UPDATED~DEVELOPING~Ex-Husband Charged With Murder Of Woman Found Dead In Branson Motel:



Stewart Ralph Hopkins (mug shot Tulsa PD)



Authorities in Branson were called to the Country Bunkhouse Motel on Highway 76 about 11:30 this morning (10-28-10) when a maid found an unresponsive woman bleeding from her neck. When cops  arrived on scene they found Stacy Ann Hopkins-Birmingham, 42, of Omaha, Arkansas was dead.

-

Police Chief Carroll McCullough says, "Circumstances surrounding the death are suspicious and the department is now seeking a male subject who was seen at that location at approximately 10:30 p.m. last night."

Late Friday afternoon (10-29-10) Stewart Ralph Hopkins, 45, of Stockton, Missouri, was charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the murder of his ex-wife.  Online court records show that Hopkins' last address was The Ozark Correctional Center prison in Fordland.

-

Hopkins was arrested by the fugitive division of the Tulsa Police Department at 11:00 p.m. in connection to Birmingham's murder and has been extradited back to Missouri.

Southwest Missouri Forensics conducted an autopsy Hopkins-Birmingham in Springfield and ruled that the cause of the woman's death was blood loss from a stab wound to the neck.

Stewart Hopkins is being held in the Taney County jail on $500,000 bond.
-

UPDATE 03-04-11:

During Hopkins preliminary hearing on March 3rd his attorney argued that Hopkins stabbed Stacy Birmingham AFTER she allegedly stabbed and wounded him....so it wasn't murder.  He tossed that weapon and pulled a folding pocket knife and stabbed her three times.

Court documents say, "Stewart R. Hopkins stated he did this in anger toward (the victim) due to him being left out of his daughter's life."

Attorney Rick Watson says prosecutors have only offered Hopkins one plea deal....life in prison.
-
10AF-CR02929 - ST V STEWART R HOPKINS

CRS (Again): RMB Appreciation Will Have Little Effect on Trade Balance and Overall US Economy

Over the last year or so I've often screamed calmly noted that the unbiased, non-partisan folks at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have repeatedly examined the US-China currency issue and have repeatedly found that significant appreciation of the RMB will have little effect on the US-China trade balance or overall US economic welfare.  The CRS' latest report (h/t Simon Lester) is a very significant revision to previous versions, so I highly recommend giving the entire thing a skim.  But in case you don't have the time, here are the two most important passages.  First, on the overall effect on the US economy (at pp. 20-21, emphasis mine):

In the medium run, according to economic theory, an undervalued RMB neither increases nor decreases aggregate demand in the United States.  Rather, it leads to a compositional shift in U.S. production, away from U.S. exporters and import-competing firms toward the firms that benefit from Chinese capital flows.  Thus, it is expected to have no medium- or long-run effect on aggregate U.S. employment or unemployment. As evidence, one can consider that the since the 1980s, the U.S. trade deficit has tended to rise when unemployment was falling and fall when unemployment is rising. For example, the current account deficit peaked at 6% of GDP in 2006, when the unemployment rate was 4.6%, and fell to 3% of GDP in 2009, when the unemployment rate was 9.3%.

However, the gains and losses in employment and production caused by the trade deficit will not be dispersed evenly across regions and sectors of the economy: on balance, some areas will gain while others will lose. And by shifting the composition of U.S. output to a higher capital base, the size of the economy would be larger in the long run as a result of the capital inflow/trade deficit (although the returns from foreign-financed capital will not flow to Americans).

Although the compositional shift in output has no negative effect on aggregate U.S. output and employment in the long run, there may be adverse short-run consequences.  If U.S. output in the trade sector falls more quickly than the increases in output of U.S. recipients of Chinese capital, aggregate U.S. spending and employment could temporarily fall.  This is more likely to be a concern if the economy is already sluggish than if it is at full employment. Otherwise, it is likely that government macroeconomic policy adjustment and market forces can compensate for any decline of output in the trade sector by expanding other elements of aggregate demand. The U.S. trade deficit with China (or with the world as a whole) has not prevented the U.S. economy from registering high rates of growth in the past.

A Yale University study estimated that a 25% appreciation of the RMB would initially decrease U.S. imports from China and lead to greater domestic production in the United States and increased exports to China.  However, the study estimated that benefits to the U.S. economy would be offset by lower Chinese economic growth (because of falling exports), which would diminish its demand for imports, including those from the United States. In addition, the RMB appreciation would increase U.S. costs for imported products from China (decreasing real wealth and real wages), and cause higher U.S. short-term interest rates. As a result, the sum effect of the 25% RMB appreciation was estimated to a negative effect on U.S. aggregate demand and output and result in a loss of 57,100 U.S. jobs—less than one-tenth of 1% of total U.S. employment.

Second, on the bilateral trade balance (at p. 24):

None of the [currency] solutions guarantee that the bilateral trade deficit will be eliminated. China is a country with a high saving rate, and the United States is a country with a low saving rate; it is not surprising that their overall trade balances would be in surplus and deficit, respectively. As the Appendix discusses, many economists believe that these trade imbalances will persist as long as underlying macroeconomic imbalances persist. At the bilateral level, it is not unusual for two countries to run persistently imbalanced trade, even with a floating exchange rate. If China can continue its combination of low-cost labor and rapid productivity gains, which have been reducing export prices in yuan terms, its exports to the United States are likely to continue to grow regardless of the exchange rate regime, as evidenced by the 21% appreciation of the RMB from 2005 to 2008 which did not lead to any reduction in the trade deficit over that period.

Good stuff.  The Report's authors also explain in great detail: (i) why it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether China's currency is undervalued and the precise extent of that undervaluation; (ii) why a significant appreciation of the RMB probably won't affect the US-China trade balance, could make Chinese producers more, not less, competitive, and could harm American consumers, import-using manufacturers and borrowers; (iii) why China hasn't allowed its currency to float freely (hint: it has nothing to do with predatory trade practices); and (iv) why transitioning to a market-based currency is in China's long-term economic interests.  The authors even document scholarly arguments against the United States' making China's currency its top trade policy priority, and they calmly explain that doing nothing will eventually take care of the "imbalance" problem ("Even without adjustment to the nominal exchange rate, over time the real rate would adjust as inflation rates in the two countries diverged").

All in all, the CRS report is a solid assessment of the economic facts and policy arguments surrounding the China currency issue, and it makes clear that 99% of what you hear on the issue from the White House, Congress and (unfortunately) a lot of reporters and pundits out there is totally and utterly wrong.

Now, if only I could recall where we've heard all of this before.  Oh, right.

DNA Solves Another Cold Case In The Ozarks; Green Sentenced To Six Life Sentences:

Melvin M. Green (mug shot GCSO)

-
DNA is credited for solving a fifteen year-old rape case in Springfield.

