the money was going directly into the real estate market where it was creating an "unsustainable" equity bubble that would eventually crash and destroy the lives' of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose greatest asset is their home?

Of course, because it's the Federal Reserve which produces all the relevant facts and figures, charts and graphs, about increases (and trends) in the housing market. How could they NOT know?!?

In other words, they doubled the money supply and then sat back and watched while $4.5 trillion went directly into the real estate market via mortgage loans to people who were "under-qualified" (knowing that these same people would eventually fail to meet their payments and adversely effect the entire market).

The Federal Reserve knew all of this. In fact, they knew where every dime was going, but decided to persist in their swindle to the bitter end.

Have the real effects of this monster-bubble been softened by the huge trade deficit?

Yes, because America currently borrows $800 billion a year from China, Japan etc. which keeps the economy sputtering along while our manufacturing sector continues to be ransacked.

The $800 billion account deficit is like a sedative which lulls us to sleep while the country is looted right in front of our eyes. For example, in the last 12 years, foreign ownership of US assets has soared from $3 trillion to over $12 trillion.(400%) At the same time, over 13,000 major US companies have been sold to foreign corporations since 1980. Nevertheless, Americans are only-too-happy to ignore these unpleasant facts as long as they can totter off to Wal-Mart to buy little Johnny his new video-game. It's only a matter of time before the scattered, bleached bones of American industry appear everywhere across the American heartland.

And, does the Fed realize that Americans borrowed another $825 billion from their home equity in the last 12 months (to spend on house repairs, shopping, boats etc) and that without that consumer spending the nation's growth rate (GDP) will shrivel to nothing?

Yes, because they provide all that data, too.

So, what does this mean for the homeowner whose future depends on the steady increase in his home equity? What can he expect?

Well, first of all, you can ignore all the gibberish you hear on the business channel about "soft landings" and a "temporary downturn".

There'll be no soft landings. This is the Big One; Real Estate Armageddon followed by a plague of locusts.

JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS! There's a $10 trillion difference between the aggregate in 2000 and 2006! $4.5 trillion of that is new mortgage-debt! That's more than a little "froth" as Greenspan likes to say. In an economy that's currently growing at a feeble 1.6%, a plummeting housing market could pave the way for another (dare I say it) Great Depression.

$10 trillion!?! Some things are worth repeating.

First of all, (if we compare our situation to what happened in Japan during the 1990s) we can expect that prices will continue to fall for years to come, perhaps, a decade or more. Many of the slower markets are already showing a decline of 10% to 20%. This is a trend that is likely to speed up dramatically in 2007 when $1 trillion in ARMs reset. That's when we'll begin to see a truly new phenomenon in the US, that is, people who've always been solid members of the middle class sliding downwards into the ranks of the working poor.

By 2008, if the present trend-lines persist, housing prices will probably drop to 25% to 30% of their 2005 value; diminishing equity value by approximately 45% to 50% for most homeowners.

If you own your home outright; you can sweat it out, but if you got into the market late; you're toast. You'll be joining the throng of mortgage-slaves who are shackled to loans that are significantly higher than the current value of their house.

Imagine paying off a loan for $400,000 when your house has been reassessed at $250,000 or $300,000; that'll be the reality for an estimated 30 million Americans. Meanwhile, inventory will continue to grow (already at an 8 month backlog) the economy will continue to contract, and the dollar will continue to weaken. (Many of the major home builders; Centex, Beazer and Toll Bros, are reporting that profits are down by nearly 65%.)

At the same time the Fed just issued another $10 billion in Treasury Bonds last week raising the national debt to a mind-boggling $8.6 trillion. This loosey-goosey approach to printing fiat money and creating debt explains the recent surge in the markets. As "The Daily Reckoning's" Richard Daughty says, the "bull market is manufactured from rampant government deficit-spending and financed by the Federal Reserve creating the money."

Amen. Its all fluff and there's nothing to it. It's just loose money finding a temporary perch before the approaching squall. Don't trust the smoke and mirrors. Behind the merriment and gusto, Wall Street analysts are expecting a collapse...and soon.

How soon, you ask?

