I've noticed through the course of the past few weeks, with friends bringing home new babies, that there is a substantial list of things they don't tell you when they send you home from the hospital with a bouncing burping bawling bundle of joy.
I mean, they give you the necessary, food goes in the mouth, change the diaper when it is dirty, good luck speech, but really, there should be a list. SO. I've taken it upon myself to compile such a list. Something that may or may not be of use to you; but every new mom deserves to know what she's getting into.
1. You will no longer own white clothes. You may think you do, but I assure you, you don't. It is best to take them outside and tye dye them, preferably with rust orange, (goes well with baby poop) and a dirty shade of off white yellow if you bottle feed. These will become your good clothes, and you will wear them in public, and you won't care. Because at least, they are clean. Sort of.
2. There is no such thing as a moment of silence. It has ceased to exist. For the next 18 years, (22 if you plan to allow them to room for the duration of the education you will most likely be taking out a second mortgage to pay for) Even when you are alone, you will hear them. Whether it be the scream of a newborn, the tantrum of a two-year-old, the whining of a four-year-old, the tattling of a five-year-old, the screaming of a seven-year-old, the door slamming of an 11-year-old, the begging of a 13-year-old, the music of a 16-year-old, and the demanding of money of a 17-year-old. Silence IS NO MORE.
3. Your body, if you choose to accept this baby making mission, has forever changed. I don't care if you gain two pounds, and give birth to a four pound baby. Your body knows, and will forever hate you for it. Your chest will double in size, but not the way one would hope. Your hips will widen, and will somehow "forget" how to return to their once coveted size. Your stomach will gain friends of the stretch mark persuasion, (those of you without these, feel free to leave now, you are not welcome here). Your feet will grow. Those shoes you once bought that cost more than a weeks worth of meals, put them under the tire of your car, and give them a new use as speed bumps. I tell you no lies. Change. That's what you're in for.
4. Those moms you run into who think that because their child can walk at nine months that he's going to be the next Einstein, just smile, and remember Einstein was a late bloomer. Milestones are a great way to check the progress of your children's mental growth, but they are by no means a way to compare and belittle those whose children tend to go at their own pace. Teeth are not a sign of intelligence, and neither is height. Those percentiles they give you are not to be used to decide your children's future. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
5. Invest in a shopping cart. Your own shopping cart. There will be places, (like the mall) that will not provide these for you, and those strollers they make, won't even begin to contain your child(ren) and your purchases. I would suggest a cart with at least enough room to grow. Don't go getting a Hobby Lobby or dollar tree cart. Those things were made for small pets, not children. A Sam's club or Costco cart is the best investment. Don't worry about fitting it into the car, you will come to realize your car is just another thing of value that your children will eventually destroy. Tie the cart to the outside and let it hit the car as you drive. It will prepare you for what you have to look forward to when they turn 16.
6. The definition of clean you once held, will be substantially lowered. What used to qualify as dirty, will become fitting for even the most distinguished of guests. Take your furniture, and put it outside for 24-48 hours. Allow birds to do their business on it. Attack it with sharp objects. Bring it back inside and color on it. Only then will it be ready for the kids. Take the hammer to the coffee table, and pour some stain removing agents all over the prettiest parts. Let it sit. In fact; Don't wipe it off. A clean coffee table is just an invitation to be messed with. This might actually prove to be a deterrent.
7. Potty training is a torture device used to separate the strong from the weak. Those who do it before their kids are in kindergarten are what we in parenting circles call "overachievers". There is no such thing as a potty chair. There are potty rugs, potty panties. potty tile, and potty loveseats, but these are not marketed because I mean really, what sells better. Buying these things is clearly just a waste of time. Potty chairs that make music, are just a further waste of ones hard earned money. They will use it to carry toys in, and or, pour water into, after which they will drink it, because, well heaven knows they aren't going to pee in it. Give them a Wal-mart bag. At least this way, they can reduce reuse and recycle.
8. Cute baby clothes are to children as spaghetti sauce is to white berber. Nothing says get me dirty like clothes you paid far too much for. If clothes are purchased for you, high five. Accept them graciously, but keep in mind, they will be destroyed. If it is your fourth child and you have nothing left because you just knew you weren't having anymore, buy nothing but onesies. It's amazing the uses you can get out of these cheap and changing items. Baby blessing, white onesie; Church, pink or blue onesie. Outside, go gender neutral with a yellow onesie. Maybe even dress it up with some socks. Point is. Buying your two month old $1000 worth of clothes is really just like taking your last paycheck to the fire-pit. You will get very little out of it in the end. And really, we're all about getting the most out of life.
9. Be prepared to be mortified, humiliated, embarrassed and maybe even a bit taken aback by the things you had no idea children could do. They will say things out loud that will turn even the darkest of faces a cherry shade of red. Don't tell them anything about anyone that you don't want repeated. You might think they will forget, but they won't. The memory capability of an elephant, that's what they've got. They will have no shame, don't for one second attempt to pass gas in a public venue. They will call you out. Things you once said in passing will now become weapons used against you to get you to do things you really had no intention of doing. Do not attempt to bribe children over the age of six months with something you don't plan on executing within the next 25 minutes. Patience might be a virtue, but it is not bestowed before the age of 75.
10. And lastly. Things that used to be simple; will no longer be so. Laundry will become a task that requires six baskets, and a 24 hour block of time. A trip to the store, will not only become something you dread, but chances are you will have to make more of them because you will be so frazzled when you get there, you will forget the very reason you came. Taking a shower will no longer be something you do alone. Naps. HA. They will forever become a thing of the past. Doing dishes will become the term you use for the last time you had an adult moment with your spouse; suffice it to say, you will NOT BE DOING THE DISHES VERY OFTEN.

Truth be told. It's the hardest, lowest paid position you will ever encounter. The hours will suck, the breaks will be few and far between, and frankly, your benefits might seem a little lacking, but I assure you. They will come. There will never be another job more important than that of a mother. You will put it more hours than any CEO, but you know what. It will be worth it. And that, my child bearing friends, is a promise.
November 30, 2009
Race, Violence Against Girls, and the New Oprah Movie
The Oprah Winfrey-produced movie, "Precious," which recently opened to ecstatic reviews, tells the story of a poor, abused, illiterate, and overweight African-American teen. Rarely has American popular culture bothered to fully humanize a young woman on the forgotten edges of the American experience -- or courageously unearth the injuries of spirit and body done to so many vulnerable African-American girls. By the movie's final scene, when this resilient young woman walks down the street with a child on each hip, she cannot be dismissed or disdained by the audience as another throwaway teen mother. She really is precious, refusing to be cut down by the violence of an abusive mother and a father who routinely raped her.