On December 22, 1995, Melvin M. Green, of Joliet, IL, slipped into an apartment at 933 S. Wildan Avenue through an unlocked sliding glass door that was shared by two sisters and their brother.  He told the girls, aged 18 and 22 at the time of the sexual assault, he had a gun.  He raped the girls, then stole cash and jewelry from the apartment, while their brother slept in another bedroom through the attack. 

Springfield police had the suspects profile, they just didn't have a name or a face to go with their evidence.  That was until December of 2006 when Green violated an order of protection his wife had filed in Illinois. 

When authorities in Illinois entered Green's DNA into CoDIS, a national database used by law enforcers, Springfield police were finally able to put a face to their suspect.

Green waived his right to a jury trial opting instead for a bench trial. Today (10-25-10,) Judge Tom Mountjoy found Green guilty of forcible rape, two counts of forcible sodomy and three counts of first-degree burglary.

He could be sentenced to six life terms on February 18, 2011.
-
UPDATE 02-18-11:
-
Melvin Green was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences (30 years is a life sentence in MO)  for the attack fifteen years ago.  Green told Judge Mountjoy that he is a changed man and has found God while being locked up.  He also says he had ineffective counsel and plans to file an appeal.

Crime Scene Investigator's Descend On The Ozarks:

Law enforcers from around the country have gathered for a unique training camp being held at the Lake of the Ozarks this week.
-

The Crime Scene Investigator's Camp, hosted by The Center for Advanced Technical Law Enforcement Training, Inc, which is headquartered in Columbia, Missouri, will offer more than twenty different clinics ranging from recognizing bloodstain patterns, post blast investigations, processing skeletal remains, forensic wound identification, and using social networking sites as investigative tools.

More than 200 hours of basic, intermediate, and advanced clinics, representing a variety of forensic disciplines, will be presented by expert trainers from around the United States at the camp being held at Windermere Resort.

Branson Man Receives Probation For Smuggling Drugs In Peanut Butter:

Frank Coito (mug shot TCSO)

A Branson man who pleaded guilty in August to possession of drugs that were smuggled inside a jar of peanut butter has been sentenced to five years probation.

On August 4, 2008, UPS called officers with the COMET drug task force and told them they were in possession of a package containing drugs that was to be delivered to 24-year-old Frank Coito.
- 
Taney County chief assistant prosecutor Chris Lebeck says the drug task force took possession of the package and discovered sixty blue pills of Oxycontin hidden inside a ziplock bag inside a jar of peanut butter.
-
An undercover officer with COMET delivered the package to Coito that contained a cell phone charger, a can of green beans, a can of corn, and the jar of peanut butter with the drugs hidden inside of it.
-

Taney County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Chris Lebeck

When officers busted Coito, they confiscated additional drug paraphernalia and located the tracking slip for the package containing the drugs. As he was being arrested, Coito told the COMET officer posing as a UPS driver, “You have got to be kidding me. You don’t know what I have been through trying to get that package.”

Woman Charged With Attemting To Smuggle Drugs Into Pulaski County Jail:

Starlynn Gann (mug shot PCSO)

A woman from Dixon who was in the process of being booked into the Pulsaki County jail on drug charges in April is now facing charges of attempting to smuggle drugs into the county lockup.

Twenty two year-old Starlynn Gann has been charged with delivery or possession of a controlled substance at a county/private jail except with a written prescription. The Missouri Highway Patrol crime lab confirmed the eight pills in the woman's possession as Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, and pot.

Carnahan To Be Sentenced Today For Jackie Johns Murder:

Gerald Carnahan (mug shot SLCOSO)

The man convicted last month of murdering Jackie Johns twenty-five years ago will be sentenced today in St. Louis County.

Gerald Carnahan was always the chief suspect in the 20 year-old woman's rape and beating death. Advances in DNA finally caught up with now paunchy international businessman in August of 2007 when he was charged with first-degree murder and forcible rape for the former beauty queen's murder. 

Jackie Johns (family photo)

Johns was last seen alive buying hairspray and cigarettes at the 7-Eleven convenience store in Nixa between 10:30  and 11:00 p.m. on June 17, 1985.  Her body was found by anglers floating in Lake Springfield four days after she went missing.

Witnesses reported seeing Carnahan's distinctive truck parked behind the convenience store and near Johns' abandoned vehicle the night she went missing.

The sentencing of Carnahan today is a mere formality, as the only sentence available for first-degree murder is life without the possibility of parole.  The jury has also recommended a life sentence for the rape conviction. 

The reality is Gerald Carnahan will never set foot outside of prison alive....barring an appeals court overturning the convictions.

It's Funny Because It's True

This just in from The Onion:

Obama To Take Break From Stumping To Preside Over United States

HARTFORD, CT—Following a speech tomorrow afternoon in support of Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal, top Democratic Party member Barack Obama is expected to take advantage of a brief lull in his hectic schedule to govern the United States of America, sources reported Thursday. "Barack should have a little bit of free time in the car when we travel between the get-out-the-vote rally in East Hartford and the fundraising dinner for [Connecticut gubernatorial candidate] Dan Malloy," said Obama aide Lisa McMaster, admitting that most of the business of being leader of the free world would have to wait for the few days between the end of the midterm election cycle and the start of the 2010 presidential campaign. "Those 15 or so minutes should allow him to skim the past week’s national security briefings, sign a few pieces of legislation, and shoot a 45-second call to South Korean prime minister Kim Hwang-sik to hammer out a free-trade pact." McMaster added that if everything goes perfectly, Obama might have a moment between the dinner's salad and entrée courses to authorize a missile strike on suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen.

Frankly, I'm just pleased that KORUS got 45 seconds of those precious 15 minutes.  (Although maybe that's how you're supposed to know that the story's fake!)

Quick Reminder: We're Still Paying Pointless Mexican Tariffs for Purely Political Reasons (and It Won't End Anytime Soon)

I've repeatedly whined about lamented the Obama administration's refusal to resolve the US ban on Mexican trucks - one that was surreptitiously slipped into the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act at the behest of the Teamsters, expressly violates NAFTA and has resulted in the needless imposition of Mexican tariffs on over $2.4 billion worth of US exports annually.  Last time we checked in on this debacle of a dispute, things appeared to be moving at quite the, ahem, deliberate pace:

Reuters reports on something that I unfortunately forecast months ago: the US-Mexico dispute over America's NAFTA-illegal ban on Mexican trucks won't be resolved for a long, long while.  Just how slow are things moving, you ask?  Well, on Monday, the two sides finally agreed to establish, in the words of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood a "a working group to consider next steps of the cross-border trucking program."  In other words, after 14 months of Mexican retaliatory sanctions on $2.4 billion worth of US exports, the US and Mexico have finally agreed to form a bilateral group to talk about how to ultimately resolve the problem.  Eureka!  Of course, with 78 teamster-loving, perma-campaigning members of Congress openly demanding the renegotiation of NAFTA's liberalized trucking requirements, the administration's slow-walk of this dispute isn't really surprising.  Frankly, I'm just surprised that we didn't just try to pay the Mexicans off.

