Thomas DiLorenzo - professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland:

Fed official Dennis Lockhart recently stated that if people who have simply given up on finding a job (“discouraged workers” in governmentspeak) are counted, the actual unemployment rate is more like 16 percent. That would be comparable to the unemployment rate in Depression years 1931 (15.9%), 1936 (16.9%), 1937 (14.3%), and 1940 (14.6%).

Government miscalculated the unemployment rate during the Depression years by counting many government make-work employees as unemployed. As a result, economists think the unemployment rate might have been exaggerated by as much as 5 percentage points. That would make the 1940 Depression unemployment rate almost exactly what it is today, without counting the “discouraged workers.”

I know several people who can't get work and are no longer counted in the stats and I bet many here do also. I bet many here have some understanding of the debasement of the US dollar and the consequences that are wrecking our economy on a scale like the Wiemar Republic.

Obama is in the driver's seat and he needs to offer some solutions. Let us all, at least those who do care about the next generation, pray(*) for him to find solutions.

---
(*) Even mystics can use that word, although it may mean something else to me than it does to the mainline Xians here.

I've never expected much from Obama after that even though I'm occassionally afflicted by bouts of "irrational hope". I should know better but after he caves on health care reform I won't be making that mistake twice.

-- rrheard

I have a couple of things to say about the above comment by our most prolific lawyer. (other than Glenn that is)

I hate to see people get their hopes up and then get them dashed to the point of deep despair. I also hate to see folks put their trust in any man.

The central government of the empire is run not by Obama by himself, but is run by the power elite in a smoky, hard to see collective way that makes pointing fingers hard. So, we just blame (or praise) the one man that is in the driver's seat at the time.

You are disappointed in a system. You have been stabbed in the back by democracy in action. A leading anarchist intellectual claims that democracy is the worst form of government(*), but all I know is that American Democracy is deadly for the poor --- always has been and always will be.

The title of Glenn's post is The difference between "legal" and "illegal" and the difference, in my observation, is usually how much money and power you have. For example, the congress' most powerful tax writer can cheat on his own taxes and get away with it. I can not: but then I am absolutely a nobody. A million other example could be used --- pick your own current favorite.

RR, we are a nation in a crisis and passing health care reform or not is not the cure. I wish it was.

---
(*)H.H. Hoppe, yet another German philosopher.

Prior to 9/11, the primary axiom in analyzing and trying to predict terrorism was "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." This was because terrorism was used a tactic to generate public attention on the issue(s) the terrorists held dear, hence so few deaths generally occurring from hijackings. A mass casualty incident wouldn't generate interest or sympathy as much as revulsion and an equally aggressive response.

9/11 showed there are operators out there who are both willing and able to cause mass casualties, seemingly to no discernable end. This makes them all more scarier.

-- Iokannan in the Well

You just described the very reason to suspect a false flag operation. The mass killing was guaranteed to generate the revulsion you mention. Who would likely benefit from that? I can think of one foreign state that would be (is) overjoyed to see the Arab hated throughout the world and their countries destroyed. In fact, I seem to recall some foreign agents reportedly dancing in the street as the towers fell. I wonder if they were ever suspects.

Do lawyers say something about "follow the benefit" --- but in Latin?

1) FISA was a fig leaf that allowed unconscionable intrusion into the private affairs of Americans. Bush II violated it because he wanted to be "in your face" about presidential power; it was not that he could not get the ok from the FISA courts.

2) Intel from the CIA is always bogus. It is just sometimes it is more bogus than others. The fact that Cheney had to bypass even the CIA should tell one something.

3) The outspoken spooks said right after 9-11, before there was a 'party line', that a government had to be involved. I still think one, or more, was involved in some way. Could a close ally have been involved in some way?

4) The press is useless. Glenn shows this asshat to be no newsman, but he could do that to almost anyone working for a big city paper these days. Sad, it is.

5) Please don't do a group hug. Please!

Yes, I knew him. He lived in Sevierville and taught at the county high school. Hell of a guy. He raised three kids, two were valedictorians while the third, a slackard(*), was a salutatorian. I never knew a smarter, or more humble man than the fellow who raised these kids and a few thousand others (in a way).

He was the first guy ever to say Dao in my presence. I thought he was talking about the stock market. :-)

---
(*) Well, he wasn't really a slackard; only another attempt at humor.