Despite that, I see a real danger in the telling of Precious' story, because it is too easy to compartmentalize this narrative as a movie about impoverished, dysfunctional black folks -- as if the horrible incidents of rape and incest are just more examples of urban Black America's pathologies, like hip hop and gang banging. The way the movie plays off entrenched and racialized stereotypes reinforces that perception. Precious' mother is an extension of the notorious welfare queen who exploits her children for the next check. Her father, flashed onto the screen against the backdrop of pigs' feet boiling on the stove, grossly fulfills the sexual predator imagery long attached to black men. Most disturbingly, all of the characters who love Precious and seek to rescue her are either light or white-skinned.
But as someone who works with at-risk women and girls, I know the reality is that there are too many white, rural, and middle class girls who are also Precious. Sexual violence against girls cuts across every buffer of racial, economic and educational privilege. White, African-American, Latina, and Asian girls, across the economic spectrum, who are between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.
In fact, the highest rate of the sexual trafficking of girls isn't in Harlem or Compton, but in the rural and suburban neighborhoods of Ohio. Stories of incest are whispered by girls in the corners of stately mansions, in the best private schools and universities, and behind the walls of juvenile detention centers. And there is a thin divide between Precious' story of rape by her father and Mackenzie Phillips' admission that her famous father shamelessly drugged, raped -- and, yes, eventually impregnated -- her.
The question has to be asked: what is America doing to its daughters? Where is the public square conversation about the epidemic number of girls subject to sexual and physical violence?
If Precious can be positioned as a movie about what is happening to too many American girls, and not just poor African-American girls in Harlem, then perhaps we can begin, finally, that difficult public conversation. Perhaps we can even ask the challenging questions of why there is a media-driven hyper-sexualization of girls before they even come into any sense of agency over their own bodies. Why are 'tween and teen cultural icons like Hannah Montana only able to gain widespread popularity by being sexually suggestive? Why can't I find an outfit for my five-year-old daughter that doesn't link cute with sexual?
My fear is that Precious will appear so "other" to most of the movie's audience that her story will be neatly disentangled from the narratives of all young victims of incest, rape, and violence. She will be seen only as that poor black girl who bravely endures the pathologies of growing up in inner-city America.
Even in that context though, "Precious" is not truly representative. In real life, girls like Precious are not saved by a welfare worker or caring teacher. In real life, girls like Precious, who are poor, undereducated, and sexually victimized end up in the juvenile justice system. They have been raped, usually by people they were suppose to trust, and end up taking drugs, prostituting their bodies or running away -- which are the main offenses that put girls in detention. Some of them are also teen mothers who lose their children to foster care, rarely to be reunited with them by a well-intended social worker.
There are few programs that are especially established for victimized girls. A significant portion of funding for youth in vulnerable communities is set aside for boys. In general, isn't that the expectation of girls when they are sexually abused, no matter which neighborhoods they come from? They are expected to simply deal with it, as if there is something inevitable about being female and abused.
I hope I am wrong about "Precious," which is a brave and moving film. Maybe the movie will help us to honestly confront the unacceptable levels of violence done to girls. Maybe Precious will encourage us to start talking about what girls need to be safe, strong and whole. I pray that it does, because all of our daughters are precious.
Despite that, I see a real danger in the telling of Precious' story, because it is too easy to compartmentalize this narrative as a movie about impoverished, dysfunctional black folks -- as if the horrible incidents of rape and incest are just more examples of urban Black America's pathologies, like hip hop and gang banging. The way the movie plays off entrenched and racialized stereotypes reinforces that perception. Precious' mother is an extension of the notorious welfare queen who exploits her children for the next check. Her father, flashed onto the screen against the backdrop of pigs' feet boiling on the stove, grossly fulfills the sexual predator imagery long attached to black men. Most disturbingly, all of the characters who love Precious and seek to rescue her are either light or white-skinned.
But as someone who works with at-risk women and girls, I know the reality is that there are too many white, rural, and middle class girls who are also Precious. Sexual violence against girls cuts across every buffer of racial, economic and educational privilege. White, African-American, Latina, and Asian girls, across the economic spectrum, who are between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.
In fact, the highest rate of the sexual trafficking of girls isn't in Harlem or Compton, but in the rural and suburban neighborhoods of Ohio. Stories of incest are whispered by girls in the corners of stately mansions, in the best private schools and universities, and behind the walls of juvenile detention centers. And there is a thin divide between Precious' story of rape by her father and Mackenzie Phillips' admission that her famous father shamelessly drugged, raped -- and, yes, eventually impregnated -- her.
The question has to be asked: what is America doing to its daughters? Where is the public square conversation about the epidemic number of girls subject to sexual and physical violence?
If Precious can be positioned as a movie about what is happening to too many American girls, and not just poor African-American girls in Harlem, then perhaps we can begin, finally, that difficult public conversation. Perhaps we can even ask the challenging questions of why there is a media-driven hyper-sexualization of girls before they even come into any sense of agency over their own bodies. Why are 'tween and teen cultural icons like Hannah Montana only able to gain widespread popularity by being sexually suggestive? Why can't I find an outfit for my five-year-old daughter that doesn't link cute with sexual?
My fear is that Precious will appear so "other" to most of the movie's audience that her story will be neatly disentangled from the narratives of all young victims of incest, rape, and violence. She will be seen only as that poor black girl who bravely endures the pathologies of growing up in inner-city America.
Even in that context though, "Precious" is not truly representative. In real life, girls like Precious are not saved by a welfare worker or caring teacher. In real life, girls like Precious, who are poor, undereducated, and sexually victimized end up in the juvenile justice system. They have been raped, usually by people they were suppose to trust, and end up taking drugs, prostituting their bodies or running away -- which are the main offenses that put girls in detention. Some of them are also teen mothers who lose their children to foster care, rarely to be reunited with them by a well-intended social worker.
There are few programs that are especially established for victimized girls. A significant portion of funding for youth in vulnerable communities is set aside for boys. In general, isn't that the expectation of girls when they are sexually abused, no matter which neighborhoods they come from? They are expected to simply deal with it, as if there is something inevitable about being female and abused.
I hope I am wrong about "Precious," which is a brave and moving film. Maybe the movie will help us to honestly confront the unacceptable levels of violence done to girls. Maybe Precious will encourage us to start talking about what girls need to be safe, strong and whole. I pray that it does, because all of our daughters are precious.
Afghanistan And Pottery Barn
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell claims he never used the term "Pottery Barn rule" in his cautionary remarks about going to war in Iraq. Powell says he told President Bush, "...once you break [Iraq], you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it's going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years." (What's more, it turns out that Pottery Barn does not have a "you-break-it-you-own-it" policy.)