Now, more than four months later, The Trucker reports that the Transportation Department has developed a new "fix" for the dispute, but - besides the fact that DOT said it had something ready to go more than a year ago  - there's a rather giant obstacle to implementing it:

The Department of Transportation has developed a proposal that it feels can resolve the Mexico truck controversy, but is waiting until after the Nov. 2 election before discussing the plan when members of Congress, The Trucker has learned.

Sources said the DOT is planning to move swiftly after the elections to push the proposal forward.

In short, even though a solution to the NAFTA trucking mess appears to be ready, the Obama administration is refusing to move on it because of politics and nothing more; thus, American exporters will keep paying those pointless Mexican tariffs until DOT has been told by the White House that the electoral coast is clear.  Man, it's a good thing that the US economy is just humming along right now, or this political decision might be considered a pretty absurd, irresponsible and brazen move, huh?

Oh, wait.

Unfortunately, the news gets worse for those hapless American exporters (and their employees).  According to the Journal of Commerce (and re-reported above and here), it's very likely that DOT's big "fix" - which is almost certainly a temporary "pilot program" similar to the Bush-era program that the 2009 appropriations law cancelled - just ain't going to cut it anymore:

Meanwhile, a Mexican official said Oct. 15 at a Washington luncheon that Mexico would not accept another pilot program as a solution, according to a report in the Journal of Commerce....

"If you put in place a demonstration project similar to what we had, it can begin, but it can be defunded at any time,” said Jose Luis Paz Vega, the head of the trade and North American Free Trade Agreement office at the Mexican embassy in Washington said at the Oct. 15 luncheon. “Mexico is not willing to take that any more. We need a program that is permanent, that has certainty, and complies with NAFTA. And we’re not willing to accept anything less than that.”

So even after elections, those tariffs aren't likely to go way anytime soon, and US exporters will keep paying through the nariz.

Now, according to multiple sources, Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D) has been working, umm, "hard" to broker a solution to the Mexican trucking fiasco because many of her constituents are getting pummeled by the tariffs.  Yet she's been consistently stonewalled by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and the White House.  Of course, I do wonder just how hard Murray can really push on this issue considering she's complaining to her fellow Democrats.  I mean, I seriously doubt that she would be willing, for example, to demand congressional hearings on the subject and publicly grill Secretary LaHood live on C-SPAN, or to hold a news conference and scream about how dirty Teamster influence on the White House has threatened good Washington companies and jobs.  (Some quick Googling did reveal, however, that she wrote a sternly-worded letter to the President, drafted some legislative language on the subject, and politely asked Sec. LaHood for an "update" at a March 2010 hearing.  Shockingly, those bold and decisive moves didn't get the job done.)

Fortunately for Sen. Murray's constituents, I imagine that her GOP challenger in next month's Senate election, Dino Rossi, wouldn't feel so conflicted about confronting the Obama administration, and thus could push a lot harder than Sen. Murray on this issue.  Maybe then, we could resolve this painful embarrassment once and for all.

Behold, the Amazing Disappearing House Opposition to KORUS!

On Monday, Congressman Mike Michaud (D-ME) and 20 of his House colleagues joined with 35 members of South Korea's opposition party to pen a letter demanding broad revisions to the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement:

A group of United States congressmen yesterday sent a letter drafted with their legislative counterparts in Korea to Presidents Barack Obama and Lee Myung-bak urging the renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea bilateral free trade agreement, according to a U.S. trade online magazine....

Jang Hyung-chul, chief secretary for Democratic Party Representative Chung Dong-young, told the Korea JoongAng Daily that the letter was drafted in coordination with Representative Mike Michaud and 20 other U.S. congressmen and 35 Korean lawmakers including Chung. Earlier yesterday, World Trade Online reported on its Web site that the letter signed by the 56 lawmakers was sent.

The letter calls for restrictions on certain service industries and a revision of provisions on a dispute settlement mechanism involving foreign companies. Beef and auto provisions, the main stumbling block to the ratification of the pact on the U.S. side, were not mentioned.

The full text of the letter is available here.  The US signatories are Michaud and fellow Reps. Hare (D-IL), Jackson Jr. (D-IL), H. Johnson (D-GA), Kaptur (D-OH), Kildee (D-MI), Kilroy (D-OH), Kucinich (D-OH), Lipinski (D-IL), Mollohan (D-WV), Oberstar (D-MN), Pingree (D-ME), T. Ryan (D-OH), Sanchez (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Slaughter (D-NY), Stupak (D-MI), Sutton (D-OH), Tierney (D-MA), Tonko (D-NY) and Waters (D-TX).  The letter rattles off the usual protectionist canards about "economic justice," protecting the environment, and FTAs and investment, and then adds a new, and kinda bizarre, one about services (probably requested by the Koreans).

Yet the thing that struck me wasn't the letter's trite protectionism.  It was the absolutely tiny number of folks who joined Michaud in signing this silly thing.  As you may recall, back in July of this year Michaud corralled a rather substantial 109 of his colleagues into signing a very similar letter demanding that the White House revise the KORUS agreement as part of the "new" FTA talks that Presidents Obama and Lee promised would be completed by the November 2010 G20 summit in Seoul.  Now, only a few weeks before the November mid-term elections and with those pre-G20 negotiations not even started, Michaud could find only 20 other signatories.  What gives?  Did significant congressional opposition (almost 90 House members!) to the US-Korea FTA just up and disappear even though nothing - politically or substantively - has changed since Michaud's last anti-KORUS letter?

In short, yes, it apparently did.

Considering that the list of signatories on the October letter consists of only (i) the farthest of the House's far-left wing; (ii) a guy who's retiring (Stupak); and (iii) several big protectionists who are facing really tough re-election battles (e.g., Hare, Schakowsky, Kildee and Michaud himself(!)), the rapid deterioration of congressional "opposition" to the KORUS makes it pretty clear that it had very little to do with the agreement's substance and very much to do with politics.  At this point in the election cycle, most campaigning House members just don't have time to sign on to another KORUS letter - only one is needed support their election talking point, thanks, and almost no voters get frothy over Korea these days.  So the only ones left signing this "new" congressional letter are the far-left whackos, the guy not campaigning, and the really, really desperate folks who have absolutely nothing to run on except protectionism.

And those are exactly the signatures that Rep. Michaud got.  All 20 of them.

Good luck, as they say, with all that, Congressman.