Well, Daughty also notes that "revolving credit like credit card loans grew by $2.85 billion, or at an annual rate of 4.00%, to $857 billion."

So, credit card debt is going up, which is an indication that the people who were siphoning money from their home equity have switched over to plastic. That's sure sign the writhing consumer-beast is in its last throes. The end is near.

Why should I care about Net Long-term Capital Inflows?

In another bit of disheartening news the net long-term capital inflows fell short of what the US needs to cover the current account deficit. The inflows were only $65 billion when we need $70 billion to make ends meet. This is another way of saying that foreigners are no longer mopping up our red ink. Interestingly, foreign central banks are buying considerably fewer Treasurys; $9 billion in US securities and a paltry $8 billion in Treasury bonds.

What does it mean? It means that no is dim-witted enough to buy our debt anymore because we're no longer a good risk.

That's a very bad sign. Under different stewardship the "full faith and credit" of the US Treasury meant something. That's no longer true.

Also, according to Marketwatch, "US residents purchased a net $22.9 billion in foreign securities, up from $2.7 billion in August. Foreign holdings of dollar-denominated short-term securities, including Treasury bills, fell by $10.8 billion."

Foreign investments are up $20 billion in one month?!? Are you kidding me?

So, the smart money is getting out of Dodge pronto; leaving the rest of us behind in a leaky canoe.

Thanks, Greenspan.



Some of you may have seen Alexander Cockburn's shocking article "Lame Duck" last week on Counterpunch. Cockburn refers to a report published by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) "a body set up under the purview of the British Treasury to monitor financial markets and protect the public interest by raising the alarm about shady practices and any dangerous slides towards instability."

The report "Private Equity: A Discussion of Risk and Regulatory Engagement" states clearly:

"Excessive leverage: The amount of credit that lenders are willing to extend on private equity transactions has risen substantially. This lending may not, in some circumstances, be entirely prudent. Given current levels and recent developments in the economic/credit cycle, the default of a large private equity backed company or a cluster of smaller private equity backed companies seems inevitable. This has negative implications for lenders, purchasers of the debt, orderly markets and conceivably, in extreme circumstances, financial stability and elements of the UK economy."

The problem is even greater in the US where unregulated fractional lending has allowed banks to loan unlimited amounts of money on measly reserves. Hence, "the default of a large private equity company is inevitable". The whole deregulated banking scam has turned the system into a Vegas-style "crap shoot" with no guarantees that you'll ever see your money again. The same is true with the new-fangled investment "instruments" like hedge funds which contain few tangible assets and more and more "collateralized debt". That means that they depend heavily on the "worker bees" at the bottom of the economic Totem Pole, who are expected to continue making their payments even while the economy begins to swoon.

The present system is fraught with peril and likely to come crashing down in a heap. As Cockburn sagely notes, "The world's credit system is a vast recycling bin of untraceable transactions of wildly inflated value."

"Market transparency" has gone the way of the Dodo. The new "deregulated" markets are intentionally opaque so the medicine men and hucksters who designed them could fleece the public from the comfort of their Wall Street enclaves. No one should be too surprised that the whole rickety contraption is tilting towards the dumpster.

Happy Days in the Weimar Republic

So, what was the "Grand Plan" the Fed had in mind when they decided to anesthetize the American public with low interest rates and flood the planet with worthless green scrip?

Did they think that Bush would corner the oil market and, thus, force the rest of the world to take our anemic greenbacks? Or were they just planning to steal every last farthing from the American people before they loaded the boats and fled to more promising markets in Asia?

Or perhaps they were delusional enough to believe that really wonderful things would happen if they just kept tossing banknotes into the Jet-stream like New Year's confetti?

Whatever the madcap rationale might have been, the country is now facing an agonizing wake-up call as the full-effects of Greenspan's tenure materialize and the stronghold of global consumerism deteriorates into Weimar USA.

In the long run, Greenspan's treachery will loom larger then that of his "would-be" understudy, Bin Laden. He put the country on the fast-track to disaster.

Just watch as the "For Sale" signs go up on lawns across America in Dear Alan's honor.