Powell's warning may now be applied to Afghanistan, which was already a broken nation when we arrived in late 2001 but of which we quickly assumed ownership. The big questions now, it seems to me, are, what does that ownership mean in terms of our obligation to Afghanistan? Are we stuck with it ad infinitum? What does our warranty cover? We still have a lot of troops in Iraq, and now Afghanistan is going to "suck up" another large percentage of our fighting forces. We would do well to ask, Is it worth it?
For one thing, the Afghan people have a serious aversion to foreign ownership. While they were almost universally grateful to us for giving the boot to the Taliban (who, by the way, were largely the creation of another foreign power, the Pakistanis, and bankrolled by still another, Osama bin Laden), now the rank-and-file Afghan despises our army of occupation. "Didn't you learn anything from the Soviet Union's experience?" they ask. The Soviet army of occupation was actually less an alien presence than the Western armies, made up as it was of thousands of Muslim conscripts from the neighboring 'stans.
The American army has even less kinship with the Afghans. Virtually every communication between our troops and the people they are supposed to be defending has to be filtered through a translator, often of doubtful ability and even loyalty. That lesson was illustrated by a recent PBS Frontline documentary. As American forces moved into an Afghan village with a mandate to befriend the population and interact with them, all the residents moved out, under orders from the Taliban. The U.S. troops were left to befriend a vacant market village. Their frustration was visible as an officer tried to question, through an interpreter, a group of Afghan men, asking over and over "Where are the Taliban?" and, getting no answers, lost his temper. The American soldier was sincere, he was earnest, but he had no understanding of the people he claimed to be helping, and their culture and traditions were impenetrable to him. In their eyes he was a hopeless fool, not worth talking to in any language.
There is also the question of the Afghans' own commitment. The training of the Afghan National Army, and especially of the police, has lagged far behind the expectations of our planners - who understand the Afghans about as well as the soldier did. The ANA soldiers don't really like fighting against other Afghans, and that is who the Taliban are, largely; their officers siphon off half their pay; and they are hedging their bets on who is going to be the eventual winner in Afghanistan. Once the Western armies leave - and we will, sooner or later - the Taliban's top targets will then be the ANA soldiers. And a job on the police force is simply an opportunity for enrichment through bribes, protection rackets and extortion.
Finally, there is President Hamid Karzai. As one "old Afghan hand" noted recently, the very fact that Karzai was elected (a word whose meaning was pretzeled in the August poll) makes him illegitimate in the eyes of many Afghans. There is simply no tradition of elected leaders in Afghanistan. If you are strong, you lead. If you are less strong, you follow. And Karzai seems to have shown the world conclusively over the past eight years he simply doesn't have the strength to lead the Afghans, a historically fractious bunch who are tougher than two-dollar steaks.
As I noted in a recent debate at Boston University, the great conundrum of our efforts in Afghanistan is, the more we try to fight for the Afghans, the more we seem to fight against them. There are ways to help the Afghans, but occupying their country with an army isn't one of them.
Powell's warning may now be applied to Afghanistan, which was already a broken nation when we arrived in late 2001 but of which we quickly assumed ownership. The big questions now, it seems to me, are, what does that ownership mean in terms of our obligation to Afghanistan? Are we stuck with it ad infinitum? What does our warranty cover? We still have a lot of troops in Iraq, and now Afghanistan is going to "suck up" another large percentage of our fighting forces. We would do well to ask, Is it worth it?
For one thing, the Afghan people have a serious aversion to foreign ownership. While they were almost universally grateful to us for giving the boot to the Taliban (who, by the way, were largely the creation of another foreign power, the Pakistanis, and bankrolled by still another, Osama bin Laden), now the rank-and-file Afghan despises our army of occupation. "Didn't you learn anything from the Soviet Union's experience?" they ask. The Soviet army of occupation was actually less an alien presence than the Western armies, made up as it was of thousands of Muslim conscripts from the neighboring 'stans.
The American army has even less kinship with the Afghans. Virtually every communication between our troops and the people they are supposed to be defending has to be filtered through a translator, often of doubtful ability and even loyalty. That lesson was illustrated by a recent PBS Frontline documentary. As American forces moved into an Afghan village with a mandate to befriend the population and interact with them, all the residents moved out, under orders from the Taliban. The U.S. troops were left to befriend a vacant market village. Their frustration was visible as an officer tried to question, through an interpreter, a group of Afghan men, asking over and over "Where are the Taliban?" and, getting no answers, lost his temper. The American soldier was sincere, he was earnest, but he had no understanding of the people he claimed to be helping, and their culture and traditions were impenetrable to him. In their eyes he was a hopeless fool, not worth talking to in any language.
There is also the question of the Afghans' own commitment. The training of the Afghan National Army, and especially of the police, has lagged far behind the expectations of our planners - who understand the Afghans about as well as the soldier did. The ANA soldiers don't really like fighting against other Afghans, and that is who the Taliban are, largely; their officers siphon off half their pay; and they are hedging their bets on who is going to be the eventual winner in Afghanistan. Once the Western armies leave - and we will, sooner or later - the Taliban's top targets will then be the ANA soldiers. And a job on the police force is simply an opportunity for enrichment through bribes, protection rackets and extortion.
Finally, there is President Hamid Karzai. As one "old Afghan hand" noted recently, the very fact that Karzai was elected (a word whose meaning was pretzeled in the August poll) makes him illegitimate in the eyes of many Afghans. There is simply no tradition of elected leaders in Afghanistan. If you are strong, you lead. If you are less strong, you follow. And Karzai seems to have shown the world conclusively over the past eight years he simply doesn't have the strength to lead the Afghans, a historically fractious bunch who are tougher than two-dollar steaks.
As I noted in a recent debate at Boston University, the great conundrum of our efforts in Afghanistan is, the more we try to fight for the Afghans, the more we seem to fight against them. There are ways to help the Afghans, but occupying their country with an army isn't one of them.
Austin Fenner, Ex-NY Post Employee, Sues The Paper, Charges Racism
Another former New York Post employee is suing the paper, alleging that he was subject to unfair employment practices and that editors engaged in racially-motivated news coverage.
Austin Fenner, who was fired from the Post on the same day that former editor Sandra Guzman sued the paper over her own dismissal, claims that he was "routinely humiliated," "openly cursed at" and subjected to "Jim Crow"-style segregation while working as a city desk reporter.
Using the same lawyer as Guzman, Fenner alleges that he too was fired from the paper both for being a minority (he is African-American) and for complaining about racist coverage. Fenner, like Guzman, publicly expressed his disappointment with a Post cartoon that depicted the author of the president's stimulus package as a chimpanzee shot dead by befuddled cops.