Administration's Big "China Friday" Was Probably the Best We Can Realistically Hope For, but It's Still Not Great

Last Friday, the Obama administration had a rather busy day handling China trade issues.  First, USTR announced that it was initiating, at the United Steelworker's request under "Section 301" of US trade law, an investigation of Chinese subsidies and other trade measures related to "green" energy production:

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced today that the United States has initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act with respect to acts, policies and practices of the Government of China affecting trade and investment in green technologies. The investigation has been initiated in response to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers (USW) on September 9, 2010.

The petition alleges that China employs a wide range of World Trade Organization (WTO)-inconsistent policies that protect and unfairly support its domestic producers of wind and solar energy products, advanced batteries and energy-efficient vehicles, among other products, as China seeks to become the dominant global supplier of these products. According to the petition, these policies include export restraints, prohibited subsidies, discrimination against foreign companies and imported goods, technology transfer requirements, and domestic subsidies causing serious prejudice to U.S. interests. The petition further alleges that China’s policies have caused the annual U.S. trade deficit in green-technology goods with China to increase substantially since China joined the WTO, making China the top contributor to the U.S. global trade deficit in the sector....

The investigation will consider whether acts, policies, and practices of the Chinese government deny U.S. rights or benefits under the GATT 1994, under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement), and under China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO.

Under the Section 301 statute, the U.S. Trade Representative may request consultations with the foreign country concerned at the time an investigation is initiated. The statute also provides, however, that the U.S. Trade Representative, after consulting with the petitioner, may delay for up to 90 days any request for consultations for the purpose of verifying or improving the petition.

In light of the number and diversity of the acts, policies, and practices covered by the petition, and after consulting with the petitioner, the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to delay for up to 90 days the request for consultations with the Government of China for the purpose of verifying and improving the petition. During this period, the U.S. Trade Representative will seek information and advice from the petitioner and advisory committees. The U.S. Trade Representative will take account of this information and advice, as well as public comments submitted in response to a Federal Register notice, in improving and verifying the petition.

Because the issues covered in the China-Green Technology investigation involve U.S. rights under the WTO Agreement, any consultation request will be made under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and unless consultations result in a mutually acceptable resolution, the U.S. Trade Representative will request the establishment of a WTO panel under the DSU.

Only a few hours later, the Treasury Department announced (as predicted!) that it was delaying its Semi-Annual Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, in which it can deem countries to be "currency manipulators" under Sections 3004 and 3005 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988:

Since June 19, 2010, when China announced it would renew the reform of its exchange rate and allow the exchange rate to move higher in response to market forces, the Chinese currency has appreciated by roughly 3 percent against the U.S. dollar. Since September 2, 2010, the pace of appreciation has accelerated to a rate of more than 1 percent per month. If sustained over time, this would help correct what the IMF has concluded is a significantly undervalued currency.

By continuing to implement reforms to strengthen domestic demand and by allowing the exchange rate to move higher to reflect fundamental economic forces, China will make a significant positive contribution to the global rebalancing effort, help reduce pressure on those emerging market economies that have more flexible exchange rates, and provide a more level playing field for trading partners around the world.

The challenge of building a stronger, more balanced and sustainable global economic recovery is a multilateral challenge, not just the responsibility of China and the United States. It requires policy reforms in all major economies.

The Heads of State, finance ministers, and central bank governors of the G-20 and the Asia-Pacific region will participate in several important meetings over the coming weeks. These meetings provide an opportunity to make additional progress on the important challenge of securing stronger and more balanced growth.

The Treasury will delay the publication of the report on international economic and exchange rate policies in order to take advantage of the opportunity provided by these important meetings.

No one in the White House would confirm that these two major China-trade announcements were related, but, c'mon, let's get real: the White House has been in quite the pickle on China trade and currency, and this is its grand Solomonic compromise.  On the one hand, they had labor unions and congressional Democrats rabidly campaigning against China trade - especially Chinese currency policies - in advance of what's shaping up to be a mid-term election bloodbath.  On the other hand, they understand fully that (a) aggressive unilateral action against China would probably violate WTO rules and could provoke serious Chinese retaliation against  US exporters; (b) calling China a "currency manipulator" less than a month before the G-20 summit would almost certainly salt the next multilateral opportunity to address global currency reform (the White House's preferred course of action); and (c) a very good argument can be made that China doesn't actually meet the legal standard for a "currency manipulator" under US law.  And compounding this stress were statutorily-mandated deadlines for the Section 301 investigation and the currency report that fell only weeks before the mid-term elections.  Thus, as I said in a few media interviews on Friday: "Given that United States Trade Representative’s Section 301 decision wasn’t due until October 24, it is either tied to Treasury’s currency announcement or one extremely large and convenient coincidence."

And in all honesty, I must admit that, given this administration's routine prioritization of trade politics over trade policy, Friday's tandem announcements are about the best that we could've hoped for.  Let's face it: considering the aforementioned political dynamics and the fact that the Commerce Department recently rejected two petitions to investigate Chinese currency practices under the US countervailing duty (anti-subsidy) law, there was absolutely no chance - NONE - that the White House was going to issue the semi-annual Treasury report and not label China a "currency manipulator" a little more than two weeks before the mid-terms.  And by delaying the report, Treasury has allowed the G-20 negotiations to remain viable.  As I said on Friday: "The Treasury report’s delay is a good sign for those discussions. A bunch of name calling right before you get together for an adult conversation is not the best strategy to use when conducting international negotiations that could affect hundreds of billions of dollars in global trade." Harumpf!

Second, initiating the Section 301 investigation is relatively harmless.  As the USTR announcement makes clear, the agency will now hold 90 days worth of meetings with the USW and other interested parties in order to "improve and verify" the union's petition.  Then USTR will simply initiate bilateral consultations with China through the WTO - the preferred multilateral channel for global trade dispute resolution.  As I said when the USW petition first dropped: "Section 301 is not like Section 421 (the tires case) or antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (the other cases mentioned), which can result in the unilateral imposition of remedial US tariffs on Chinese products. Instead, the very best outcome here is (i) the mutual resolution of the matter through bilateral consultations or (ii) a WTO case adjudicated by an independent panel of arbiters (unlike the, ahem, sympathetic US Department of Commerce or USTR)."  And, really, the USW's petition probably has some merit.  Indeed, with hundreds of billions in Chinese government subsidies to its "green" manufacturers over the years, how couldn't it?

Third, even if the USW's case some day results in WTO-sanctioned retaliatory tariffs on Chinese "green" products (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.), at least it would be on only one class of products, whereas a broadbased assault on China's currency could literally end up affecting Chinese imports of everything.  (And China's retaliation would, of course, reflect that big difference.)

