As reported today in Bloomberg, the Federal Reserve has lost a FOIA case and has been ordered to release the names of financial institutions who received nearly $2 trillion in aid.

While it is possible that the TARP/Treasury bailouts will, in the end, be good for the taxpayer, those programs were relatively transparent; we, the people, knew where our money was going (we may not have liked where the money was going but that's a completely different problem). This cannot be said for the Federal Reserve bailouts for the simple reason that we do not know which financial institutions the money went to, in what amounts, or what sort of liabilities the Federal Reserve -- using OUR money -- is now subject to.

The Fed will most probably appeal the decision; the whole concept of "the people should know how their money is being spent" is completely abhorrent to those financial industry hacks. In the end, they will be forced to reveal the information and, most probably, we will find out that all of the amazing profits the Wall Street firms have been reporting lately are based on Fed money; it will just have been another bubble, this time with nothing to fall back on.

But it NEEDS to be mentioned again, as succinctly as possible.

Many of the alleged terrorists who were tortured, killed, and "lost" (WTF?), were only alleged terrorists because: (1) the US of A was throwing money around Afghanistan post-invasion in a desperate search for al Qaeda and Taliban; and (2) many Afghans sold out their neighbors or historical rivals for the money, telling the Americans that these people were Taliban or al Qaeda, for absolutely no reason.

That is the extent of evidence against many of the people tortured by the US. They were guilty of nothing but living their lives as best they could in a war-torn country ripped apart by increasingly petty rivalries.

By far, the most idiotic rule the TSA has instituted, IMO, is the 3.4 oz. bottle rule. It makes ABSOLUTELY no sense for a multitude of reasons:

1) as far as I know, TSA can't tell what sort of liquids are in those bottles. You could have 6, 10, whatever number of bottles with the exact same liquid or two liquids that when mixed are combustible; if necessary, you can make them smell like shampoo. Who would know?;

2) you're supposed to put all of your bottles into a quart zip-lock bag. Can't you use that bag to mix the liquids on the plane?;

3) On many planes I have been on, they have given me 12 oz. cans of soda. Assuming you can't use your zip-lock bag to mix the liquids, you could use the 12 oz. can;

4) They allow you to bring mini bottles of compressed shaving cream, which is an explosion waiting to happen (albeit, a relatively harmless one but something that can potentially be worked with).

Seriously, utterly ridiculous. Like everything else TSA regularly does, this rule didn't get more than about 10 seconds worth of thought. Some vague threat about someone using a 16 oz. shampoo bottle to bring explosives onto a plane was probably once heard and the nearly-incompetent bureaucrats thought: "hm, we should protect against such a threat but we ALSO want people to not be terribly inconvenienced because Americans should have their special shampoos at all times so here's a perfect compromise!"

Idiots.

I have this idealistic hope that someday one of these establishment journalists will publish a true "tell all" article or book about all of these little secrets they know about, who their sources were for some of their more incendiary accusations, and how DC really works.

I really do. But that involves the journalist losing his precious access (as well as, probably, his kids' access ::cough:: the Kristols ::cough::) to the powers that be. And no journalist would do that.

Also, they live is such a bubble that they truly believe that publishing their anonymous-ridden articles is actually a service to journalism and democracy. In reality, secrecy democracy; we don't know who is saying these things or, more relevantly, why, which are immensely important in framing an informed debate in a democracy.

On a side but related note, I do believe the late Bob Novak got entirely too much grief for his involvement in the Plame scandal. He was given the information; it was his absolute constitutional right to use it or not to use it. The government's privilege of secrecy is not anywhere in the Constitution; if the government abuses it, the government loses it.

The things that Buchanan said re Hitler being peace-loving MAY have made sense if it weren't for one niggling fact Buchanan completely papers over: Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust; the Holocaust that specifically targeted and killed 6 million Jews along with millions of other non-"Aryan" minorities and political prisoners; the Holocaust that would have wiped out the Slavic population of Eastern Europe if Hitler had the resources. Yes, THAT Holocaust.

Judged through the lens of THAT Holocaust, all of Hitler's supposed peace overtures and other moves Buchanan pointed out can only be viewed as one thing: strategic moves to preserve the Third Reich and continue his ultra-racist murderous plans in peace, not any heartfelt desire to stop the violence.