A spokeswoman for the New York Post, in an email to the Huffington Post, said that the allegations were "totally false and the claims of discrimination completely baseless."
The complaint filed by Fenner doesn't deliver as many jaw-dropping allegations as Guzman's complaint earlier this month. The 27-page document mainly asserts that editors repeatedly yelled profanities at Fenner, made him travel further and more frequently than his "White" colleagues and denied him the same resources that other reporters received to cover events. Such accusations are occasionally levied in other newsrooms, though the Post has a lengthy history of poor race relations in the newsroom.
There are, however, certain charges that do stick out. Fenner alleges that the two defendants -- Michelle Gotthelf, the metropolitan editor of the Post and Fenner's direct superviser as well as Daniel Greenfied, the assignment editor and deputy metropolitan editor at the paper -- banned him from entering the Post's newsroom for a five-month period.
"Specifically," the complaint alleges, "they told Mr. Fenner that he was forbidden from coming into the newsroom anymore unless he got their permission in advance... Mr. Fenner's ban from the newsroom was an act of utter humiliation designed to strip him of his dignity and self-respect as a reporter and as a man and was based on his race and/or color and implemented to punish him for his opposition to Defendants' discriminatory practices. It was also a throwback to the days of Jim Crow segregation."
The complaint also asserts that after the Post published the controversial chimpanzee cartoon, New York's Governor David Paterson approached the paper asking for an interview on the controversial matter.
"[T]hey refused a request by Governor David Paterson, the first Black Governor of the State of New York, to be interviewed about the cartoon," Fenner's complaint alleges. "Specifically, after Governor Paterson made it know that he wanted to be interviewed about the nature of that cartoon and had also agreed to be interviewed about any other subject, the White editors at the Post summarily refused to interview him.... Such a rejection of a sitting Governor is unprecedented and practically unheard of in journalism."
In alleging "discriminatory treatment, harassment and/or unlawful retaliation" at the hands of the paper's editors, Fenner lists Gotthelf, Greenfield, as well as News Corporation and the Post itself as defendants. His lawsuit comes just weeks after Guzman's, in which it was alleged that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior, unfair hiring practices at the paper and an unlawful firing.
Both former employees are being represented by Ken Thompson of the firm Thompson, Wigdor & Gilly LLP.
Asked about Fenner's firing several weeks ago, a spokesperson for the New York Post said that the paper had "no comment on Mr. Fenner's employment status."
READ THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE:
fenner -
Austin Fenner, who was fired from the Post on the same day that former editor Sandra Guzman sued the paper over her own dismissal, claims that he was "routinely humiliated," "openly cursed at" and subjected to "Jim Crow"-style segregation while working as a city desk reporter.
Using the same lawyer as Guzman, Fenner alleges that he too was fired from the paper both for being a minority (he is African-American) and for complaining about racist coverage. Fenner, like Guzman, publicly expressed his disappointment with a Post cartoon that depicted the author of the president's stimulus package as a chimpanzee shot dead by befuddled cops.
A spokeswoman for the New York Post, in an email to the Huffington Post, said that the allegations were "totally false and the claims of discrimination completely baseless."
The complaint filed by Fenner doesn't deliver as many jaw-dropping allegations as Guzman's complaint earlier this month. The 27-page document mainly asserts that editors repeatedly yelled profanities at Fenner, made him travel further and more frequently than his "White" colleagues and denied him the same resources that other reporters received to cover events. Such accusations are occasionally levied in other newsrooms, though the Post has a lengthy history of poor race relations in the newsroom.
There are, however, certain charges that do stick out. Fenner alleges that the two defendants -- Michelle Gotthelf, the metropolitan editor of the Post and Fenner's direct superviser as well as Daniel Greenfied, the assignment editor and deputy metropolitan editor at the paper -- banned him from entering the Post's newsroom for a five-month period.
"Specifically," the complaint alleges, "they told Mr. Fenner that he was forbidden from coming into the newsroom anymore unless he got their permission in advance... Mr. Fenner's ban from the newsroom was an act of utter humiliation designed to strip him of his dignity and self-respect as a reporter and as a man and was based on his race and/or color and implemented to punish him for his opposition to Defendants' discriminatory practices. It was also a throwback to the days of Jim Crow segregation."
The complaint also asserts that after the Post published the controversial chimpanzee cartoon, New York's Governor David Paterson approached the paper asking for an interview on the controversial matter.
"[T]hey refused a request by Governor David Paterson, the first Black Governor of the State of New York, to be interviewed about the cartoon," Fenner's complaint alleges. "Specifically, after Governor Paterson made it know that he wanted to be interviewed about the nature of that cartoon and had also agreed to be interviewed about any other subject, the White editors at the Post summarily refused to interview him.... Such a rejection of a sitting Governor is unprecedented and practically unheard of in journalism."
In alleging "discriminatory treatment, harassment and/or unlawful retaliation" at the hands of the paper's editors, Fenner lists Gotthelf, Greenfield, as well as News Corporation and the Post itself as defendants. His lawsuit comes just weeks after Guzman's, in which it was alleged that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior, unfair hiring practices at the paper and an unlawful firing.
Both former employees are being represented by Ken Thompson of the firm Thompson, Wigdor & Gilly LLP.
Asked about Fenner's firing several weeks ago, a spokesperson for the New York Post said that the paper had "no comment on Mr. Fenner's employment status."
READ THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE:
fenner -
Alberto Gonzales Inspiring Students To Consider A Future In Cronyism
In case you were wondering what former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been up to lately -- I mean besides not getting hired by any law firm, ever -- well, wonder no more! He's been at Texas Tech, teaching a special "political science class on the Executive Branch," which is sort of like getting an omelette to teach a special physics class on the structural integrity of eggshells. From that perch, Gonzo has been straight up inspiring the youth of the nation, based on those few memories of his time in the Bush administration that he would not be committing perjury to attest to remembering.
ThinkProgress's Matt Corley has Gonzales's inspiring valediction:
"Dream big but be patient," he said. "You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient."
So there you have it! Reach for the stars, kids, and hopefully, you too will eventually find yourself in some sort of crony network!
I'm guessing that any students who stood on their desks to recite "O Captain! My Captain!" had a hood forced over their heads and their testicles immediately fitted with electrodes.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
ThinkProgress's Matt Corley has Gonzales's inspiring valediction:
"Dream big but be patient," he said. "You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient."
So there you have it! Reach for the stars, kids, and hopefully, you too will eventually find yourself in some sort of crony network!