Finally, the administration's compromise was pretty successful politically.  As this McClatchy article demonstrates, the dual announcements caused congressional protectionists like US Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to focus on the "good" Section 301 news and mute their criticism of the "bad" news on the currency report.  (For example: "Top Democrats publicly ignored the Treasury decision, focusing instead on the administration's decision to accept a United Steelworkers complaint that China is unfairly subsidizing its "green technology" sector. The office of the U.S. trade representative will investigate the complaint.")

So all-in-all, the administration's move was a pretty agile political tap-dance that minimized anti-trade backlash.  Not too shabby, really, and probably the best we free traders could expect.

That said, Friday's Section 301 announcement wasn't completely free from problems.  First, it's not exactly clear how USTR will navigate the difficulties that the Section 301 law itself raises under WTO rules.  The EU challenged Section 301 at the WTO and, while the adjudicating panel found that USTR could apply the law consistently with WTO disciplines on the resolution of trade disputes, it also stated very plainly that its ruling was dependent on USTR sticking closely to those disciplines.  In particular, the panel found that the timelines established under US law for the imposition of unilateral trade measures under Section 301 could conflict with WTO timeframes for the resolution of a panel dispute, but USTR had discretion to ensure that those WTO timeframes weren't violated.  But can you imagine the ruckus that Sherrod Brown and his congressional cronies - many of whom routinely complain about the WTO - would cause if the "official" Section 301 deadline arrives, and a WTO Panel still hasn't ruled?  That should make for some, umm, interesting tension between Congress and USTR, don't you think?

Second, even though USTR's announcement is pretty benign, Chinese retaliation still might be on the way.  Indeed, preliminary news reports from today indicate that China may (and I stress the word "may") have restricted exports of "rare earth minerals" - necessary for all sorts of high tech manufacturing - to the United States as part of its angry response to USTR's decision.  (The "rare earths" dispute has been brewing for a while, so I'm not convinced that today's news is really related to the Section 301 decision.)

Third, the new 301 dispute could open a whole can of worms regarding international trade conflicts over "green" policies and protectionism.  A big, contentious US-China dispute on "green subsidies" raises much, much larger retaliation concerns than those raised by China's actions today.  As I noted last month, the USW's petition freely admits that the United States has doled out at least a $100 billion of its own cash on US green manufacturers, and I've been nervously reporting for over a year now on the growing number of trade disputes surrounding green subsidies and other forms of protectionism.  If USTR's case goes forward, and then China files its own case against US subsidies, that could affect hundreds of billions of dollars in global trade.  And other cases by other WTO Members could easily follow (global trade disputes are very prone to copycat cases) - further accelerating the tit-for-tat trade tensions surrounding trade in environmental goods.

In sum, while the White House's big "China Friday" was about as good as can be expected from this administration, it wasn't great.  So strap in, folks, we've still got a long way to go on this one.

Four Amish Elders Plead Guilty To Endangering The Welfare Of A Child:

-
Four Amish Elders from Seymour pleaded guilty today to charges of endangering the welfare of a child for failing to report the sexual abuse of two girls living in their community last year.



Johnny A. Schwartz was sentenced to 20 years in prison

In October of 2009, Johnny A. Schwartz was charged with several sex offenses related to the ongoing molestation of his daughters. His wife, Fannie, was charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child for not reporting the abuse of her girls.

As elders of their church, Jacob Schwartz, 80; Christian Schwartz 41; Emmanuel Eicher, 44, and Peter Eicher are required by law as mandated reporters to report all allegations of physical or sexual abuse.

One of the bishops told a sheriff's investigator, "that it was against the Amish Rules to report child sexual abuse," and that they had shunned Johnny Schwartz twice for the sexual abuse of his daughters.
-

Each of the elders was fined $300 for not contacting authorities when they learned of the sexual abuse.
-

In the probable cause statement filed with the charges against Johnny Schwartz, one of the girls told investigators with the Child Advocacy Center that her dad told her, "he was sorry, but could not stop doing it."

Fannie Schwartz told Webster County Sheriff's investigator Rick Hamilton that the sexual abuse of her girls, "didn't bother her like it should have."

In January Johnny Schwartz pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two ten year consecutive sentences on  child molestation charges.  He also received two seven year sentences for statutory sodomy charges.



Fannie Schwartz received 5 years probation

Fannie J. Schwartz pleaded guilty to charges of endangering the welfare of a child and was placed on five years probation. She was also ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

-

Webster County Prosecutor Danette Padgett says her office will pursue charges against any mandated reporter who does not report the sexual or physical abuse of any child in her county.

Bank Robbery Investigation Continues In Branson:

Cops need your help identifying this alleged bank robber

Authorities in Branson are asking for help from the public in identifying an armed robber who held up the Great Southern Bank on West Highway 76 this morning (10-18-10.)

A little after 11 a.m. a white male entered the bank, displayed a knife and demanded money from a teller. After receiving an undisclosed amount of cash, the suspect left the bank on foot and was last seen headed east.

No one was injured during the robbery.

Bank surveillance captured the above image of the man who has dark hair, is in his late 20’s to early 30’s, approximately 6’, 180 lbs. He was last seen wearing a black cap, maroon shirt, plaid zip-up hooded jacket, jeans and tennis shoes.

If you know who this man is contact the Branson Police Department at 334-3300 or to offer information anonymously, the department’s CATCH line at 334-1085 or 9-1-1.

~UPDATED~Richardson Will Stand Trial For Peterson's Murder; Overby Apprehended:

Candace Darlene Richardson (mug shot OCSO)

A woman from Mountain Grove will stand trial on first-degree murder charges for the death of a man who had to be identified through dental records.

Candace Richardson is also facing arson, robbery and armed criminal action charges connected to the September 7th death of Charlie Peterson near Spring Creek in Ozark County.

-

Charles "Charlie" Earl Peterson (photo provided by OCSO)

According to court documents, Richardson, 34, and her former husband, Marty Overby, 31, who are both from Mountain Grove, conspired for about three weeks to steal $30,000 and a large quantity of methamphetamine from Peterson.

-

A fire investigator discovered Peterson's body in the charred rubble of his mobile home

A witness told investigators, "Charlie and Candace had been fighting" and Charlie was cooking his last batch of meth for her "because Candace had been cutting the bag and shorting his customers."

-
-

Federal Marshals are looking for Overby, who is facing similar charges and is still on the run from the law. If you know where he might be you're asked to call the Ozark County Sheriff's Office at 417-679-4633 or 9-1-1.

Richardson is scheduled to be formally arraigned in circuit court on November 3rd.
-
UPDATE 10-16-10:

Overby was apprehended by authorities in Texas County this afternoon.  He is being held in the Ozark
County jail $100,000 cash only bond.

On That "Predatory" Chinese Currency Manipulation

Tomorrow, the Treasury Department is supposed to release its Semi-Annual Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, in which it can deem countries to be "currency manipulators" under Sections 3004 and 3005 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.   I'm guessing that the Department will once again delay the report's release in order to maintain pressure on China in advance of next month's G-20 summit in Seoul, but a lot of folks want Treasury to name China a "manipulator" in the report and to do so immediately.  In order to do that, the law mandates that Treasury must determine that the Chinese are "manipulat[ing] the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade."

Critics of Chinese policy certainly think such "unfair" behavior is going on, and they routinely accuse China of harboring "predatory" intentions when it pegs its currency to the US Dollar (or, more precisely, allows the RMB to float in a very narrow band).  For example, here's future-former-Senator Arlen Specter* (RD-PA) on the subject back in April:

Free trade MUST mean compliance with international trade law, or America has the right to say no and confront a system that is destroying the jobs and livelihood of thousands of workers.

The chief threat is from China, whose predatory trading practices and currency manipulation are flooding the market with low-priced imports in violation of international trade laws.

Clearly, Sen. Specter and many of his cohorts believe (or at least say they believe) that China refuses to let its currency float because of some pernicious desire to destroy the American manufacturing sector and, as they hilariously say in South Park, to take 'r jobs.  But is that really the case?  Is China's currency policy really some dastardly weapon that the Communist Party of China is deploying to annihilate the capitalist menace that is the dear ol' U.S. of A?

A new, must-read article in Foreign Policy by Ethan Devine makes it pretty darn clear that (i) Specter and other China-mongers have no idea what they're talking about when they throw around such accusations, and (ii) any decision by the Treasury Department to label China a "currency manipulator" as defined by US law is far more a product of politics than of reality.  And more broadly, Devine ably demonstrates that China's frightening and inevitable ascension to the top of the global economy is, well, far less frightening and inevitable than America's sinophobes and sinophiles (yes, I'm looking at you, Tom Friedman) would have us believe.

In short, Devine shows that China's rise as an economic power closely tracks that of another Asian nation with an "inevitable" economic ascent and a "clear intent" to crush the United States through its currency policies, export-driven economic growth and rampant industrial planning: Japan (stop me if you've heard this one before).  He also shows how all that great central planning and currency pegging ended up causing Japan's economy to come crashing down, and how the same thing could happen in China unless it figures out a way to transition its economy from one dependent on manufacturing and exports to one more reliant on domestic consumption and services.  That transition, however, is a lot easier than it sounds because China's state-run economy is not well-equipped to handle such a move.  And if China can't pull off the rebalancing move, it's in deep, deep trouble.

Devine's article is quite long and definitely worth a full read, but here are a few of my favorite excerpts:

The funny thing is that China borrowed much of its economic model from Japan: producing low-cost exports to fund investment at home while aggravating trading partners. At times, it seems like only the names have changed. Where Detroit automakers once denounced Honda and Toyota for dumping cheap, fuel-efficient sedans on American housewives, Treasury secretaries now wring their hands about the undervalued renminbi while China's trade surpluses yawn.

As pleasurable as it must be for China's leaders to have beaten Japan at its own game, the joke might soon be on them. In fact, they would do well to veer off of Japan's development path promptly. Sure, Japan's export boom funded stellar growth for four decades. But its undervalued currency eventually helped blow one of the largest bubbles in history, the bursting of which still hobbles Japan today. Japan's famously dismal demographics didn't help, but China's aren't much better. Beijing's one-child policy, introduced in 1979, has worked its way up the population pyramid such that China's supply of rural workers ages 20 to 29 will halve by 2030. Worse yet, China is much larger than Japan -- which means that the global consequences of a crash would be far greater.

...

One argument is that the United States forced Japan to act against its own interests in accepting a stronger yen. Although it is true that the United States and other trading partners browbeat Japan, they had been doing so for years. Japan finally assented to their demands in 1985 as part of a plan to rebalance its economy. Post-World War II Japan pioneered Asia's export-driven growth model, sextupling GDP from 1950 to 1970 and pulling more people out of poverty more quickly than any country except modern China. Japan achieved this remarkable growth with a weak yen -- which supported exports and discouraged imports -- and high savings rates, which funded massive investments in infrastructure and manufacturing capacity.

An unfortunate side effect of export- and investment-driven growth is that it strangles the consumer. But that's kind of the point: The entire exercise depends on suppressing consumers as their cheap labor fuels exports. In Japan's case, the same undervalued yen that supported exports sapped consumers' purchasing power while yields on their savings were kept artificially low to fund cheap loans to corporations and government. And the shrunken share of economic spoils that did end up in the hands of consumers had no outlet but the heavily protected domestic market with its hopelessly inefficient and shockingly overpriced goods and services. When American humorist Dave Barry traveled to Japan in 1991, he was stunned to find department stores selling $75 melons.

The result was a horribly lopsided economy. Consumption generally accounts for around 65 percent of GDP in most modern market economies, while investment in fixed assets such as infrastructure and manufacturing capacity makes up 15 percent. In 1970, Japan's figures were 48 percent and 40 percent, respectively. In plain English, the Japanese were consuming relatively little while investing heavily in steel plants and skyscrapers, which didn't leave much for fish or tourism. Belatedly, Tokyo realized that a balanced economy must also have consumption and that coating the country with factories and infrastructure wouldn't do the trick. Japan tried to rebalance slowly through the 1970s and early 1980s: The yen was allowed to strengthen a bit each year, and consumption ticked up to 54 percent of GDP, while investment shrank to 28 percent by 1985.

Having accomplished this much, Japan's leaders thought in 1985 that it was finally safe to strengthen the yen. As one high-ranking Japanese central banker explained privately several years later, "We intended first to boost both the stock and property markets. Supported by this safety net -- rising markets -- export-oriented industries were supposed to reshape themselves so they could adapt to a domestically led economy. This wealth effect would in turn touch off personal consumption." With the benefit of hindsight, we know this was a bad idea. The strong yen touched of a wicked asset bubble that quite literally blew Japan's economy to pieces, and many in China think this was the United States' aim. Xu Qiyuan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, summarizes the popular Chinese view. "It is a conspiracy theory.… A lot of Chinese people think that the United States forced Japan to appreciate in order to make the economy collapse and that it is trying to do the same thing to China," he told Reuters.

In fact, Japan's stronger currency would not have led to economic collapse if the domestic economy had been able to take the baton from exports. In the event, export-oriented industries did not adapt to a domestically led economy because the domestic economy was not fit to lead. Conceived as a tranquil oasis for the Japanese to enjoy their exporters' hard-fought gains in peace, domestic Japan frowned on competition. Former Japanese Vice Finance Minister Eisuke Sakakibara termed this the "dual economy," in which world-class exporters existed alongside domestic companies that were "very tightly regulated with a lot of subsidies from the government, which makes them extremely uncompetitive." As a result, productivity in Japan's service sector lagged manufacturing badly. Having nowhere better to go, the Bank of Japan's loose money found its way into stocks and real estate instead of funding innovation.