I'm guessing that any students who stood on their desks to recite "O Captain! My Captain!" had a hood forced over their heads and their testicles immediately fitted with electrodes.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
In The War Of Words Against HIV/AIDS Funding, No One Wins
Rather than resorting to harmful disease politics - which make great headlines but lousy health policy - we need to support the testing of viable healthcare delivery systems for poor people and focus on advancing sound prevention efforts for HIV and other illnesses.
Over the past few weeks, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, a White House bioethicist, and other critics have voiced concerns over the amount of funds that the U.S. and other nations are spending to test and treat people living with AIDS in comparison to other global health tragedies like dysentery.
While this criticism has captured many headlines (particularly around World AIDS Day) in the International Herald Tribune and other influential forums, it is misguided for several reasons.
First, from a public health and finance perspective, the major weakness in our nation's global HIV and AIDS funding strategy is not that we have over-invested - in fact, it is the opposite. We continue to under-invest in prevention, particularly syringe access and female-controlled prevention programs and devices.
At a recent talk at the Council of Foreign Relations, Mark Dybul, who previously oversaw PEPFAR, the major source of US AIDS and HIV international funding in the Bush Administration, estimated that the program pays for 3 of the 4 million people worldwide who are taking AIDS medication.
Nonetheless, more people are infected each day with HIV than are tested and put on treatment.
So, absent a cure - which seems at best 10 years away - these folks will need to be on medication for the rest of their lives. Simply said, we cannot "treat" our way out of HIV globally and we need to invest more heavily in prevention now to avoid more deaths, more AIDS orphans, more decimated work forces and more unsustainable global pharmaceutical costs.
No one wins when we pit one disease group against another -- least of all the poor and marginalized of the world that are disproportionately represented among people living with HIV as well as vulnerable to dysentery. President Obama has shown great leadership in placing PEPFAR under Secretary Clinton and seeing AIDS in the context of all of our international aid; we haven't figured out how to deliver sound disease prevention and health care to poor people - whether they live in Washington, D.C. or Johannesburg, South Africa.
Amidst the arguments, one would hope we can all agree that it is a shameful tragedy to think we have to choose between what diseases we care about the most or which deserves the most attention. The bottom line is that AIDS and all other illnesses are great friends to poverty, inequality and lack of healthcare systems.
Over the past few weeks, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, a White House bioethicist, and other critics have voiced concerns over the amount of funds that the U.S. and other nations are spending to test and treat people living with AIDS in comparison to other global health tragedies like dysentery.
While this criticism has captured many headlines (particularly around World AIDS Day) in the International Herald Tribune and other influential forums, it is misguided for several reasons.
First, from a public health and finance perspective, the major weakness in our nation's global HIV and AIDS funding strategy is not that we have over-invested - in fact, it is the opposite. We continue to under-invest in prevention, particularly syringe access and female-controlled prevention programs and devices.
At a recent talk at the Council of Foreign Relations, Mark Dybul, who previously oversaw PEPFAR, the major source of US AIDS and HIV international funding in the Bush Administration, estimated that the program pays for 3 of the 4 million people worldwide who are taking AIDS medication.
Nonetheless, more people are infected each day with HIV than are tested and put on treatment.
So, absent a cure - which seems at best 10 years away - these folks will need to be on medication for the rest of their lives. Simply said, we cannot "treat" our way out of HIV globally and we need to invest more heavily in prevention now to avoid more deaths, more AIDS orphans, more decimated work forces and more unsustainable global pharmaceutical costs.
No one wins when we pit one disease group against another -- least of all the poor and marginalized of the world that are disproportionately represented among people living with HIV as well as vulnerable to dysentery. President Obama has shown great leadership in placing PEPFAR under Secretary Clinton and seeing AIDS in the context of all of our international aid; we haven't figured out how to deliver sound disease prevention and health care to poor people - whether they live in Washington, D.C. or Johannesburg, South Africa.
Amidst the arguments, one would hope we can all agree that it is a shameful tragedy to think we have to choose between what diseases we care about the most or which deserves the most attention. The bottom line is that AIDS and all other illnesses are great friends to poverty, inequality and lack of healthcare systems.
Members Of Congress Lobbying Each Other Astroturf-Style
Democratic members of Congress are lobbying each other Astroturf-style, at least according to an internal House Ethics Committee memo obtained by WikiLeaks.
Astroturfing is the phenomenon by which a political or commercial interest drums up fake-grassroots support on an issue -- but it doesn't usually originate in a congressional office.
On page 16 of the ethics memo, first obtained by the Washington Post, it describes how a staffer from the office of Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) called the ethics committee to find out if a fellow member of Congress broke the rules by encouraging a Loebsack constituent to call his office to influence a vote.
Loebsack's office and others apparently received calls from constituents goaded by other members' offices. The document says that fellow Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley's office "apparently had made the calls." (Though the report initially says the encouragement came in the form of an email.)
The committee advised that trying to get another member's constituents to call the office and demand a vote sounds "like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress."
All members of Congress benefit from a "Franking" privilege that reimburses them for newsletters to constituents. But the Franking rules prohibit members from sending partisan material, solicitations for campaign funds or letters to encourage grassroots lobbying. According to the guidance on the Committee on House Administration website, "all electronic communication content" -- such as a website or email -- "must comply with the Franking Regulations."
Melanie Sloan, executive director of nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed with the committee that emailing a fellow member's constituent is against the rules.
"It's a violation," she told Huffington Post.
The ethics committee declined to confirm the authenticity of the Wikileaks document to HuffPost, though it's entirely consistent with the Washington Post's reporting. Here's the previously-undisclosed Astroturfing tidbit:
-Eric from Loebsack's office called to see if there was a rules violation for a Member to send emails to individuals outside of his district asking theme recipient to contact his/her own Member to ask for a certain vote on a pending bill (Loebsack had received one of these calls). I told him it sounded like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress. A couple of days later, Peg got a call from Braley's office, which apparently had made the calls. Her advice was consistent with mine, but apparently some of the Members who received the resulting calls are not pleased.
Neither Braley's nor Loebsack's offices responded to requests for comment from HuffPost. Here's what we'd like to know: What vote did a Loebsack constituent call about, and who put him or her up to it?
Tips? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.
With reporting by Laura Bassett
Astroturfing is the phenomenon by which a political or commercial interest drums up fake-grassroots support on an issue -- but it doesn't usually originate in a congressional office.
On page 16 of the ethics memo, first obtained by the Washington Post, it describes how a staffer from the office of Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) called the ethics committee to find out if a fellow member of Congress broke the rules by encouraging a Loebsack constituent to call his office to influence a vote.
Loebsack's office and others apparently received calls from constituents goaded by other members' offices. The document says that fellow Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley's office "apparently had made the calls." (Though the report initially says the encouragement came in the form of an email.)
The committee advised that trying to get another member's constituents to call the office and demand a vote sounds "like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress."
All members of Congress benefit from a "Franking" privilege that reimburses them for newsletters to constituents. But the Franking rules prohibit members from sending partisan material, solicitations for campaign funds or letters to encourage grassroots lobbying. According to the guidance on the Committee on House Administration website, "all electronic communication content" -- such as a website or email -- "must comply with the Franking Regulations."
Melanie Sloan, executive director of nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed with the committee that emailing a fellow member's constituent is against the rules.
"It's a violation," she told Huffington Post.
The ethics committee declined to confirm the authenticity of the Wikileaks document to HuffPost, though it's entirely consistent with the Washington Post's reporting. Here's the previously-undisclosed Astroturfing tidbit:
-Eric from Loebsack's office called to see if there was a rules violation for a Member to send emails to individuals outside of his district asking theme recipient to contact his/her own Member to ask for a certain vote on a pending bill (Loebsack had received one of these calls). I told him it sounded like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress. A couple of days later, Peg got a call from Braley's office, which apparently had made the calls. Her advice was consistent with mine, but apparently some of the Members who received the resulting calls are not pleased.
Neither Braley's nor Loebsack's offices responded to requests for comment from HuffPost. Here's what we'd like to know: What vote did a Loebsack constituent call about, and who put him or her up to it?
Tips? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.
With reporting by Laura Bassett
Our Renewable Commitment To Change
Voices from Hopenhagen: Jessy Tolkan
There have been times this year when “hope” was thrown around like a dirty word, spoken sarcastically as though the young people who wore it on T-shirts and showcased it on poster in their dorm rooms last year had somehow grown to despise it. Their fickle attention spans and casual attitudes were cited as signs that the generation did not in fact have the intestinal fortitude it would require to execute change, as opposed to just talking about it when it’s the cool thing to do.
As I prepare to travel to Copenhagen on Friday for the UN climate summit, I'm struck by how different an experience I’ve had as the executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, an alliance of more than 50 environmental groups run by young people, than the image that has been portrayed of my peers. If “hope” was so 2008, then “relentless” is how I experienced 2009. The activism and passion I saw from leaders in the youth climate movement was tremendous. In March, 12,000 young people descended on Washington for our Power Shift 09 summit, and told leaders that we want a bold and just climate and energy future. This fall, thousands took the same message back to their local communities for Regional Power Shift 09 summits in 11 states. On the year anniversary of the historical 2008 presidential election, we launched the “It’s Game Time, Obama!” initiative in which more than 50,000 actions were taken to ask the President to meet with youth leaders, give an address to the nation outlining his strategy and attend Copenhagen in person. All of this work culminates Wednesday in a meeting at the White House with senior officials to discuss our vision for next year and how we will reach consensus and achieve the goals we set for ourselves. That’s hardly a T-shirt or a slogan. It’s a movement, and one that exhilarates me when I think about its potential. It’s especially inspiring because so many people in my generation understand that this is the issue that will define us, and will set the standard for how much time, resources, thought and funding we can allocate to the other issues we care about. Investing in America—in health care, in education, in equality, in building new economies—begins when our dependence on dirty energy and the costly violence it incites comes to an end. Some have discounted the effectiveness of Copenhagen because of reports that it will not yield a binding global deal. Their concern is valid, but the outcome is still ours to seize. We are uniquely poised now, with the support of our barrier-breaking and visionary President, to chart an un-navigated course with innovation and sustainability as our guides. I am privileged and honored to travel to the summit on behalf of the generation that refuses to accept procrastination and paralysis on these issues.
I can say with full confidence that our commitment to change is renewable, and we’re ready to prove it.
--
Jessy Tolkan serves as the Executive Director for the Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 leading youth organizations throughout the U.S. and Canada. The Energy Action Coalition leverages the power of young people to organize on college campuses, high schools, and in local communities to build models of the clean energy future.
--
Help turn Hopenhagen into Copenhagen at Hopenhagen.org.
There have been times this year when “hope” was thrown around like a dirty word, spoken sarcastically as though the young people who wore it on T-shirts and showcased it on poster in their dorm rooms last year had somehow grown to despise it. Their fickle attention spans and casual attitudes were cited as signs that the generation did not in fact have the intestinal fortitude it would require to execute change, as opposed to just talking about it when it’s the cool thing to do.
As I prepare to travel to Copenhagen on Friday for the UN climate summit, I'm struck by how different an experience I’ve had as the executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, an alliance of more than 50 environmental groups run by young people, than the image that has been portrayed of my peers. If “hope” was so 2008, then “relentless” is how I experienced 2009. The activism and passion I saw from leaders in the youth climate movement was tremendous. In March, 12,000 young people descended on Washington for our Power Shift 09 summit, and told leaders that we want a bold and just climate and energy future. This fall, thousands took the same message back to their local communities for Regional Power Shift 09 summits in 11 states. On the year anniversary of the historical 2008 presidential election, we launched the “It’s Game Time, Obama!” initiative in which more than 50,000 actions were taken to ask the President to meet with youth leaders, give an address to the nation outlining his strategy and attend Copenhagen in person. All of this work culminates Wednesday in a meeting at the White House with senior officials to discuss our vision for next year and how we will reach consensus and achieve the goals we set for ourselves. That’s hardly a T-shirt or a slogan. It’s a movement, and one that exhilarates me when I think about its potential. It’s especially inspiring because so many people in my generation understand that this is the issue that will define us, and will set the standard for how much time, resources, thought and funding we can allocate to the other issues we care about. Investing in America—in health care, in education, in equality, in building new economies—begins when our dependence on dirty energy and the costly violence it incites comes to an end. Some have discounted the effectiveness of Copenhagen because of reports that it will not yield a binding global deal. Their concern is valid, but the outcome is still ours to seize. We are uniquely poised now, with the support of our barrier-breaking and visionary President, to chart an un-navigated course with innovation and sustainability as our guides. I am privileged and honored to travel to the summit on behalf of the generation that refuses to accept procrastination and paralysis on these issues.
I can say with full confidence that our commitment to change is renewable, and we’re ready to prove it.
--
Jessy Tolkan serves as the Executive Director for the Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 leading youth organizations throughout the U.S. and Canada. The Energy Action Coalition leverages the power of young people to organize on college campuses, high schools, and in local communities to build models of the clean energy future.
--
Help turn Hopenhagen into Copenhagen at Hopenhagen.org.
Obama Administration To Shame Lenders That Don’t Offer To Modify Mortgages
Its signature foreclosure-prevention plan having definitively failed to actually help very many homeowners, the Obama administration today announced its new strategy to get balky lenders to the table: Nagging.