...

China is far more dependent on exports and investment than Japan ever was, and the numbers are still moving in the wrong direction. Investment accounts for half of China's economy while consumption is only 36 percent of GDP -- the lowest in the world, drastically lower than even other emerging economies such as India and Brazil. But as the Japan example illustrates, low consumption leads to high savings, and China's thrifty citizens, coupled with booming net exports, have bestowed upon the country the world's largest current account surplus, triple that of Japan's in 1985.

Much has been made of China's trade surpluses, and it is easy to get lost in the numbers. At times like these it is important to remember just how large China is -- and that in terms of global economic impact, it is only getting started. With GDP per capita only one-tenth that of the United States, China is already the second-largest economy in the world. Chinese infrastructure spending moves global commodity markets, and many basic materials set record prices over the last few years thanks to China's nation-building efforts. With steel capacity per capita only half of Japan's 1974 peak, China can already produce more steel than the United States, Europe, Japan, and Russia combined. In addition to its investment boom, persistent Chinese net exports and current account surpluses also generate significant global financial imbalances. In 1988, Japan's foreign exchange reserves stood at 5 percent of Japanese GDP and 0.7 percent of global GDP, whereas China's are now half of Chinese GDP and a full 5 percent of global GDP. Reserves of this magnitude have the potential to destabilize the Chinese and global economies.

Bulging foreign exchange reserves don't only irritate trading partners; they also stoke inflation pressures at home. Inflation is dangerous in a still-poor country where much of the population cannot tolerate higher prices for basic essentials, but it is a natural consequence of an undervalued currency. When Chinese exporters give their dollars to the Chinese central bank (PBOC), the renminbi they receive in exchange increase the domestic money supply and cause inflation. Official inflation statistics are rising, but they only tell part of the story. Massive liquidity in the system has caused a number of mini-bubbles such as garlic's hundredfold price increase over the last two years.

Giving exporters four renminbi per dollar instead of six would be the quickest fix, but China prefers "sterilization" instead of currency appreciation. In sterilization, the central bank issues bonds to soak up the extra renminbi. The catch is that China's dollar reserves earn dollar interest rates, so if the PBOC pays a higher rate on its own bonds, it pays out more interest than it earns. To keep from hemorrhaging money, the PBOC must keep China's interest rates close to U.S. rates. But U.S. rates are far too low for China, particularly with food prices rising and assets looking bubbly. The government has tried targeted policies such as price controls on certain foodstuffs and restricted lending to asset speculators, but the inflationary pressures are so great that this piecemeal policy resembles a game of whack-a-mole.

...

Although there is no doubt that this new growth strategy created tens of millions of jobs and a glistening national infrastructure, the attendant imbalances have created problems. Huang notes that by suppressing personal consumption and small-scale entrepreneurial activity in favor of state-owned enterprises and select multinationals, China's 1990s growth did not sufficiently benefit its citizens. "The story of the 1990s is one of substantial urban biases, huge investments in state-allied businesses, courting FDI [foreign direct investment] by restricting indigenous capitalists, and subsidizing the cosmetically impressive urban boom by taxing the poorest segments of the population."

China's current leadership, under President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, has indicated an intention to change course. In fact, many interpret Hu's guiding principle of a "harmonious society," first introduced at the 2005 National People's Congress, as speaking directly to a rebalancing away from export and investment and toward consumption. In a recent report, David Cui, co-head of Hong Kong/China research at Merrill Lynch, contends that Hu aims "to achieve more balanced and sustainable growth that relies more on internally generated drivers." Beijing had started to try to cool the real estate and stock markets as part of this shift from investment to consumption, but the global financial crisis forced it to bin that effort. Instead, the Chinese government spent lavishly on shovel-ready infrastructure projects to support the Chinese and global economies. But this spending funded a number of white elephants: boondoggle infrastructure projects, empty malls, empty cities, and hopelessly uncompetitive industrial capacity hiding under the skirts of local governments.

With the global economy now out of free fall, China's leaders have issued a comprehensive slate of reforms to foster consumption and curb excessive capital investment. Using the full suite of policy tools available to a command economy, the government has removed tax incentives for some exports and added new ones for research and development while directing banks to curb lending and utilities to raise power prices for certain heavy industries. At the same time, new pension schemes, health-care coverage, and even a budding tolerance for collective bargaining with underpaid workers are intended to boost consumption. Although the Chinese authorities have long frowned on labor unrest, they have looked the other way at a recent spate of strikes and demands for higher wages. In fact, in some cases, local authorities have done the collective bargaining for their citizens by mandating higher minimum wages. Higher wages are easy political sells, but several initiatives even centrally plan creative destruction.

One of the more ambitious initiatives appeared on the website of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology one Sunday afternoon this August. The ministry lists 2,087 steel, cement, and other factories that must be closed by Sept. 30 of this year.

...

But plant closures are easier announced than done, particularly in the face of increasingly vocal and sometimes violent workers. In summer 2009, the sale of a steel mill owned by the provincial government in Henan province was halted after workers protested. The government preferred to return the $26 million deposit paid by the erstwhile acquirer than risk repeating an incident three weeks earlier where rioting workers beat to death an executive who announced the restructuring of a steel mill in Jilin province. Here, Beijing would be wise to swallow this pill in one gulp, rather than allowing the bitter medicine to slowly trickle down, paralyzing the entire economy as it did in Japan.

If China can tough through these reforms and consolidate inefficient capacity, it will have accomplished much, but to really transition to a domestically led economy, Beijing will need to nurture a competitive service sector. And that's a much bigger ask. There is not yet consensus for such a move as many within China are still wedded to the 1990s growth model. Mei Xinyu, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade under the Ministry of Commerce, recently wrote that "the manufacturing industry can provide enough jobs to Chinese people and also widely distribute the benefits of economic growth." In fact, the service sector is better at both. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently found that the benefits of growth are not distributed equitably to workers in manufacturing-oriented economies; wages tend not to keep pace with productivity gains in countries like China and Japan where productivity in services lags manufacturing badly.

Not that an IMF report makes a lick of difference -- but when wages start lagging and the masses start realizing that their efforts are not being rewarded, then Beijing will have to take action. Yet it will likely have a hard time making such a shift. Dynamic service sectors are not generally compatible with central planning because service economies are naturally discombobulated. Technocrats can calculate where a new bridge or airport will have the greatest positive impact and then build that bridge or airport -- but it is much harder to dictate from on high the creation of the next Facebook or to manifest a thriving small business sector.