The U.S. government will start to publicly identify those companies that are failing to give troubled homeowners permanent loan modifications, and hound them daily to monitor their progress, the Treasury Department declared.
Top servicers will be required to submit a schedule demonstrating their plans to reach a decision on each loan for which they have documentation and to communicate either a modification agreement or denial letter to those borrowers. Treasury/Fannie Mae "account liaisons" are being assigned to these servicers and will follow up daily as necessary to monitor progress against the servicer's plan. Daily progress will be aggregated by the end of each business day and reported to the Administration.
The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was launched in March to much fanfare as the administration's main response to a growing foreclosure problem. The government would provide cash incentives to mortgage servicers that reduced monthly payments for distressed homeowners, and that way those who were facing higher payments or lower incomes could stay in their homes.
But the program, which the administration refers to as "a primary focus of financial stability efforts," has been a disaster according to consumer advocates, economists, housing experts and government watchdogs. It does nothing for those who have lost their jobs, because they have too little income to qualify, and could make things even worse in the long run for those homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth, because the plan does not require principal reductions.
Furthermore, only a tiny proportion of the relatively few homeowners in the program have obtained permanent relief. As of Sept. 1, only 1,711 homeowners, or less than two percent of those who received a temporary modification under Obama's plan, ended up with a permanent fix, according to a report by the Elizabeth Warren-led Congressional Oversight Panel.
And yet, the plan has cost taxpayers about $27 billion so far.
Meanwhile, as many as 3.4 million homes are expected to enter foreclosure by year's end, with some experts estimating that next year will be even worse.
The administration's latest push -- shaming the mortgage companies -- is "certainly a step forward after six months of operation," says Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University who has written extensively on mortgages and foreclosures. "But it's not going to help by itself."
"It's a long-overdue step," he said. "At this point, the servicers are propped up in [many] different ways by the taxpayer -- HAMP isn't the only subsidy they're getting -- and if we're going to prop them up then they ought to achieve our public policy objective."
The four big banks are also the biggest servicers, he noted, and American taxpayers are the majority shareholders in three of them: Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. "He who pays the piper should call the tune."
Others were even more critical. "The Obama administration's latest adjustments to its nine-month-old foreclosure prevention program do little but highlight the continued failure of lenders' voluntary efforts to stop the foreclosure crisis," Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a consumer-advocacy group, said in a statement.
Consumers advocates have long said that the program is poorly managed and relies too heavily on mortgage servicers, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those of homeowners. Economists and advocates point to principal reduction, for example, as perhaps the best way to achieve a permanent, sustainable modification. Lowering the total amount due -- particularly for those homeowners with negative equity -- could induce homeowners to keep up with their payments and stay in their homes.
But most servicers and banks are loath to reduce principal, particularly for those mortgages that have been securitized. Also, servicers' fees are based on the overall balance of the loan, so if the balance of the loan is reduced, then so are their fees.'
In the administration's plan, the servicers essentially call the shots, rather than the investors -- and yet they still don't want to participate.
One reason is that reducing the principal forces banks to recognize the losses on those loans. By not reducing the principal, the banks can essentially pretend that the loans may one day become current again. It's an accounting trick, consumer advocates say.
Yale economist John Geanakoplos is among those arguing that principal reduction is the best way to reduce foreclosures. By contrast, the administration simply requires that homeowners' monthly payments be lowered, which can happen either through an interest rate reduction, or by lengthening the term of the loan. If a bank turns a 30-year mortgage into a 40-year mortgage, for instance, the homeowner could see the monthly payments drop -- but with 10 years of extra interest, would actually end up owing more.
The U.S. government will start to publicly identify those companies that are failing to give troubled homeowners permanent loan modifications, and hound them daily to monitor their progress, the Treasury Department declared.
Top servicers will be required to submit a schedule demonstrating their plans to reach a decision on each loan for which they have documentation and to communicate either a modification agreement or denial letter to those borrowers. Treasury/Fannie Mae "account liaisons" are being assigned to these servicers and will follow up daily as necessary to monitor progress against the servicer's plan. Daily progress will be aggregated by the end of each business day and reported to the Administration.
The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was launched in March to much fanfare as the administration's main response to a growing foreclosure problem. The government would provide cash incentives to mortgage servicers that reduced monthly payments for distressed homeowners, and that way those who were facing higher payments or lower incomes could stay in their homes.
But the program, which the administration refers to as "a primary focus of financial stability efforts," has been a disaster according to consumer advocates, economists, housing experts and government watchdogs. It does nothing for those who have lost their jobs, because they have too little income to qualify, and could make things even worse in the long run for those homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth, because the plan does not require principal reductions.
Furthermore, only a tiny proportion of the relatively few homeowners in the program have obtained permanent relief. As of Sept. 1, only 1,711 homeowners, or less than two percent of those who received a temporary modification under Obama's plan, ended up with a permanent fix, according to a report by the Elizabeth Warren-led Congressional Oversight Panel.
And yet, the plan has cost taxpayers about $27 billion so far.
Meanwhile, as many as 3.4 million homes are expected to enter foreclosure by year's end, with some experts estimating that next year will be even worse.
The administration's latest push -- shaming the mortgage companies -- is "certainly a step forward after six months of operation," says Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University who has written extensively on mortgages and foreclosures. "But it's not going to help by itself."
"It's a long-overdue step," he said. "At this point, the servicers are propped up in [many] different ways by the taxpayer -- HAMP isn't the only subsidy they're getting -- and if we're going to prop them up then they ought to achieve our public policy objective."
The four big banks are also the biggest servicers, he noted, and American taxpayers are the majority shareholders in three of them: Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. "He who pays the piper should call the tune."
Others were even more critical. "The Obama administration's latest adjustments to its nine-month-old foreclosure prevention program do little but highlight the continued failure of lenders' voluntary efforts to stop the foreclosure crisis," Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a consumer-advocacy group, said in a statement.
Consumers advocates have long said that the program is poorly managed and relies too heavily on mortgage servicers, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those of homeowners. Economists and advocates point to principal reduction, for example, as perhaps the best way to achieve a permanent, sustainable modification. Lowering the total amount due -- particularly for those homeowners with negative equity -- could induce homeowners to keep up with their payments and stay in their homes.
But most servicers and banks are loath to reduce principal, particularly for those mortgages that have been securitized. Also, servicers' fees are based on the overall balance of the loan, so if the balance of the loan is reduced, then so are their fees.'
In the administration's plan, the servicers essentially call the shots, rather than the investors -- and yet they still don't want to participate.
One reason is that reducing the principal forces banks to recognize the losses on those loans. By not reducing the principal, the banks can essentially pretend that the loans may one day become current again. It's an accounting trick, consumer advocates say.
Yale economist John Geanakoplos is among those arguing that principal reduction is the best way to reduce foreclosures. By contrast, the administration simply requires that homeowners' monthly payments be lowered, which can happen either through an interest rate reduction, or by lengthening the term of the loan. If a bank turns a 30-year mortgage into a 40-year mortgage, for instance, the homeowner could see the monthly payments drop -- but with 10 years of extra interest, would actually end up owing more.
Bloomberg Reporter Mark Pittman’s Passing Honored By MSNBC’s Ratigan
On today's "Morning Meeting", Dylan Ratigan closed the show by paying tribute to his former Bloomberg colleague, Mark Pittman, who passed away over the weekend.
I don't have a long history of monitoring business coverage, but when last year's financial collapse sent me more fully down that path, I frequently came across Pittman's reporting. I found what many of his more devoted fans and long-time colleagues have attested to in the days since his death: that Pittman was one of the guys who consistently got it right.
And as Ratigan points out, he really exemplified the open-source ethos at Bloomberg, where reporters work hard to demystify Wall Street culture and hold it accountable.
WATCH:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
RATIGAN: I want to take a minute to salute a former colleague of mine and a reporter who had the guts not only to take on the Federal Reserve, but to take on the entire banking system. Mark Pittman passed away last week in New York at the too young age of 52. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called Pittman one of the great financial journalists of our time. He did a tremendous job explaining and laying out the layering of subprime. But Pittman's final legacy is yet to be written. Just three months ago, Pittman and Bloomberg News won a key legal victory in the efforts to get the Fed to open its books to the public so we can see the back door bailouts that they are providing to American banks. But, unfortunately, Pittman did not live to see the end of the battle he started. The Federal Reserve appealing a decision that went in Pittman's favor. Bloomberg's response to the Fed appeal due next week. A hearing expected the first week in January. So from all of us at the Morning Meeting, we want to take a minute to pay our respects to a man who led the charge, trying to use the freedom of the press to fight for the American principles of fairness and punishing those who would cheat them. We would be all better off if there were more reporters like Mark Pittman looking out for America's interests against those in our government and banking system that would seek to exploit the taxpayer for their personal enrichment. This can be stopped. It's in the process, I believe, of stopping and it will be done through quality information in the hands of every voter and consumer in this country.
And when it comes to quality information, pay some respect to Pittman's contributions. Some notable pieces of reportage include his contribution to Bloomberg's award-winning subprime series, his Goldman Sachs-AIG bailout dot-connector and his excellent exploration of the dark heart of toxic assets. I've personally been fond of citing his article comparing the bailout deal Hank Paulson arranged on behalf of taxpayers to the bailout deal that Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett arranged for himself. It's a terrible thing that I'll have to include "the late Mark Pittman" in future citations.
Over at La Figa, Lisa Derrick reminds that Pittman was profiled in a movie called "American Casino", whose title is derived from a term Pittman coined in his reporting of the subprime crisis:
Pittman's Bloomberg colleague Bob Ivry offers up the definitive obituary, here. Over at Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum points us in the direction of an "Audit Interview" they did with Pittman earlier this year. CJR has updated that interview with a ton of links, well worth nosing through -- Chittum and his colleagues have been leading the way in holding Pittman up as an exemplary reporter for some time now. Felix Salmon offers his own tribute, saying that the "loss to the profession is irreplaceable." And the folks over at Zero Hedge say that Pittman had something big on the way:
Zero Hedge staffers met with Mark days before his death at which point we discovered he was working on a major financial expose. We would be humbled to pick up the torch and bring his last opus to closure.
It's a sad loss, leaving big shoes to fill. We wish Pittman's colleagues and loved ones all the best.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
I don't have a long history of monitoring business coverage, but when last year's financial collapse sent me more fully down that path, I frequently came across Pittman's reporting. I found what many of his more devoted fans and long-time colleagues have attested to in the days since his death: that Pittman was one of the guys who consistently got it right.
And as Ratigan points out, he really exemplified the open-source ethos at Bloomberg, where reporters work hard to demystify Wall Street culture and hold it accountable.
WATCH:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
RATIGAN: I want to take a minute to salute a former colleague of mine and a reporter who had the guts not only to take on the Federal Reserve, but to take on the entire banking system. Mark Pittman passed away last week in New York at the too young age of 52. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz called Pittman one of the great financial journalists of our time. He did a tremendous job explaining and laying out the layering of subprime. But Pittman's final legacy is yet to be written. Just three months ago, Pittman and Bloomberg News won a key legal victory in the efforts to get the Fed to open its books to the public so we can see the back door bailouts that they are providing to American banks. But, unfortunately, Pittman did not live to see the end of the battle he started. The Federal Reserve appealing a decision that went in Pittman's favor. Bloomberg's response to the Fed appeal due next week. A hearing expected the first week in January. So from all of us at the Morning Meeting, we want to take a minute to pay our respects to a man who led the charge, trying to use the freedom of the press to fight for the American principles of fairness and punishing those who would cheat them. We would be all better off if there were more reporters like Mark Pittman looking out for America's interests against those in our government and banking system that would seek to exploit the taxpayer for their personal enrichment. This can be stopped. It's in the process, I believe, of stopping and it will be done through quality information in the hands of every voter and consumer in this country.
And when it comes to quality information, pay some respect to Pittman's contributions. Some notable pieces of reportage include his contribution to Bloomberg's award-winning subprime series, his Goldman Sachs-AIG bailout dot-connector and his excellent exploration of the dark heart of toxic assets. I've personally been fond of citing his article comparing the bailout deal Hank Paulson arranged on behalf of taxpayers to the bailout deal that Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett arranged for himself. It's a terrible thing that I'll have to include "the late Mark Pittman" in future citations.
Over at La Figa, Lisa Derrick reminds that Pittman was profiled in a movie called "American Casino", whose title is derived from a term Pittman coined in his reporting of the subprime crisis:
Pittman's Bloomberg colleague Bob Ivry offers up the definitive obituary, here. Over at Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum points us in the direction of an "Audit Interview" they did with Pittman earlier this year. CJR has updated that interview with a ton of links, well worth nosing through -- Chittum and his colleagues have been leading the way in holding Pittman up as an exemplary reporter for some time now. Felix Salmon offers his own tribute, saying that the "loss to the profession is irreplaceable." And the folks over at Zero Hedge say that Pittman had something big on the way:
Zero Hedge staffers met with Mark days before his death at which point we discovered he was working on a major financial expose. We would be humbled to pick up the torch and bring his last opus to closure.
It's a sad loss, leaving big shoes to fill. We wish Pittman's colleagues and loved ones all the best.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]