In both China and Japan, finance, media, and other key service sectors are seen as too sensitive for free competition, so players with government ties are protected by onerous regulatory barriers to entry. It is not a coincidence that Japan has the lowest service-sector productivity in the G-7 and one of the lowest in the OECD. For their part, China's heavily protected and state-owned banks not only seek to limit their own competitors, but, through their lending practices, also hamper competition in other sectors by giving lower rates to favored, often state-owned, companies. A recent study by Li Cui of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority found that small businesses in China have less access to credit and pay much higher rates than larger companies. A recent article in the IMF's Finance and Development magazine concludes that opening up China's banking market to foreign competition could have sweeping positive effects throughout the economy.

While none of these reforms is easy, China's ticking demographic clock makes them urgent. China's one-child policy produced a large demographic dividend in the 1980s and 1990s as those of working age had fewer dependants to support. Starting in 2015, however, China will suffer the inverse -- a growing number of aged relying on a shrinking pool of young workers. "China has always been a demographic early achiever," quips a recent U.N. population report.

When China's working-age population peaks in 2015, it will be 20 years after Japan's crested the wave, but it will do so at a much lower level of prosperity than was Japan's at that time. The harsh reality is this: Japan got rich before it grew old, and China will grow old before it gets rich.

...

By reminding China's leadership that relying on exports means depending on unreliable foreigners, the [economic] crisis put the pain of rebalancing in perspective. It is not out of altruism that we have seen renminbi appreciation accompanying Chinese wage hikes and other rebalancing measures. A slight loosening of controls over media and finance could be in the offing. Deregulating the service sector might be a frightening political proposition, but perhaps less so than not having one when the exports dry up.

Like I said, go read the whole thing.  And when you finish the article, I'm quite sure that a few things will have become abundantly clear to you, as they did to me:

• First, the Chinese government's currency policies have nothing to do with "preying" on American jobs or crippling the US economy through pernicious trade practices.  Instead, they're the result of an old and increasingly-problematic domestic policy and a ruling class that is trying (so far, unsuccessfully) to get its economy to export less and consume more, but is deathly afraid of screwing up that transition.

• Second, forcing China to significantly strengthen its currency right now would have disastrous effects for the Chinese (and American and European and Japanese and...) economy - something China's leaders, having witnessed Japan's collapse, know all too well.

• Third, China's not nearly the scary economic monster that most people think it is (although it certainly behaves naughtily at times), and could very well collapse in the next decade if its leaders can't figure out a way out of the very big mess they've made.

Some big "manipulator," huh?


*Am I the only one who's noticed that Senator Specter's grave concerns about Chinese trade practices have kinda disappeared since he lost his primary back in May?  Just a crazy coincidence, I guess.

Man Who May Have Caused Crash That Killed Nye Siblings Commits Suicide:

Matthew and Leigh Nye (photo courtesy Jenny Fromme)

The man who may have allegedly caused a fatal car crash that claimed the lives of Leigh and Matthew Nye as they returned from Table Rock Lake last Sunday (10-10-10) has committed suicide, according to a law enforcement.

Authorities are attempting to link a missing persons report filed by family members of a man from Blue Springs, his dark colored SUV that had been in the parking lot of Silver Dollar City since about noon Sunday and the fatal crash the same day. 

Raymond Clifford Cook, 45, who was reported missing and possibly suicidal on October 9th, apparently hanged himself in a wooded area about a quarter mile away from the amusement park. 
-
According to online court records, Carol Leann Cook filed several orders of protection against Raymond Cook on October 12th  in Jackson County.
-

Rodney Clifford Cook

The fatal crash happened about 11:00 a.m. Sunday when Leigh swerved to miss a dark colored SUV that had been weaving in and out of traffic and passing cars on Hwy 160 about a mile South of Spokane.  Leigh over corrected and slammed into a pickup truck driven by Kevin Hampel.  Hampel was treated for injuries at a Springfield hospital.
-
"We're 98% sure he's our guy," said Troop D spokesman Sgt. Dan Bracker.

The siblings, who were the only children of Jeff and Kim Nye, were laid to rest today at Eastlawn Cemetery in Springfield.

Colorado Will Not Pursue Charges Against Pete Newman:

Peter "Pete" Daniel Newman (prison mug shot)

Authorities in Colorado have decided NOT to pursue sexual misconduct charges against former Kanakuk Kamp director Peter "Pete" Newman.
-
The warrant for Newman's arrest in La Plata County Colorado was quashed, and pending charges against him were dismissed without prejudice after he received multiple life sentences in Missouri for sex crimes involving young boys who were campers at the Branson based Christian youth camp.

In January, Newman was arrested inside a Taney County courtroom on the Colorado arrest warrant, which was sealed.  In Colorado a defendant is not officially charged with a crime until he or she appears in front of a judge.

In February, Newman pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of second-degree statutory sodomy and three counts of enticement of a child in Taney County.

One part of the probable cause statement filed with the charges gives an insight into how Newman enticed kids at the Christian camp to play naked basketball and take part in nude bible study in a hot tub.

If they masturbated with him, or performed sex acts on him, it wouldn't be a sin:

"Between 2005 and 2008, Pete Newman became a close friend of  by attending family dinners, sleepovers, bible studies, taking vacations together and writing letters. Pete would hold one-on-one sessions with (the boy) in Pete's hot tub (at Pete's residence) and would request they be naked. Pete would discuss life's struggles with (him) and talk about masturbation. Pete would explain that if (the boy) would masturbate with him in his hot tub then there would be no lust and therefore (the boy) would not be sinning."

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell dropped some charges against Newman in exchange for his guilty plea and his right to appeal any sentence.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell

At the time the arrest warrant was issued in Colorado, Sam Eggleston, an investigator for the La Plata County Sheriff's office, said allegations against Newman involved the sexual assault of an underage boy who was a camper at Kanakuk's K-Colorado facility in September of 2008.  

That camp, which is located near Vallectito, has since been sold to the daughter and son-in-law of Joe White (who owns Kanakuk) and renamed Kivu.

When reached by phone this week, Eggleston said, "Prosecutors here were pleased with the sentences that Newman received in Missouri and don't think pursuing charges against him here would add anything to the sentences he is already serving there."

Because the charges in Colorado were dismissed without prejudice, prosecutors there can refile them at any time.  "Colorado does not a have a statutory time limit for charging someone with any offense involving a sexual assault on a child," said Eggleston.

Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama and other states had expressed interest in pursuing similar charges against Newman.  It is unclear if those states will follow Colorado's lead.
-
Newman is now housed at Jefferson City Correctional Facility after he was transferred from Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri.  He began serving his sentence at Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center.
-
At Newman's sentencing in June, Kevin Fielding, a spokesman for Kanakuk Kamps, says he was not aware of any pending civil litigation against the Branson based youth camp where Newman prayed with and preyed on young boys during the ten years he was employed there.